Amy Winehouse naked. Ummm....no thank you.

Troubled Amy Winehouse has posed for a nude photo shoot to raise breast cancer awareness among young women. The singer appears naked in the April issue of British magazine Easy Living after she stripped off for photographer Carolyn Djangoly. In the black and white snapshot, Winehouse is captured playing a guitar, which covers her genitals, while two pieces of duct tape cover her nipples. The 24-year-old isn't the only celebrity posing naked for the campaign - singer Sade and actress Helena Bonham Carter also removed their clothing for the picture project.

Now - I like her music. Her voice hearkens back to another era and - for a white woman - is as soulful as any black female singer. And the breast cancer cause is wonderful. But to see Winehouse who, I think, looks as if she's suffering from malnutrition, naked? Uh-uh.

One more thing: what is it with female celebrities who pose "naked" for Playboy but don't show anything? Seriously, if you're in Playboy and you're making a big deal about how you did it to capture a moment when you were really "hot", then I wanna see bush. Don't cover it up with your leg or a leaf or your hand. Put up or don't pose. Women are posing left and right wearing next-to-nothing in GQ, Vanity Fair, Esquire, among other magazines, and they cover up those "questionable" areas. That's OK. But if you pose for a nudie magazine, I want to see you NUDE.

Which begs me to ask the other question (a question asked by many, I suppose): what is it about a woman's nipple that's the make or break body part when it comes to nudity in magazines or on film? You can show an entire breast but not the nipple. What IS the deal with the nipple?