| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KM |
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 3:53:58 PM
I know that this topic has come up in this forum before (and I myself have actually written about it at length on other naturist forums as well), but I don't think it gets nearly enough attention in the naturist community, so I'd like to discuss it here. The topic, as you can tell by the title of this thread, is taking pictures on nude beaches. I don't mean random pictures of people consensually taking pictures of each other (although, in truth, I think that cameras SHOULD in fact be banned on nude beaches all together if that's what it would take to solve this problem), but people there for the express purpose of taking pictures of people (most often young women -- you know, the demographic naturism struggles with the most), to gather material for adult websites. There are people who literally consider this a "sport."
I have strong reason to think that this issue is a major deterrent to younger people trying nude beaches (and the fact is, the beaches seem to be where many young people get started with naturism -- if you cut that off, you cut off the industry in general, and not many things can survive without such "new blood"). Quite simply, young people have the most to lose by being "discovered" against their will. If discovered by the wrong person, it could potentially ruin his/her career and/or family life, and I doubt too many young people are going to jeopardize their careers and/or family life to go to a nude beach. As I alluded to above, this is especially true with women. For all the men who have trouble getting their wives/girlfriends to go with them to a nude beach, this issue doesn't exactly help. I can assure you that the threat of having their nude picture end up on the Internet isn't exactly a selling point. It's my belief, therefore, that this issue is one of the greatest single threats to naturism in the long-term, especially with ever-improving technology making it increasingly easy for these people to do what they do, and their images increasingly clear.
Now I'm sure some of you would will respond by saying that a nude beach is a public place and therefore there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy." To these people, may I remind you that the public places we're talking about here are public places in which something that is illegal in 99.9% of public space is, in fact, perfectly legal. While nude on a nude beach, we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing where we're supposed to be doing it. That is, nude beach are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR NUDITY (that, I think, is the key here). It's not as if we're invading the "clothed world" -- that would truly be "public." Otherwise stated, the laws that apply on a nude beach are ALREADY different from just about all other public places, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with having laws in place that are appropriate for the venue in question. Why SHOULD the law regarding photography be different on a nude beach? Simple. Because photography on a nude beach is subject to abuse to a degree probably unrivaled in any other public place. That’s why. Lastly, remember that nude beaches are usually clearly sanctioned off and out of view from the surrounding area with signs specifically warning people of their presence, unlike just about any other public place. Some people talk as if nude beaches are plopped right down in the middle of Times Square. Not so. By the way, a public restroom or locker room is a public place too. Do you think it's legal to take pictures of people there as well? I'm pretty sure it's not, at least in most states.
So what is the solution? As I said above, I really do think that nude beaches should be designated as "no-camera zones," again, given their ultra-unique nature. But if you think that goes too far, as an alternative, I think that this type of photography should be put in the category of "improper photography" (a real legal term), such as "upskirt" photography and public restroom/locker room photography. Specifically, what I would like to see is groups like AANR and/or TNS lobby for a law stated something like "You may not take pictures without permission of any person in the nude in a public place in which nudity is legal." Then, at least if pictures are taken, they will be illegal images. That way, the adult websites that public these images would be publishing illegal images, which would obviously make it a lot riskier for them. Such a law would not be at all broad (in fact it would be very narrow considering how few public places there are in which nudity is legal), and would protect all legitimate press rights, street photography/photojournalism, etc. Please explain to me what could possibly be controversial about that? Otherwise stated, who would really "suffer" under such a law? That is, how many people have a truly legitimate interest in photographing people nude without their permission? As far as I can tell, only one group -- perverts. And I don’t think that too many people (especially real naturists, I would hope) would be too enthusiastic about standing up for perverts’ rights.
