"Why do I stand proudly behind my nude modeling work? The more pressing question is, why has the media chosen to scrutinize my celebration of the human forum in a fashion photo shoot? Are we no longer able to appreciate the beauty of the human body?"

(READ: Melania Fights Back! Crafty Former First Lady Defends Her Nude Modeling Work)

Whether she's right or not is actually something that would trouble conservatives, who are largely of the mind that modesty is a good thing and hyper-sexualization is a huge issue in modern times. They're not wrong, but as I've written before, there are nuances here that put Melania in the right, and none of them include she and I being on the same political team. 

Firstly, let's talk about the line between vulgarity and artistry with the human form. Melania brings up historical works that feature nudity, and these are works we very much appreciate. They feature nude men and women, sometimes fully exposed, but we don't call them immodest. We don't even shield our young from them. They are fixed in our minds as artistic representations and celebrations of the human form. 

But I would argue we can behold the human form outside this context without it drifting into vulgarity. In fact, I already have on this very website. In previous articles, I've argued that natural sex-appeal, when handled certain ways, can also keep out of the vulgar category. Funny enough, I point to the beer commercials of the 80s' and early 90s' as solid representations of how you can mix beauty, sexiness, and humor, and still come out with something that wouldn't make grandma blanch: 

A great example of sex appeal working would be Bud Light of all businesses. Back in the 1980s, some absolute legends in the ad industry looking for a way to sell their beer to men cooked up one of the most legendary beer mascots of all time in a bull terrier named “Spuds McKenzie.”

Now, if they had just put the dog next to a pack of Bud Light, it wouldn’t have worked. Instead, they put a bunch of bikini-clad women expressing their adoration with flirtatious looks and songs about Spuds. The commercials were a perfect mix of humor and sexiness. It appealed to men because it allowed them to associate the beer with good times and nothing said “good times” like sexy women and not taking yourself too seriously.

(READ: Don't Let Them Convince You Women Being Sexy to Appeal to Men Is Bad)

Do these commercials have an element of sexuality in them? Sure, but are they vulgar? I don't think so. I think people often confuse porn and sexuality. Sexuality is a part of the human condition and a strong element in the propagation of the human species. Elements of sexuality, in context, are mostly harmless. Pornography is graphic displays and acts meant to arouse and inspire sex, often featuring degradation, and shocking behaviors. Its context, its very essence, is vulgarity. 

To highlight what I mean between the two, let's look at two more recent examples.

Last month, I made the argument that the expression of women showing off their womanly form isn't a bad thing in certain contexts. The controversy surrounding Rep. Anna Luna's photoshoot of her in a "Make America Great Again" one-piece that showed off her assets was a great example of this as I saw this as women striking back against a mainstream society that had seen fit to push women out of their own spaces and deny their existence until it was convenient to do so: 

But it's only a scandal to them because Luna is a beautiful woman who is allowing her physical womanhood to shine through, and that is a grievous sin to the left, which considers that a social faux pas because it "appeals to the male gaze." If Luna was actually a man, they might have cheered Luna on and called the video "stunning and brave." They would have loved the denial of reality and perversion of sexual replacement. You'd see it reported on favorably by major news organizations. 

But because she is a beautiful woman, and an elected representative no less, they consider this a major breach in "morality." This hatred of all things normal and stable has caused spite to arise in the right, and now they flaunt things they would have considered inappropriate a couple of decades ago. 

The thing is, looking at this from a greater cultural perspective, this celebration of Luna is indicative of a conservative culture that is defending what is good and normal by going on the offensive with these qualities. Women showing the left what a woman actually is and men cheering them on in celebration of that normality is, when you think about it, a perfectly normal reaction to what the left is doing.

(READ: Why Rep. Anna Luna Has Become a Sign of a Cultural Turn)

Admittedly, I make the comment in the article that if Luna had just come out and started showing off her nude body in the same video, then we would be drifting into pornographic territory as the intention would have been to shock and entice lust, even if the point was rebellion against the left's false "modesty." Still, there are ways of being captured nude while still maintaining an element of social nobility and artistic flair that doesn't drift into the realm of pornography. I think Melania walked that line with her photos. 

Besides, you don't need to disrobe to be pornographic, which brings me to my other example.

To highlight what I do think is pornographic without having to point to the internet's porn websites are things that happen right out in the open on national television. Celebrities display pornographic material during performances all the time. Remember the performance of WAP by Cardi B during the 2021 Grammys? Even if you didn't watch it, you heard about it because it was so in your face and shocking that even people outside the church were cringing. 

We went from sexuality, to hyper-sexualization in the blink of a performance that featured simulated sex acts, grotesque poses, and outfits meant to shove it all in your face. 

(READ: Men Are Getting Tired of the Hyper-Sexualized Woman)

Seeing that performance, I can safely say that what they displayed was far more pornographic than some pictures I've seen of fully nude women. The intent was shock. It was a display of lust, fully meant to elicit and entice behaviors that would be considered immoral in any civilized country. In fact, they know that, which is exactly why they did it. 

I'm not saying that women should just get out there and start disrobing and calling it art. I think it's a fine line to walk, and when making the choice of exposing yourself to the public, the best answer is "no," especially in the context of a marriage, but I don't want to dismiss every occurrence of exposed skin as pornographic. Looking at it objectively, the human body is a work of art and seeing it, at least in certain contexts, isn't an evil thing. There is real beauty to behold in it.