You'd think I'd be numbed to tits and arse by now. Tabloid background, former swordsman etc.
But when those Scarlett Johansson pictures hit the net, I joined everyone else in clicking the little yfrog Twitter link - and then cursing as it failed to load three times.
And then they popped up.
Those grainy shots of a movie star in various stages of undress, with a spot on her forehead.
My attention was held for perhaps two seconds - and then I clicked 'close'.
Not because she didn't look good. He breasts were perky, her bottom womanly and pert and her pout was as, well, pouty, as you could wish for.
But because - God this feels weird to say - I've see so much flesh thanks to the internet that I'm bored with it.
Like a kid searching for the "f" word in the dictionary, the first thing I did when I got my own computer and net access was see if I could see a naked bottom. I found not just one, but many. So many bottoms and boobs that the novelty very quickly wore off.
The "f" word is in the dictionary. I know that. You know that - and so none of us bother checking any more.
There's no naughty thrill of excitement in looking it up. So why do we in our millions click so frantically to catch a glimpse of something we have seen so many times before?
I know, I know, Scarlett's a celebrity, so that makes it more interesting. But is that really we flocked to stare at her starkers? No.
I'm pretty sure her bits have been out on film before and if you search you could find much the same captured in moving images. Probably even simulated sex scenes.
I think the reason we wanted to look is because we knew we weren't supposed to.
Those pictures weren't taken for our eyes.
Which makes me feel pretty ashamed actually.
There's no shame in hunting down pictures of naked flesh.
Naked flesh is arousing and is a natural thing to want to see.
There's no shame in taking those pictures.
If you've got a phone with a camera on it and someone you're sexually involved with, the chances are you've taken a few yourself.
There are certainly some of me floating around out there.
But is IS shameful that so many of us wanted to see them for no other reason than they were private, intimate moments, captured with no intent to share.
If she'd taken those shots for an advertising campaign, they wouldn't have got even 20 per-cent of the views they've had.
It's not a huge moral point I'm making.
Scarlett's in the public eye, she's arty, she gets paid millions and she looks good naked.
She'll get over whatever feelings of anger, invasion or embarrassment she may have.
But just quietly ponder this: wouldn't you be a little prouder of yourself if you had resisted the urge to stare at someone's stolen, secret moments?
I know I would.
Follow Joe Mott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thejoemott