Just the bare facts, please ma'am

For us to be living in such "loose" times, I never fail to be amused at how prudish so many folks can be.

A friend who's good at art and photography posted a picture on Facebook showing enlargements of a photo and a painting he'd done. The photo was of a bare tree against a sunset. The painting was of a bare lady who'd been skinny dipping sitting at the edge of a lake. It showed her back and largely was in profile with her looking over her shoulder. The tree was just standing there.

Somebody reported the picture because it "contained nudity." I'm guessing it was the painting of the bare woman, not the bare tree.

A few days earlier, another friend had a couple of Facebook photos reported for containing nudity. One was a picture of her and her daughter, and she was wearing a top that revealed bare shoulders and shorts that showed her legs. Everything in between was covered. In another photo that was reported, she was wearing shorts and, yes, her legs and ankles were showing. Neither could even be considered risqué let alone containing nudity, although someone apparently was offended by shoulders.

There are folks who aren't comfortable about other people's skin and still think it's scandalous for a woman to show even the tiniest bit of her ankles. (Funny, I don't recall hearing many complaints about men.) Sure, there are people who for religious reasons dress modestly, and I have no problem with that.

I also have no problem with those who choose to ... shall we say share a bit more of themselves with the world and display the Good Lord's handiwork, or that of a good plastic surgeon in some cases.

I think the late Lewis Grizzard summed it up best: "Nude" is art, "naked" is being without clothes, and "nekkid" means folks are up to something. It's the last one that might cause problems.

I don't find unclothed depictions in art offensive, either, although others obviously do. There's nothing wrong with either viewpoint. Everyone's tastes, and beliefs, are different. However, I do think it's odd that even on some cable channels Hollywood has no problem showing violence and the aftermath, but blur a bare bosom or bottom. I've never understood why one's OK to show and not the other.

I guess we can thank our history for our mixed-up views on the amount of skin that can be exposed. We still refer to "puritan" views and attitudes, a nod of the hat to the Puritans who were among the first Europeans here, and who thought skin was the devil's playground.

Somewhere along the way, different Europeans came to America — I think it was the Scandanavians — who brought the idea of nothing being wrong or sinful about the human body and things got a looser. Thanks to the tremendous heat and humidity down South, skinny dipping became a popular pastime here, although the genders usually remained separated (unless they were nekkid).

Those blasted European artists also were responsible for the spread of bareness with their paintings and sculptures, some of which still are demurely draped when displayed in America. Then came the camera, ... and well, we can see where that eventually got us — risqué selfies that get reported on Facebook.

Which brings us back to my friends. At last report, neither one's pictures had been removed, so apparently the Facebook police didn't find them offensive, either. As I told one of them, and as I hope I've explained here, I don't have a problem with nudity — other than my own. And just as something seen can't be unseen, something planted in the imagination can't be unimagined. You're welcome. Have a great weekend!