Actually that was a very good question. I don't understand why most people generally view violent games as okay while they go crazy every time there's the slightest reference to sex.

If it was illegal in the US, Apple wouldn't be censoring it, the government would. Use some common sense.
And here's the faulty logic; you assume that people who are against nudity are okay with games with senseless violence like GTA or Custer's Revenge. You'll find that most of the people who are against sexual references are also against games with unjustified violence as well.

Pornography!

Ban the filth!!!

Apple is not the government and can censor what they want but Pope can still make the game how he sees fit.

Not that is matters since this is a moot point now.

http://www.imore.com/papers-please-ipad-will-get-its-nudity-restored-update-next-week

Nudity has A VALID PLACE in everybody's life, so of course it also has A VALID PLACE in some games. Maybe not in every game, but I can guarantee you that the nudity in Papers, Please made a lot of sense.

That doesn't really answer my question. Why does Apple censor nudity?

What I don't get is the attitude: "I don't want it, so nobody shall have it!". Regardless if it comes to sex, blood & gore or other themes (like making fun of religion(s)). There's such a huge diversity of games (and other media) that most people (except those that object to the medium in general) should be able to find something that suits them. I don't know why it's so fucking hard for people to just avoid things they don't like.

Also, nudity doesn't mean sex. Society has become really sad and perverted when i.e. children aren't allowed run around naked in the sun in summer time because everybody's just thinking that someone might see something sexual in it.

*APPLAUSE*

Now I see, that I might have worded it wrongly. I know that most people that are against nudity also are against violence. However, violence seems more generally accepted than sexual references.

I have completed the game, thank you very much. You obviously haven't. Or, if you have and you felt aroused by the nudity in the game, I can only say that your mind works in very bizarre ways.
What a superbly ignorant and narrow-minded comment.

If it was a surgery simulating game, (and no, I don't mean that abominable spoof that's on Steam, I mean a proper surgery simulation game, though I know of no real examples of such), then there would be a valid reason to have nudity in a game. As it stands, there's no real logical reason for it to be in Papers, Please!.
Okay, you're officially a troll at this point. When you can have a civilized debate like a rational adult, then we can cotninue this conversation. Until then, be well, and I hope you mature in the future.
Complete strawman. Apple is not saying that they can't sell the game, only that they can't do it on their store as is.

Most public libraries like to keep things quiet- would you say that they're trying to say you can't have a band if they refuse to let you play drums in the library?

Oh come on, have you actually seen what the nudity in the game even looks like?
http://papersplease.wikia.com/wiki/Sex
You play a person checking entrants at a border station and you need to verify the papers given. Sometimes you have to verify the gender of a person if their appearance doesn't match what the papers say, or you might have to check them for concealed items, so you run a naked scan of them. There is your valid reason.

That's the same thing.

No, that's not. Apple isn't stopping them from setting up their own store or selling it at another store. And I notice that you conveniently left out the analogy that explained this.

The fact that you have no valid arguments to back up your point does not make me a troll.

The nudity in Papers Please is completely valid in the context of the game. It is not designed to arouse, it is designed to make the player uncomfortable with the extreme invasion of privacy he/she is forced to perpetrate upon others. For that purpose it works very well. The fact that Apple reverted their decision, stating that it was based on a misunderstanding made by the Apple reviewer, suggests that they see it the same way.

Now, are you capable of having a civilized debate like a rational adult, or will you just continue with the name-calling?