I finally did it last night. I tuned in, mercifully briefly, to Channel 4’s new series “Naked Attraction”. I admit that I did not tune in by accident. I am not one who is greatly offended by nudity, although I would maintain that the female form is vastly more attract unclad than the male form. I am trying to adopt a sexually neutral position, if you know what I mean.

The gist of the show appeared to be this. Five naked men stood behind a screen, revealing only their nether regions. A woman than talks to the presenter who is also a woman and comments on the mens’ penises and testicles. A screen rises (and, thankfully, nothing else) to reveal the men’s upper torsos. The female contestant discussed important issues like tattoos. I was beginning to lose interest by now and missed the next part of the show. The next thing I saw was the female contestant standing stark naked in front of two of the naked men who pretended to be hot and bothered. They discussed her very obviously surgically enhanced breasts which looked ridiculous and then pretended how natural they looked. It was at this point I gave up.

For all I know, I might have missed the intellectually stimulating part of the show which could have been after the break. If I had, this was a shame because there was nothing you could call stimulating about the five minutes I saw.

In fact, never has nudity been so boring, which could be a good thing, but in a programme that was plainly invented to attract “a certain type of viewer”, the type of man who might have, in the olden days, chosen to attend the local porno flea pit, dressed in long overcoat and…well, you can guess the rest. This was about as sexy as John McCririck in his underpants.

It’s Blind Date in the buff, but without Cilla and without any type of humour or even irony. What were the inventors of the show thinking about? I think I know the answer to this: advertising revenue. To put not to fine a point on it, tits attract viewers. The only trouble is that the biggest tits on this show were the competitors, all of them, especially the men. But the contestants themselves: what were they doing on there? Again, money I would imagine and, quite possibly, misplaced narcissism and exhibitionism. I looked at one man whose modestly sized penis pointed at a strange angle and wondered quite why he wanted to show this to me. I feared I might be traumatised for a moment. The feeling quickly passed.

My curiosity, briefly, got the better of me, but never again. This was not just television for sad voyeurs, it was television produced by people who have simply run out of creative ideas. And this was on Channel 4, once the future of TV, the world of cutting edge programmes.

Amongst the Brazilians, misshaped testicles and surgical add-ons, was nothing. It is an insult to our intelligence and I rather insulted my own intelligence by watching for just a moment.