| Author |
 Topic  |
|
StreakingSkater
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/14/2007 : 4:07:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nudeisntlewd
Disclaimer:
I know this isn’t going to be a popular statement. Buuuut, first let me say, I don’t approve of camera voyeurism, and I wouldn’t do it. Nor would I recommend doing it. People that do it are depraved and need to get a life.
That being said, I have to play the devil’s advocate. The fact is: In a public place, it isn’t illegal. In a public place such as a beach, taking photographs of anything or anyone is completely legal. Anything in a public place is in the public domain. Of course, that doesn’t apply to a private place such as a club.
It is, however, illegal to steal and/or destroy someone’s personal property. No excuses, period. If someone were to throw my phone, camera or Pepsi Cola into the ocean, I would injure him if I thought I could get away with it. (Also illegal.) Failing that, I would call the police to have the offender arrested for theft and vandalism. It follows that people wanting to take photos of unwilling subjects may end up with a fist in the face. If it were me, I would be worried that I might get beat up trying a stupid stunt like photographing unwilling subjects.
The reality is: whether or not we like it, we have to deal with it. I don’t know if there is a solution to the problem other than attending a private club, where they have the right to ban the practice and do so.
Randy 
Good points Randy.
Public beach is public domain, it is not illeagal to be photographed there. I really think the ball is in the court of those who chose to be naked in a public place. If you have a problem being photographed naked in public maybe you should not be naked in public.
I have been to Blacks, Halouver, Baker and San Onofre this summer, I have been photographed at all these beaches, most people ask me and I have no problem with it, others don't, It does not bother me, I am not ashamed of my body or being naked. Most of the people taking the pics on the sly are almost always guys, usually fully dressed overweight lurking types, whatever, If they are so lame that they get off taking pics of me, that is their problem, I am not gong to beat them up or destroy their camera, I usually laugh at them and they scurry away like roaches when the lights are turned on in a dark room.
At a private club it is totally different, the club sets the rules and those breaking them should be banned from it. If you are really picture shy, a private club is a better bet.
Beating people up for taking pics at a public beach really does not seem the way to go to me.
My 2 cents.
Cheers.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 66 |
 |
|
|
palmer
Forum Member
|
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 6:20:51 PM
|
This is in response to the previous 2 posters who had oppsing views on violence and fighting. I didn't quote the posts here because they are long enough and childish already.
A man punched my wife in the mouth but the blow did not leave a mark. The Police refused to make an arrest. 30 mins. later I fought the man and knocked 2 of his teeth out and split the side of his face open. His friends chased me into my apartment building and stayed in front of the main entrance until the Police arrived. Several tenants in the bldg. were aware of what had transpired and refused to let the Police in. The Police eventually left. It was suggested that I leave immediately. Police didn't have a name but they had a face. I could still be arrested if someone pointed me out to the cops.
2 years later I fought another man and left a dime size bruise underneath his eye. Police arrested me for 2nd degree assualt, a felony. I spent 3 days in jail in NY's painfully slow central booking and lost my job as a result. The man did not show up in court so the D.A. reduced the charges to a disorderly conduct violation. This violation would not give me a criminal record but it sure as hell stopped me from getting a new job. Employers in NY are allowed to deny employment to candidates with open cases.
It's been almost a year as of this writing and I still don't have a job. Imagine how worse off I would have been if I got caught for that first assualt! The life of a tough guy is not all it's cracked up to be.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 44 |
|
|
|
illusion
Forum Member
|
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 01:24:44 AM
|
The various opinions offered above make it clear that there is no one answer to this issue. It appears from what I have read that, and I am guessing, it depends upon the way each of us sees the situtation. My take is that some people feel threatened. While others do not. Or is threatened the wrong thing to say? Is embarrassed the right word? For my own understanding I am trying to figure this out.
I know that my wife is against nude recreation. And I would say she would feel threatened, not embarrassed by any unwanted attention of this nature. I could be wrong here and she might just feel embarrassed.
My point here is that when people feel threatened they tend to act. Sometimes in a manner which is not in their best intrest. At the same time to casually dismiss the situtation means not taking a potentional situtation seriously. Some people do not mind the spotlight. Others are more comfortable in the background. I think it is best to judge each situtation on its own. If it turns out that there is something to the problem, there will be a legal way to handle it. It may take time. If there is nothing to the problem, then maybe we could make a convert with information and invitation. Being aware of our surroundings, what is happening and who is there will keep our loved ones safe from physical harm and abuse. The rest is up to the choices we make and the example we set.
