Recently, a media commentator said that photos of nude women were a sign of a 'backward' and 'primitive' society. This is the kind of comment that gets nods of approval from most, and it manages to guilt people into stopping to consider whether it might be true. It isn't even close to being true. And it's vital to understand why. Any society in which a beautiful, nude young woman can freely and easily wander about outside without risk to her personal safety or freedom can hardly be called 'primitive'. Just look around at the truly primitive societies that threaten world peace right now - in these places, even fully clothed women are in danger of their lives every day, merely for being born women. In other places, a thin veneer of law and order protects women but beneath the surface lie predators of all sorts, who would think nothing of attacking any woman they found attractive. Compare that with the reality behind this photo shoot - Laura Christina walked around naked in a public place, in front of a male photographer and assistant and the many who walked by but didn't interfere, and was completely and utterly safe, protected and respected. She wasn't arrested, censured, attacked or even insulted. And there are very, very few societies left in which that would be allowed to happen. To call such a place 'backward' or 'primitive' is blatantly wrong. It's attitudes like that of the commentator that plunge us back into the dark ages, and must be challenged if we are going to hold on to the freedoms we cherish so much.