It's their album. I fail to see the problem here - if the whole band wants to be nude on the cover, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. If the cover is blatantly pornographic, then perhaps it will be sold differently, but that's up to them as well. From my perspective, it makes no difference what the reason is, and if I did have a problem with it, I probably just wouldn't buy that album. Actually, come to think of it, the nudity is probably displayed most often as an attention-getter, as the faux outrage that results is probably great advertising. The problem is that its overuse has led to it being viewed as less and less risque, but that's something that they have to contend with as well.

I probably wouldn't by the album depending on how explicit it is, but it is their bodies, their music, and their album so they should be able to without judgement.

It's fine with me. I'd just hope they don't get offended when it only gets sold to customers ages 18+, depending on how explicit it is

@whiteflame That's how I feel about it. I'm not a fan of pornographic ones, but their bodies (and as cassie said, if they do that then they better not get upset if it's sold only to people 18+). They should also be prepared in that case to not even be sold in some stores. However I'm completely cool with tasteful nude. I'd probably end up buying the CD anyways as I'm in it for the music.

I don't support anything that promotes lust and objectification of women OR men. and let's be honest, music album covers aren't using nudity the way classical art does.

I feel like pop albums typically don't show tasteful nudity however, Epica (the one depicted) did. Simone didn't pose like that to be trashy. It looks pretty artsy to me.