Your comment is hard for me to interpret. I would normally take it as a given that the culture and male/female dynamic in computer science research is (or at least ought to be) different than the culture in the modelling industry (and especially the nude modelling industry).
Ok, let me try to explain a bit better. The parent poster seems to say that women are somehow "put off" by nudity. That's a perfectly valid hypothesis.
But then art (and I am talking primarily about art, not modelling) is a problem, which requires further explanation. Because artists seem to be, at least to me, totally obsessed with nudity (and I think sex, too, but feel free to disagree here). So why that attracts women, in droves in fact, if they are put off by it?
My answer is that the hypothesis is wrong. Females are not put off by computer scientists, that's not the reason why they don't do computer science. In particular, I doubt you would find CS people more sexist than other group of men, I actually believe they are mostly nicer (and also lot more honest about their views, which can strongly bias it).
The reason why women don't do CS is they lack confidence and positive role models to do it. You can actually see the differentiation happening in high school, where no one really knows how it works on the workplace yet. And that's where, or maybe even earlier, the problem needs to be addressed. It's probably cultural and frankly, whether the cause is wrong beliefs of men or wrong beliefs of women is irrelevant for the solution (wrong here in the sense "differing from reality").
Edit: You could argue (I think you do) that the cultural norms about nudity in art and computing should be different. I don't disagree (in fact, they are, which makes it a moot point anyway). But then, isn't this a case of someone projecting their own cultural norms to somebody else? Is that really a failure of some culture that it doesn't respect your (rather arbitrary and harmless, compared to art) norms?
I don't know why things are different in the art world and it's a good question. But this sort of thing has been A/B tested for computer science [1]. Of course it takes more than one study to get scientific consensus but I'll take it over armchair reasoning.
The flaw in that study seems to me that for starters, boys don't need to be convinced to go into CS. And those stereotypes are mostly just stereotypes - there were no such things at my university, for example. It was a rather ugly building, though. But it' not that men prefer ugly buildings (I definitely didn't), but that they keen enough on those subjects to go for it anyway.
However if the finding is that if you make it nicer, more women will choose it, that seems rather trivial. Of course if you make something more attractive, more people will choose it.
Sure, it's just one part of the overall environment. If you wanted to decorate a room to say "boys club - girls keep out," the first thing you'd do is hang up some pinup posters. But in the fashion industry they work with lots of pictures of beautiful women and women outnumber men. And this is probably US specific too; I imagine they do things differently in France.
In computer science (either academia or industry) we have a recruiting problem and we're facing an uphill battle. We have to care about how it looks.
I don't think that the parent poster is saying "women are put off by nudity". (As you point out, there are other contexts where women can often be just as comfortable with it as men are.) As I read it, the parent poster is saying that women are less interested in working in professional environments where their colleagues expose them to nudity unnecessarily. (That word "unnecessarily" may be part of why things are different in art than in graphics research.)
Someone else has already shared some formal research on how other "in-group" signals have exactly this effect. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that "public consumption of heterosexual-male-targeted erotica" could have a similar effect. But even without that research, the fact is that plenty of women have been very explicit that nude or sexual images in the workplace make them feel unwelcome, unequal, and in some cases even threatened. Regardless of the deep causes of those reactions, the experience is undeniably real for the people who report it. And that comes back to the parent poster's point: if your company environment welcomes nude or erotic imagery without good reason, many women will choose not to work with you.
Finally, you ask whether it's unfair for one culture ("women", broadly speaking) to project its own cultural norms onto another ("computing", in this case). I see two answers. First, the pure capitalism that some folks here are fond of: if your company's atmosphere tends to push away talented female employees and your competitor's does not, they'll be more successful at drawing on that talent pool, eventually giving them a big advantage. (One could probably extend that reasoning to entire industries or societies with a little work.) And second, a social justice perspective: not all norms are morally equivalent. The classic example is that slavery used to be a perfectly accepted norm, but few today would argue that it was wrong for the abolitionists to seek to change it. I'd like to think that one day our social context will have shifted enough that nude images in the workplace will have the same impact on men and on women, but we aren't there now and it's hard to imagine it happening in my lifetime (or even two or three generations down).
[Oh, and one more point, since it's something that took me years to catch on to: as a guy, I'm very cautious these days when it comes to deep theorizing about why women (or other underrepresented groups) might feel the way they do about issues like this. The thing is, while trying to reason out all this stuff is just an intriguing intellectual exercise for me, for women it's their constant reality. And let me tell you, there's no upside to taking someone who's obviously unhappy about something and trying to dispassionately pick apart what exactly about it is bothering them. In the end, it's almost always more productive to simply say, "Wow, thanks for letting me know you feel that way. What can we do to make it better?"]
My point was that the nudity in art is, for the most part, unnecessary. Yet people, including women, bear with it.
The point is, there is probably no absolute, specific reason (such as nudity) why women don't want to go to CS. The reason may well be the cultural difference from the norm (of majority of population) itself, no matter what it is. Whether it's nudity or Star Trek, doesn't matter. So the morality doesn't even come into play here.
And that's why positive examples are needed. To show, "OK, it's a bit different culture, but that's fine" sort of thing. (Also to show that girls can be good in CS, because they often seem to lack confidence in this - at least I met several that didn't feel they could be programmers, even though they were lot smarter than me.)