One last question. Would it not be prudent to note time, date, and Lisence plate number of anyone we belive is doing something harmful? Again if the person is there for some not so constructive purpose, would not that information be useful to the authorities?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 16 |
|
|
|
nomad6
Forum Member
|
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 09:07:31 AM
|
i really do have a problem with the camera phones. i have seen some on the co beaches taking photos and never taking their clothes off. To me this is kinda scary where are they going with that camera
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 39 |
|
|
|
Admin
Forum Admin
|
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 1:22:53 PM
|
Fair Warning!
I'll come back in a few days. If the insults are not removed from these posts, the posters will be removed from the forum.
Use the edit button  above each of your posts to edit your comments.
This is the last time I will remind you two. Personal insults and attacking the poster will not be allowed here. Some have demonstrated good ways to illustrate the issues without getting personal.
You guys are needed over at rec.nude, the unmoderated newsgroup. That place is well known for its insults, open hostility, and flame wars that never end.
I won't allow you to trash our forum with this.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1888 |
|
|
|
prism2525
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 07:16:11 AM
|
Sorry about not reading all posts but here's my opinion:
You can always buy a no-camera phone for when you go out as they're cheap as dirt. If you can't find one check e-bay or some other site, you'll find one eventually. Even if it isn't in top shape it still is useful to send/recieve SMS and calls (Be sure you have all your numbers on both phones lol).
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
now wait a second.... :D
|
|
Country: Malta
| Posts: 102 |
|
|
|
Eleanor
New Member
|
Posted - 04/26/2008 : 04:23:47 AM
|
Any photography on a nude beach by someone you don't know is horrible, you just don't know why they are taking a pic of you and what they might be doing with the photograph afterwards, I have been down to the nudest beach in Brighton down south east England and it makes me so angry there are people with cameras who are not nudists themselves, I feel like grabbing their cameras and throwing them in the sea.
Shy Nudist
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 4 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 05:19:46 AM
|
Are nudists some sort of primitive tribe, that believe a photograph will steal their soul?
What is the problem? We really don't care.
My wife and I are 'middle aged, but well maintained' and take it as a bit of a compliment.
As to what happens to the pictures. Mostly they are just other nudists taking holiday snaps, which seems to be seen as perfectly acceptable in Spain.
|
Edited by - McNigel on 05/08/2008 4:43:41 PM |
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
HappyDaz
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 08:02:41 AM
|
McNigel, I don't think anyone believes that a picture will steal their soul. I think I speak for most nudists when I say that we don't want people we don't know capturing nude images of us. As Eleanor has pointed out, once someone has take your picture nude, there's no telling where that picture will end up or for what purpose it will be used. No one had the right to take pictures of others at a nudist venue without their consent.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 69 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 2:41:55 PM
|
I would like to pointed out that this thread was started discussing PUBLIC beaches and lands. I would also like to point out that it isn't the person with hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of camera/video equipment that one needs to be "feared" nor is it the person with a cell phone camera, nor is it the person in the trees/dunes that again one needs to "fear." It is the person who has a camera that's hidden in their hat, boombox, book, etc. that one needs to be "afraid" of.
Also stop and consider this, when you go to the bank, mall, grocery store, police station, courthouse, etc. you're on several video/CCTV/security cameras. Also stop and consider that there's pleanty of evidence that suggests that ATM cameras are constantly "rolling" as it were. Also more and more intersections, and toll booth "malls" have cameras that record cars as they pass through. Also apartment buildings/complexes as well as condo buildings/complexes have security cameras "everywhere." Also a LOT of private homes have security cameras mounted outside. As a matter of fact here in the Tampa Bay area a private security camera outside of a private home helped provide evidence to arrest a young lady who hit a "friend" with her car.
The ONLY way to guarantee that you are not photograhed is to build a compound with 10' or taller walls and NEVER leave it's security.
Live Long and Prosper
Herman
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 4:56:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by HappyDaz
McNigel, I don't think anyone believes that a picture will steal their soul. I think I speak for most nudists when I say that we don't want people we don't know capturing nude images of us. As Eleanor has pointed out, once someone has take your picture nude, there's no telling where that picture will end up or for what purpose it will be used.
(The sole stealing was a joke. And a spelling mistake)
The serious point is that if you are a nudist and think that public nudity is perfectly natural, then it shouldn't make any difference to you if you are photographed clothed or naked.
