" i don't see the huge fundamental distinction between seeing a naked girl's crotch splayed open with some blurred lines (see what i did there?) and seeing it with lips/hair/holes in focused relief. "

Obviously a lot of people care. See all the comments? Again, a huge difference being naked and being naked on TV. A further huge difference between showing orifices and not showing them.

That is truly the stupidest response so far. On your rationale: people know you are naked under your clothes, so it doesn't really matter if you walk around nude or not. Sorry, son, but there is a HUGE difference between "people can see your junk" and "people CANNOT see your junk." It's the difference between "can"…

I mean, yes, you could definitely question the wisdom of going on a show called Dating Naked. But all of the things you described are a breach of contract and likely constitute a variety of tortious behavior. You have the right to not have those things happen to you. And, obviously, there is a big difference between…

On one hand, yes, mockery is an inevitable result of this kind of lawsuit. But, it is not inevitable that your unblurred junk will be shown on TV when you go on a show called "Naked" anything, WHEN YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL BLUR YOU OUT.

" It is reasonable to expect that a slip up like that can happen and an unintentional view may be exposed."

Right, I mean she's probably not win all aspects of this case, unless perhaps she can prove that the production company did this on purpose. But they don't know what the discovery process will reveal, so it makes sense to raise issues beyond just breach of contract.

Unfortunately, most people—at least on internet message boards—would prefer to just make nasty comments about a young woman, rather than be reasonable. Hence, the prevailing view is so mean.

Okay, if you say so. But the serious answer is that, yes, of course it's different to have your junk shown on tv vs. having a big blurred spot blocking them out.

Don't you think it's primarily a breach of contract case? She says they promised to blur her privates out, and they didn't do that.

This sounds like a breach of contract case.

I'd say she was expecting to be blurred out, as they promised. Signing up to be naked on TV with everything blurred out is very different than signing up to have your gaping holes shown on TV, no?