Isn't it a sad metaphor for humanity?

According to the BBC:

"A pair of Sumatran tiger cubs and a set of young orang-utans, all abandoned at birth, have become inseparable after sharing a room at an Indonesian zoo. But the friendship is not destined to last as tigers start eating meat when they are three months old and will need to be separated from their new playmates."

Just....Ew

I get the fact that Daniel Radcliffe (also known as "Harry Potter" ) wants to break out into more intellectual, mature roles. No 10 or 12 year-old actor who takes a role so desired as HP thinks one day they'll want to be seen as something more than their character.

Radcliffe is in his late teens now and he's British, which automatically gives him a penchant for the stage and he's obviously intelligent enough to know he has to start making some serious career changes to avoid the depraved existance of other child stars past their glory.

Yet, MUST we hear of him accepting a nude role? It's bad enough to think he might one day do it for film ala Brooke Shields (note I didn't link here to Pretty Baby and granted in Blue Lagoon most of the time it was a body double--but it was STILL awkward).

If Radcliffe thinks that these kinds of roles might save his acting future, he may be right, but does he have to do it so....well... I'll be delicate here and say...boldly?

::Shudder::