To sum up this admittedly long post, the kind of photography I'm writing about here is objectification at its worst, and therefore completely antithetical to supposed naturist ideals. One way or another, this must stop, especially if, to be blunt, naturism is to have any legitimate credibility as a wholesome family-friendly activity for average everyday people. Believe it or not, wholesome family-friendly activities for average everyday people tend not to be breeding grounds for adult entertainment. The bottom line -- whether or not one has an "expectation of privacy" per se on a beach specifically designated for nudity, one SHOULD have an expectation of not being turned into material for late night entertainment of people around the world. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| McNigel |
Posted - 02/20/2010 : 05:36:33 AM
What is it with the restrooms? And exactly how is it relevant?
All sorts of things are regulated in private clubs, because they can. A club I visit regularly in Spain bans mobile phones from the pool area, because they are really annoying, but says nothing about cameras. The resort hotel does ban cameras, it's not nudist, but a lot of famous people stay there and they don't what their every move recorded.
What a club regulates is up to the members.
Maybe these nudist clubs have members that don't wish to be recognised and so ban cameras.
You keep on implying that despite living for several months a year in Spain, I have no idea about the European perspective and are unwilling to accept that this really isn't a big issue.
Other people who live here may correct me, but my perception is that in Western Europe including the UK:
There is no great problem in naked image of you being seen, so long as your not suspected of deliberately showing off, which would be jolly bad form.
People how take candid photos on beaches are lowlife and should have this explained to them, but it's a public place and really not that important.
Any attempt to introduce a law banning photography in a public place would be viewed with suspicion. There are plenty of laws already that would cover extreme abuses of this. A cover all that gets people arrested, but rarely charged, is 'causing a breach of the peace'.
|
| KM |
Posted - 02/19/2010 : 6:46:51 PM
Okay, I'll keep this pretty quick this time.
1. We've been over this before! Yes, I KNOW that resorts are private properties. I've acknowledged that. So yes, they can impose more restrictions on photography. But my point is this: WHY do they impose more restrictions? That is, just because they can, doesn't mean they have to. The fact is, almost all private resorts (textile, that is) do NOT ban cameras. So if someone's (we'll leave it anonymous) premise is that Europeans don't care about being pictured nude and having that image put online, one would think that resorts in Europe would have no reason to ban cameras even if they can. Yet, they do. As do, as I mentioned, PUBLIC saunas (which are, of course, public places) in Europe. That leads me to believe that most Europeans also understand that cameras + nude people = potential problems.
Lastly on this subject, still no one has addressed my point about public restrooms here in the US. In case you don't think public restrooms are truly public places, just ask former Idaho Senator Larry Craig, or, going back a few years, singer George Michael. There were able to be arrested, I believe, on the grounds that they were in public places and therefore had no expectation of privacy. Yet, you can't take pictures of others in a public restroom. As far as I'm concerned, that just proves that "no expectation of privacy" doesn't automatically equal the right to take pictures of others. So this type of photography could be banned on a nude beach without violating the "no expectation of privacy" principle.
2. I thought that that classic Potter Stewart line might come up. And why not -- it's a good line, and I think applicable to many things in life, not just this. To me, it means that sometimes you have to use your head to determine what something is. No, that artwork you linked to is NOT pornography, but what these photographers do is. And I can't even necessarily define exactly why. But I think it would be very hard to call this type of photography "art," although that too is, I guess, a subjective label. It comes down to this -- if it's not pornography, and it's not art, what IS it?
Once again, I think that part of what does make this pornography is, in fact, the voyeuristic element. I don't know if I'm going to get in trouble for this, but are you familiar with the website [link deleted]? This site has a LOT of nude pictures. However, I do NOT call it pornography, and since what you're saying indicates that you wouldn't either, I wouldn't think that you would mind this link here. But in their "Forum Rules" page, their very first rule states:
"We are a Nudist forum. So no NO SEXUAL CONTENT & no VOYEUR!!!! This means no erotic content at all. Voyeur pictures and clips are images of people who are unaware they are captured on film."
