(I've already said much on this subejct at DA, but...aye.)
I have to wonder, as a professional artist who painted many a nude woman, what dear Waterhouse (wave at the avatar) would have thought about the images you find in the 'Artistic Nudes' catagory on deviantART.
I am in no way a prude, but it took a strong disposition at times to look through without grimacing in horror at the photographs being tagged as "artistic" of all things. Most of the images are what you'd imagine young horned-up couples sending to each other after posing in the mirror - that infamous photo of Vanessa Hudgens comes to mind. And this is just the mild stuff. Others are more blatant, and in reality are nothing more than soft porn. Why not call it what it is, instead of sending it out in such a mask?
It's that very reason that made me dubious about uploading a certain photograph. It is what it is - an artistic nude. Nothing explicit, carefully taken & mulled over. It became a harder decision because the subject was myself - I hesitated at having a photo of me amongst the tripe masquerading as something else.
Nevertheless, I did - those genuinely interested in its artistic merit can find it here. It's a self portrait, taken digitally *gasp* and edited with a texture layer in CS2. Highly unusual for me.
Unsurprisingly, it got comments within seconds of it being there, and of course, favourites without comments. It proved to me what I had jokingly knew would happen - if you want attention, get your kit off. There isn't anyone out there, even the most prudish of us, that isn't interested in at least having a peek at some naked flesh.