Also what are these evil uses that the pictures will be put to? If they are published anywhere they are only a record of an actual event, you are not being misrepresented.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 5:25:06 PM
|
Cell phone cameras do not bother me. As someone else already said, they take very poor photos. It's the regular cameras that I turn my face from. I have a business that might be effected if customers knew. I spend much of my time in their home during the day. Many times the husband is gone to work. Today's society still typically looks at the nudist as sexually aggressive. Not a good combination for me, as I live less than 50 miles from the nude beaches I visit. So, when cell phone cameras get better, I'll just turn my face while they're clicking. If they like my body THAT much, I feel priviledged, at MY age. 
Hiking the Cascades "naturally"!
|
Edited by - n/a on 05/08/2008 5:27:30 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 65 |
|
|
|
prism2525
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 6:51:34 PM
|
McNigel, the problem is not that nudism is not natural (it perfectly is) but what's on the photographer's mind is. If he's just collecting snaps to make a naturist beach album I believe it's fine, but if he's a pervert and wants to make erotic scenes out of them (editing perhaps) I surely don't want to end up on such photos.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
oh, wait.... 
|
|
Country: Malta
| Posts: 102 |
|
|
|
HappyDaz
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2008 : 08:01:02 AM
|
McNigel, I knew you were kidding, I went with the joke. Being nude is natural, I think we all agree on that. But to the point that Northwest and prism2525 have made, there are people who have very good reasons to not want nude images of themselves floating around. I'm not one of these people that sees the bad in everything but I believe it's a violation of someone's privacy to take their picture in the nude without their consent. Just my two cents.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 69 |
|
|
|
Jim in Boston
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/16/2008 : 10:38:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
To all of you who seem to advocate throwing the cell phone/camera/person into the water. Need to listen to what I believe it was Randy who said that it is THEY (the throwers) who could/would end up in trouble, particularly IF you are in a public place.
Why do you think that the poparatze(sp) can legally ply their trade? Or that the vast majority of businesses can have so many security cameras in place. It's because when your out in public you have no expectation of privacy.
Also stop and think about this for a second, IF as we keep saying, that we have nothing to hide when nude. Why make a big fuss about a cell phone/camera? By making a Big deal" out of cameras/cell phones "we" are encouraging them to try and "get away with it."
Also stop and consider the following:
1) IF you and/or your children were at the local textile park/pool/mall you wouldn't be upset about someone snapping some pictures, right? So why be upset if it happens in a nudist/clothing optional environment? Especially IF you have nothing to hide?
2) Let's also not forget that not all pedophiles get off on the same sort of pictures. Whereas one gets off on nude pictures of children, another does with children in swim suits, and another of them in underwear.
Consider this, we cannot control the thoughts/actions of others, so why assume that they're up to no good? Why not instead assume that they're curious about the lifestyle but are unsure of how to approach the participants. Or assume instead that they're either reporters, or are artists? Now granted it's unlikely that a reporter or artist is likely to use a cell phone to take pictures, but sometimes that may be the only option open to them. Also a good photographer knowing the limitations of his/her equipment can take striking photographs with any cameras. It's just that "newer" cameras will make it easier to do. And of course the reverse is also true i.e. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to take crappy/poor quality pictures no matter what they're using.
The bottom line is that the bigger a deal you make of it, the more they're going to want to do it. IF they are doing nothing more then taking pictures ignore them as you would in any other environment. Also just because someone is doing something you don't like/approve of does NOT give you the right to break the law to stop them. Not too mention the negative image that doing so will leave non-nudists with OF nudists. IF we're to be accepted then we have to work within the law, and NOT act like a bunch of vigilantes, this isn't "the old west" where arguments were settled with either fists or gun play.
Herman
Paparrazzi get away with what they do because they run in packs. Caught in the open they can't invade people's privacy. Now: take the position of a club operator. Some of the clients are in jobs like public school teachers. They are not doing anything wrong but could lose their jobs were their pictures to show up on the web. The risk is about zero, of course, since the pervs (would be paparrazzi) won't admit where they were taking pix, but if you are going to run a nudist resort you want to protect your clients, so you will do what you can to make sure their pictures are not taken. It is not difficult to understand the legalistic arguments here, but you apologists for the pervs can go and make the argument to Victor.
jameslkirtleyjr
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 79 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
How to deal with camera phones on nude beaches ?