So, apparently they agree with my premise that you cross a major line when the subject of the photography is unaware that he or she is being photographed. No, they didn't state that it makes it pornography per se, but they certainly indicate that it leaves the realm of naturism -- yes, even if it pictures naturISTS. Oh, by the way, this is a European forum. More evidence, I think, that Europeans DO care about things. Couldn't resist.
Okay, I didn't keep this as quick as I thought I would. Oh well -- I type fast.
Edited by - Admin to remove link. This is a site that offers nude photos for trade or for cost of membership. It also offers photos of children. We don't link to them. |
| Admin |
Posted - 02/19/2010 : 02:54:36 AM
Don't get me started! Awww, too late.
Be careful not to compare apples to oranges, in the case of a nudist resort, which can be considered private, and a nude public beach. A private venue can, within the law, provide more restrictions to ensure the comfort of patrons, such as forbidding cameras.
Another problem is that "pornography" has never, and probably never will be accurately identified. It depends on what is considered obscene by community standards, which vary considerably by culture and over time.
I found this:
WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?
“I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”
That famous statement, uttered by the late Justice Potter Stewart in 1973 when faced with a case involving obscenity, illustrates the difficulty of trying to determine what constitutes obscene or pornographic content. The term “pornography” has no well-defined meaning, certainly no legal definition. And if a Supreme Court justice had trouble defining the nature of sexually explicit material, how easy is it for the rest of us—each of whom looks at the world in a different way? Lack of consensus is one reason the subject of pornography is such a contentious legal issue. [...more]
This expression, "I know it when I see it...” became one of the most famous phrases in the entire history of the Supreme Court. It is no longer used as a standard.
 Did you know the gold-anodized aluminum plaque attached to the Pioneer 10 spacecraft depicting a pair of nude humans in a simple line drawing designed for aliens by Carl Sagan was called pornographic by some? It was because of such potential criticism that the short line depicting the woman's genitalia was removed.
Hah! Made you look.
About sexual harassment, I believe those laws only apply to the workplace, but I may be wrong.
You see what I mean? It's complex. I think we're exploring it rather well in this discussion.
Is this image soft-core pornography? When you get that figured out, please call up the folks in Temecula and explain it to them. |
| KM |
Posted - 02/18/2010 : 8:07:28 PM
Admin (Kevin), actually, I thought your response was well thought out as well. Thank you for that. Just a few points.
1. If we can't call it an invasion of privacy, maybe we could have it classified as a form of sexual harassment. Seriously. I mean, if someone said yelled to a woman "nice [fill in whatever word]!," it would be sexual harassment. But if someone takes a covert picture of that part of her body, again, in a place designated for being able to have that part of her body visible (a safe zone for nudity, you could say), and posts it online, that's no problem? Doesn't make any sense to me.
2. If images nudity in Europe is no big deal, why do the resorts, I'm pretty sure, ban cameras? Same with the public saunas I believe. I still think that most Europeans consider this a problem too.
3. So you and some others think that because it's the law, that's the way it has to be? Well, let me just say that if the Internet existed decades ago, I'd bet there would have been a naturist forum in which someone suggested having a nude beach in the United States, and others responded "people in THIS country are actually going to allow people to go walking around nude on a beach"? Yeah right!"
4. About the pornography thing, I never said it was "hard-core" pornography. It's "soft core" pornography. There's a big difference. Just like Playboy, which as far as I know doesn't feature actual sex, is soft-core pornography (most, I think, would say). As far as I'm concerned, any time you use the sight of the human body to entice, it's soft-core pornography. And you asked if the lack or permission makes it pornographic. My answer is "yes." It essentially puts it in the category of voyeur pornography, a sub-genre of soft core pornography, I guess you could say. You're seeing something you're not supposed to be seeing. I doubt that posed pictures offer those who pay for this material the same "thrill." It's pretty much well known to most people that the people in the pictures do NOT want to be used like this. As sick as it is, I think that some people, well, "get off" on that fact. By the way, I almost wish I could post some of the actual websites here, but I know that's against the rules, and rightly so. But I can assure you that even the names of some of these sites make it pretty clear what kind of sites they are. They're not very subtle.
