Stop being such a prude, Instagram. A little nudity never hurt anyone One would imagine that the staff at Instagram HQ is formed of hip young thangs, all athleisure and nose-rings and […]

One would imagine that the staff at Instagram HQ is formed of hip young thangs, all athleisure and nose-rings and Gen Z insouciance.

But perhaps they’ve got someone’s Great Aunt Sybil in on work experience this week.

The social media platform apologised for removing the account for a charity calendar on grounds of nudity, saying that staff occasionally misinterpreted the guidelines.

i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

Too late, though, Instagram – the Warwick Rowers, who have raised thousands of pounds by posing in the nip with some strategically placed oars, have accused the site of sexism.

They have a point: when’s the last time you saw an Instagram snap of Kim Kardashian with her clothes on? Would our beloved WI Calendar Girls have failed the Insta test?

Sex sells

Everything from yoga holidays to ice cream is hawked on the platform by female models in the almost-altogether, usually bronzed and gym-honed and photoshopped to the nth degree.

And the platform will likely be the source of a lucrative income for most of the girls on Love Island, who are thus far mostly famous for flaunting their bottoms in public.

I’m not sure it amounts to sexism, though. Instagram users have been campaigning for years to #FreeTheNipple, after photos, including those of breastfeeding mothers, were removed from the site. Men’s nipples don’t seem to be affected by the ban – they’re free to go wherever they please.

No rules broken

Instagram’s policy on nakedness is clear enough: no sexual intercourse, no genitals, no close-ups of fully nude buttocks. The Warwick Rowers, incidentally, broke none of those rules. Nor did the breastfeeding mothers.

A nudity policy is desirable, of course – I’m on Instagram to see pictures of people’s cute, fluffy pets, not their appendages (no matter how fluffy or cute), and I don’t want an unsavoury surprise while I’m trying to put a Mayfair filter on my #avotoast.

But Instagram could do with being a little less prudish and applying a little more common sense. We all can see the difference between body positivity and pornography, between saucy and seedy, can’t we? Why can’t Instagram?

People who posted photos of last week’s World Naked Bike Ride were slapped with bans, even though the event is supposed to be promoting body positivity and bike safety.

Ok, so perhaps there was a glimpse of the occasional willy flapping in the breeze, but it’s hardly the most sexual image internet users will ever be exposed to.

Meanwhile, just weeks ago Kardashian pushed the boundaries with a highly sexualised Instagram snap promoting her new fragrance, completed with a hint of illicit nipple.

Putting the kybosh on Kim?

But would any staff member have the, ahem, balls to ban one of their most-followed subscribers? Maybe Aunt Sybil – I wouldn’t mess with her.

So, come on, Instagram, let’s set out some new rules on nudity. Would it be acceptable if they were old codgers (CODGERS! I said codgers)? How about bare bottoms – they’re usually hilarious, if my five-year-old nephew is anything to go by.

Let’s let it all hang out, when appropriate. Especially if it’s for a good cause.