The naked and the nude

Often some TV show or another will be able to or be expected to show some nudity, but not really. Often it seems the people making such shows have no idea what they're doing, they just want to or have to throw some nudity in.  In such cases, it's going to be under certain constraints, aside from the obvious broadcast versus cable rules.   There won't be any reproductive parts and there won't be any hair covering such parts.    In the rare cases there are either of those (when they're even allowed) the situation will be somewhat-to-very shocking and almost certainly not erotic.   The longer any such situation goes on, the more certain it will not be at all what most people would consider sexy.   Odds are, males will be involved.

You can expect that if bare chests are shown, they will be male.  If they are female, the operational part will generally not be present.   However, should there be female projections on the ends by which fluid is delivered, they will be shown either fleetingly, in modified subdued light, or from odd angles.   The only alternative will be that if they are shown clearly, it will be brazen.   The opportunity to show them will be milked for all that it's worth, so to speak. However, it will also likely not be anything appealing to prurient interests.

Then there's the old standby, man derriere.   I think they call that gratuitous.   There will be a shocking and brazen display of the area between the legs and lower torso from the back.   That it will be male, and that it will not be glamorous, both are almost always true.

Now what is the most interesting is when the attempt is made to show as much as possible without showing anything.   In this case, the covering will be elaborate, and will almost certainly draw the viewer's attention away from everything else that's happening just like those italics do.      Likely, drawing all attention to the elaborate covering will not be by design, but rather by ineptitude.   Likely, this will be a woman in bed, frequently she will be talking to a man wearing no shirt.   He'll be wearing pants, although frequently his lower half will be off camera.    Whichever, the conversation will be hard to follow, as the viewer is distracted by the sheets or comforter hiding some or all of the woman, who is assumed to be wearing nothing.   

In the above situation,  often the camera work is somewhat sloppy, and whatever skin-tone clothing or covering the actress is actually wearing or has blocking things (like a taped on plastic cover) will become visible for some amount of time, even if it's momentary.    Since the viewer's attention has been drawn to the attempt to hide it all, it's often quite easy to spot.  

No, not quite as bad as having a boom mic in the shot, or seeing a 2004 vehicle in a World War I movie.  About the same as seeing the contrast and coloration difference between inside the truck and outside the window, pistols that have no weight and no recoil, hand-held weapons that sound like cannons, or getting that outline in front of the blue screen or green screen.

Most people never notice these sorts of things, but they're there.   Business as usual, not a big deal.