5. One more time, yes, I know it's a public place. But isn't there a pretty significant difference between a nude beach and most public places? If it's a public place, it's a public place with a twist. A pretty big twist.
PS. If you want to post my original PM, go right ahead. It might clarify my thinking to some of your members. Ultimately, of course, it's your choice. |
| Admin |
Posted - 02/18/2010 : 12:33:14 AM
KM had sent me a PM which was well thought out, and presented his viewpoints and reasons for having issues with some members. In the spirit of keeping this discussion in the public view where it belongs, I thought I'd post my reply to him. Of course, his original PM I cannot publish without his permission.
KM,
I appreciate your point of view. You seem to believe one has an expectation of privacy on a public nude beach. As much as we'd like to believe so, in the sight of the law we have none, it's a public beach.
I know. We'd like the government to see it differently, but when they get involved the result is often unpredictable and undesirable. Politicians seldom want to go on record supporting a nude beach, and if the question came up, some may take the opportunity to legislate it out of existence, if they don't believe in public nudism. Existing ordinances against disturbing the peace are often considered effective enough against this sort of behavior. Read the other threads, there is more information.
I surmise McNigel is speaking from the viewpoint that photos of nudists doing nothing but being nude isn't material for pornography, since there is no sexual act portrayed. It might be a fetish to take such photos, but it doesn't qualify as pornography. Does taking a photo of a person sunbathing on a nude beach make that act of sunbathing pornographic? Does it become pornography when it's published without permission? Does the lack of permission make that act of sunbathing pornographic? That's the issue McNigel is probably illustrating.
Many take the position that simple non-sexual nudity cannot ever be pornographic, unless the camera angle emphasizes body parts in a way that a jury would consider obscene. A person with a European viewpoint may be more apt to take this position, since in some parts of Europe nudity in a beach setting is considered more commonplace than in America. It's no big deal.
It is offensive that people's sense of privacy is violated, and even exploited for profit. A court would determine whether the person had a bona fide expectation of privacy, or not. In a public setting, nude or not, there usually is no real expectation of privacy. It's a public place.
It's a complex problem, and one that cannot be solved in a few bulletin board posts, or PMs. If you read some previous threads on the subject, you'll see it's one of the most controversial subjects, and one that tends to bring out the worst in people. I appreciate your taking up the subject, but please keep in mind everyone has their right to different opinions. All we ask in this forum is that those opinions are presented politely and with a view to sharing viewpoints, not knocking those that do not share your beliefs. If you make a better reasoned argument more people will choose to believe you anyway. But insulting members will only cause readers to turn away from you.
Have fun with the thread, and share your thoughts. Many seem to agree with some of your points. Support diversity and camaraderie, that's all I ask for this forum which is provided free of charge. Enjoy the fact that millions of people read your words. If someone needs to be removed for disrupting our community, that's my place.
Just address the viewpoint, not the person who posted it. You'll do fine.
Best regards,
Kevin
admin@nudist-resorts.org
End of PM
[Added]
KM, you just mentioned a good point about profit for the government. At Haulover, where county revenue is considerable, a friendly ordinance may be more possible. The public has supported Haulover for long enough to show the county commissioners it is profitable for them, and they may then see their vested interest in ensuring the comfort of sunbathers. I doubt you can have friendly legislation before this occurs. |
| KM |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 8:17:19 PM
Okay, been busy. Now I'll respond.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
What do you propose to do? What steps are you taking to get this law written and get it passed?
