I got a rather sweet (if sincere - forgive me for being cynical) E-M from someone who actually found the image of a full frontal JK in Vile Pervert; The Musical quite erotic.

I corrected him that it was meant to express vulnerability. "Here I am; unprotected; do your worst" was the point of the scene.

But it made me think how weird we are as a species. Unaroused nudity is fine (I did think of being erect in the scene but did not have the courage) - think Equus, Hair and numerous others - but aroused nudity is not; although my experience of female arousal is that it is tactile rather than visual; a Page 3 photo could be an aroused girl; we would never know; nipples look the same in both states.

Why is an aroused male forbidden yet an unaroused one acceptable? Indeed - why does nudity cause any offence to anyone? I remember my teenage years and National Geographic Magazine.

The human psyche. Inexplicable.

I don't know about that JK, I've been with a few women who's nipples became polaris missiles when aroused!

My neighbours complained after I was seen watering my plants in the garden in just my underpants. This was a couple of summers ago when we had a few days of hot and muggy weather. They didn't complain officially but a little bird told me they had been 'horrified' to see my fat semi naked carcass plodding around my own private garden. The words 'fat pervert' were whispered. Perhaps if I'd been younger, leaner and more bronze, they'd have been delighted? I accused them of being shallow, hopeless, peeping toms.

I fear aroused men do look odd. They look as if they've sat on a tea pot.

I hate to tell you Pru (and I do love our innocent posters)... sometimes they HAVE!