I was thinking about the different categories I could divide my art into, and it's clear that the two issues I deal with most frequently are nudity and sexuality - yet they do not always go hand in hand. My treatment of nudity is not always sexual, and the reverse can be said to be true, if we make a distinction between explicit nudity and just implied nudity. That is, I can approach eroticism without including full "exposure".
The question that came to my mind is, though both subjects are generally offensive to prudes, which one, if isolated, would be more offensive? Between a shot that is perfectly asexual, yet contains explicit nudity, and a shot that contains merely implied nudity, yet has obvious sexual overtones, which would be more scandalous? I think this is an interesting question, because my gut instinct is to go with the nudity as being more offensive than the sexuality, when the concepts are completely isolated.
And I think this is telling, because though sex is the obvious topic for taboo, you often see explicit nudity taking the brunt of society's supression of sex - even when the nudity is perfectly asexual. I think part of the reason is that lots of people aren't making the distinction between nudity and sexuality. Sex involves exposure of the sex organs, and thus exposure of the genitals (which have other functions than just sex, by the way) implies a sexual context. This is at least true for people who don't often regard nudity as anything but existing primarily in a sexual context.
Another thing that came to mind is the fact that the scandalousness of sex is often associated with exposure. It's what you see, that you don't normally see (outside of nudist venues), that traumatizes you. Granted, what you do with it counts for context - this is why actual (explicit) sexual intercourse is more "offensive" than nonsexual nudity. Because then you have the sex and the nudity together in a double-whammy. However, you will note that "chaste" sex scenes (in mainstream movies, for example), that involve only implied, and not explicit, nudity, tend not to be quite as scandalous as explicit (though non-sexual) exposure of human genitalia.
But allow me to put the question to you, my enlightened readers. Though I presume you may not actually be offended by either case, between an explicit non-sexual nude, and an erotic implied nude, which of the two seems to you to be more "shocking"?
Exhibit A: non-explicit erotic -
[description: a mood-lit portrait of a nude figure sitting on hands and knees on a bed, in obvious ecstasy but with anatomical details obscured by dark shadows]
Exhibit B: explicit non-erotic -
[description: a nude figure standing mid-stretch in a bedroom, with genitals clearly visible but not otherwise emphasized]