I'm always happy to answer any questions -- in case you can't tell, this is something I've thought through. Ultimately I think it would come down to the same type of activism that gets nude beaches to come into existence in the first place. As I've noted before, every time a beach becomes a nude beach, the law has to be changed there too. By the way, and I swear to you this is true, last summer I even spoke about this with a park ranger at a very major nude beach. He said something like "maybe if more people complained...". I don't think he ever really finished the sentence, but the meaning was clear. And that's why I'm trying to raise awareness of this issue, and quite frankly, anger. We SHOULD be anger about this, especially if it eventually leads to the decline of nude beaches in the first place. And if younger people increasingly feel they aren't safe on a nude beach, that's likely to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
You've not addressed the enforcement issue, you've not addressed how this law/ordinance will be written, passed and...
you fail to realize that many, many, many of our nude beaches are NOT legal...so how do you propose to get politicians and lawmakers to write and vote in a ordinance/law for an illegal act?
No, I don't fail to realize that many of our nude beaches are not legal. I'm talking about the legal ones -- Gunnison (probably the most targeted), Haulover, etc. That would be a great first step. Then, for the unofficial beaches, you have to get them legalized -- something almost all naturists probably want anyway. This could be just one more incentive. But to me, these are really two separate (but important) battles. Enforcement? As I've said before, many items are already banned from a nude beach, or any other beach. Just add that to the list. Or, enforce it the same way you enforce sexual activity (either with one's self or others) on the beach. If the authorities see it happening, they can take the appropriate actions. As for the publication, that should be really easy. If they websites are caught publishing this kind of material, they'll have to pay the price. Same way you enforce a ban on any other kind of banned photography.
A few quick responses to the other posts.
Upskirt photography: Even if, well, certain parts (or items of clothing) of a woman are visible when she wears a skirt, they're not visible for the purpose of entertaining others. When someone is nude on a beach DESIGNATED FOR NUDITY, same thing. Of course, this is entirely different from someone nude while going "streaking" in the middle of town. But that's not what we're talking about here. That's why I think the designated-for-nudity thing is so crucial.
Obliging and closing the beach: I've gone over this before. In spite of what some people here think, I don't see any evidence that the general (non-nudist) public would be so outraged at the banning of photography on nude beach -- in fact, I bet they would make many people feel better about them, especially knowing that children are sometimes on these beaches. Also, for the official beaches we're talking about here, the nude beach, through parking fees, can be a source of profit for them. I don't see them as particularly eager to give that up.
Banning upskirt photography, etc. didn't help: Maybe there would be more of it if not for these laws? Plus, at least in these cases, the victim has legal recourse. Some of you say that we should deal with it on our own. But how does that work if this continues to be legal? You can say "stop photographing us!", and they'll say "it's perfectly legal." What's your comeback to that? If it's made illegal, you'll have something to threaten them with, and I'm not talking about vigilante justice.
Engaging everyone on the beach: A nice thought, natureboy1776, but I think a bit naive. These people are sick -- I would even say sociopathic. As long as what they're doing is legal, they'll do it, and they'll feel that the law perfectly justifies their actions -- that they have the high road in this issue. Also, quite frankly, friendliest people around aside, some people just want to keep to themselves and enjoy the beach alone. And understandably so.
Think that covers it. |
| natureboy1776 |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 2:17:42 PM
out of curiosity I googled the sites in question. It seems that there are just as many that feature the "up skirt" and "down blouse" as the nude beaches. So it seems that baning that sort voyeuristic photography didn't really help.
|
| Diger |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 11:57:48 AM
Sorry Fire,
I should have explained myself better, your post made perfect sense and I would be in favor of going after the voyeurs and the sites that enable the behaviour. However you know the government in the US they screw everything up except how to get in our pockets. (Off my Soap Box now) What I was getting at was if anything went wrong we could end up paying for it. Just like banning guns didn't stop the criminals from owning them, even cracking down on the gun sellers doesn’t stop them from buying on the black market. This sort of thing ends up hurting the law-abiding citizen.
Fire I hope you understand what I was talking about better now.
