Q. When Kim Kardashian saw this image of herself in W Magazine she was very upset and referenced the photograph as “porn”. Explain to Kim why this isn’t porn.

A. Dear Kim, frontal nudity – in-and-of-itself – is not actually pornographic. This photograph was meant to praise rather than arouse. By making it appear that you have been dipped in silver, a nod is made to both your stardom and to the iconic figure you have now made famous (you are a shooting star in this image). If anything, this art director has turned you into a sculpture of sorts (or possibly a trophy) in an effort to preserve your special beauty. So don’t worry Kim. It’s all good. (You may also note that this image was designed to appeal to the female gaze. It appeared it a major women’s fashion magazine.)

P.S. Your Playboy cover had a stronger visual reference to porn based on the position of your body not the amount of skin shown. Context is also important – even if you were fully dressed – the Playboy logo over your head is itself a very powerful signifier of sexualized nudity (as is the color red). (Alternatively, this image was designed to appeal to the male gaze. It appeared in a major men’s magazine.)

…and if you have shopped for a Halloween costume recently you may have had a significantly stronger dose of “porn” since the visual references used in some costumes, despite the fact that there is no nudity, are to sexual fetish.

So you may want to ask yourself,

Hey, do I know the difference between porn, erotica and just plain old nudity? Do I recognize the distinct visual markers of each? Do I understand how, why and when the female nude is being manipulated to communicate message?