First the good news. It seems that pretty much everyone agrees that it would be a good idea to let folks set flags so that they don't get surprised by nude photos. Consensus across such a wide range of views is nice.
Second answering a questions:
The fact that i know that the PBase most popular gallery list can contain nudity doesn't mean i can't be surprised by it. Think about it. If i want to ensure the kids looking over my shoulder don't see two lesbians kissing or a naked man and women in an embrace the only solution is to never look at the popular galleries list since i can never know when a nude gallery might pop up. My lack of knowledge of when the clothes will drop means i can be surprised and i can't protect my kids.
Third a comment: If anyone in this list thinks that pictures of naked women get high hit counts because people are experiencing joy at the abstract beauty of the human form I suggest they might wish to ponder the question of why porn sells so well. Or perhaps you really believe that people buy Playboy and Hustler for the articles.
Fourth an editorial:
I've always found it interesting that the "sexually liberated" refer to those who adhere to the moral principles of western civilization, at least the last 1800 years or so, by pejorative terms such a puritans. One would think that those who propose the dismantling of the bans on public nudity would produce more cogent arguments than, well i'd let my kids see nudes! Why is your belief that children seeing nudes is fine any better than my belief that it is not? Are you a higher form of life? Do you bleed more intensely when cut? Do you feel more than I? Do you think in ways beyond my ken? But if you and i are just expressing our opinions how is the one that says nudity is fine, even though it's banned in all societies--remember no nudes wandering through supermarkets in most of even the highly refined continent of Europe-- is superior?
In many posts i see a great deal of Absolutism. We must allow nudes, those who oppose nudes are immature, backwards, lacking in true artistic appreciation. The position of no constraints is espoused, often without a true realization of what is being said, as an absolute good. Yet those same people would be shocked if for example someone posted a snuff shoot or say the public humiliation of a homosexual. While I agree that those sort of shots should be banned and the fact that those people would be offended is good I have to wonder why my, and others, desire to not have to see nudes is somehow inferior to those peoples objections to other types of images.
But this sort of absolutism is common for the left and for "intellectuals". What they feel is right is right while no matter what cogent arguments can be raised against their position. Studies linking pornography to sexual crimes or the degradation of women mean nothing. Studies showing that starting out cruising through nude shots leads some small, but still significant, fraction of individuals to harder and harder porn culminating with the generation of a non-trivial group of sexual predators are irrelevant .
Bottom line: Your belief that nudity is no big deal has at best no more basis than my belief that it should be controlled. Since there is no absolute way to prove your position that nudity is no big deal is right we should attempt some consensus that we can all be happy with.
P.S. Someone said that they didn't think people would leave PBase if this problem isn't solved. that may be true but i will be gone, probably much to the relief of many people in this thread!
Ah this drags on, i apologize but one last thing, truly final i promise. Photos of nudes are not like the great masters. Drawing a nude, taking a tabula rasa and creating on it an image is a far cry from taking a photo. Now taking a good photo is a challenge, one that i certainly haven't mastered. But a photographer captures things, it may be beauty it may be truth, it may be his lens cap and through that capture she can produce art. But it is an art that shows the beauty of some one elses creation not the photographers. A supreme court justice once said that he didn't know how to define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. It's also true i think that we all know there is a great difference between the nudes on the Sistine chapel ceiling and a photograph of a naked person. We just have difficulty articulating it. I'm sure my attempt above will be taken by many as an assault on photography as an art. That's not my intent. A beautiful photo is just that beautiful. But it is something captured not something created. That's why it's so hard to produce truly artistic nudes with photography. A drawing of a nude can contain the soul of the painter but a photograph can only show what is there. At least that's all i've seen in the thumbnails in the popular galleries.