P.S. Good point natureboy
Diger |
| natureboy1776 |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 09:27:40 AM
May I suggest a simple, polite solution that does not require more laws, or vigilante behavior? Since nudists are the friendliest people around- Engage everyone around you on a nude beach with friendly conversation and invitation to any fun activities. I believe that would accomplish a few things. First it would further the friendly image. It would draw first timers in quickly. Most importantly, those that are there for covert reasons would likely be driven off simply by the attention. I'm sure there could be other benefits too.
I am very new to this culture but I fear that if the general public was asked to remove the perverts from a nude beach, They would gladly oblige and close the beach.
J |
| FireProf |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 11:19:19 PM
I'm obviously not explaining myself correctly or you are both reading into my post....so
...I'll just bow outta this thread altogher.
|
| Diger |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 6:44:29 PM
Laws can have good intentions but be abused like Nigel was talkig about. We enjoy taking photos to remember or trips and would never want that right taken away. It would be a major undertaking to shut down the voyeurs but maintain our rights too.
Diger |
| McNigel |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 6:07:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
You misread my post.
No, I understand your intention, but think that if a law like that was implemented it couldn't distinguish and would be a blunt instrument, prone to over enthusiastic enforcement.
|
| FireProf |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 5:30:34 PM
You misread my post.
Let me explain. I don't mean that the vast majority of naturist would like an ordinance/law against cameras, photographics taken on nude beaches....
The vast majority would be in favor of a law/ordinance that prohibits those "voyeur" type photos taken and posted on the internet of those unsuspecting nude beach goers.
Does that make more sense?
|
| McNigel |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 1:04:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
There is no doubt that the vast majority of naturists would be behind a ordinance/law prohibiting taking these types of pictures, as an invasion of privacy, and a law to prohibit them being put on the voyeur internet sites...or any site without their written permission.
I'm not sure that the vast majority of nudists would want photography on beaches made illegal. It would be a very difficult law to frame, without some very heavy handed restrictions.
A lot of the avatars here were obviously taken with cameras on beaches. On a full size version of mine, you can just about see a few people in the background. Exactly where would you draw the line?
In general I think it's fairly obvious when you are invading somebody's privacy. The sneaking cameras up women's skirts is an obvious example of an extreme case that isn't relevant to this discussion.
So standing on a beach we don't really feel that we can claim privacy and so we've never been that worried by people taking photographs. Not now, or thirty years ago in Greece. In the UK I don't think there would be any stigma in being recognised in a photograph, and I can't think that simple photos of naked people could be seen as pornography. People might well be curious to have a look, but that's about it.
However as I have said, taking candid photos of people is extremely bad manners. People caught should be made to feel ashamed, but I think the law should be kept out of it.
|
| FireProf |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 10:46:10 AM
I really hate to get back into this "discussion" but I have questions for KM...
What do you propose to do? What steps are you taking to get this law written and get it passed?
What steps are you or have you taken to prevent this from happening...currently and in the past?
There is no doubt that the vast majority of naturist do not want "voyuer" type pictures of themselves taken while they are enjoying the beach, club or resort.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of naturists would be behind a ordinance/law prohibiting taking these types of pictures, as an invasion of privacy, and a law to prohibit them being put on the voyeur internet sites...or any site without their written permission.
There is no doubt that everyone here has been in agreement, in general, with what you are concerned about but...
You've not addressed the enforcement issue, you've not addressed how this law/ordinance will be written, passed and...
you fail to realize that many, many, many of our nude beaches are NOT legal...so how do you propose to get politicians and lawmakers to write and vote in a ordinance/law for an illegal act?
Address the legal nude beaches, like Haulover in Miami, and if they can get a law passed to prohibit cameras on the beach....legally prohibit cameras on the beach...then you may have legal presidence to use that for our illegal but tolerated beaches...but....
What are you doing besides "arguing" here?
|
|
|
