When you have little or no way to determine if what you're seeing is real or not, what does "visibility" even mean? If real images of real bodies are flattened into the same noise as generated images of generated bodies, can those images - or any images - still contain any meaning? I don't think AI images will convey or not convey consent, authenticity, and trust, I'm more afraid that AI images will create a world were consent, authenticity, and trust simply are concepts that cannot be applied to anything seen online.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the image and the composition. If the normal mix of body types that would be seen in naturist settings are used rather than the more “pleasing to the eye” types which often border on pornographic, then it could be a useful substitute while maintaining anonymity.
In an ideal world, it wouldn't make any difference; in our world, it seems excessively stupid.
I'm already a convert; I don't need images, and when words are more authentic, I prefer them. We do have a similar problem with AI generated text. I see a fair amount of it, some of it with a 'naturist' bent. What is real/natural/naturist about AI text?
I think it's really the same as asking "Do AI images of human rights protesters have a place in the fight against injustice?" The HUMANITY of the subjects of these images IS the content. If you strip that away you are left with something meaningless. We're in a struggle against propaganda about our bodies. Our (real, imperfect) bodies are the means of our resistance.
What’s the purpose of naturist photos? To provide enjoyable viewing material, or to encourage people to participate in naturist events? I don’t think it makes sense to use fake people to entice real people to do something in real life. I also think that any Ai naturist photos will have the same flaws that the advertising and beauty industries features in their models: none! Unrealistic, hairless bodies with taut, unblemished skin do not accurately represent the naturist movement, nor humanity in general.
I think if one wants to share photos of a naturist event, but doesn’t want to show naked bodies explcitly, one should rethink WHY they want to share such photos. A good experience can be conveyed with smiling faces and above-the-bust photos. Dicks and boobs (organic or otherwise) should not be the motivation for viewing a naturist ad or joining a naturist event, at least not the target audience we want.
I post my (censored) full-body naturist nudes in social media "to encourage people to participate in naturist events" such as, for example, nude hikes all #NakedInNature.
...and it works too! I lost count, years ago, of how many followers/fans that have told me that they get inspired by my nude adventures and wanna start doing the same, or at least say they would like to do it (but haven't got the nerves to do it)...!
In my opinion, this is not a good move forward in naturism as AI imagery will never represent actual naturism as it is intended. More salacious images of beautiful bodies that (yes, there are beautiful naturists) doesn't reflect a true a more diverse body types.
I voted no to AI. We all have a body, we don't need images to remind ourselves of that. Nudism/naturism was always about confronting social restrictions on the ownership of our bodies. Today, more than at any time during my lifetime, those restrictions are tightening, but always with weasel-worded excuses. Sharing social interaction without clothes is a personal choice and it is governed by the boundaries we agree jointly with those we socialise with. We need to address and publicise the philosophy of choosing boundaries as an expression of body freedom. I would now argue that we use as few visual images as possible, preferably none, but ABSOLUTELY NONE that are AI created or enhanced - that would be a betrayal of the purpose of nudism/naturism...
Say no to AI. Generative AI is horrible for a lot of reasons and AI will not do anything to help naturist visibility. When it comes to AI there is no consent anyway. AI can't generate anything new so if it generates a nude image it would be of a real person or atleast contain the likeness of a real person and I'm willing to bet that individual more than likely did not consent. AI very recently has come under very justified scrutiny for being used to generate nude and pornographic images of people (including children) without their consent. AI needs to be kept far away from naturism.
I don't think we're asking the entire question here.
AI imagery is, itself, built on a lie. On theft and non-consent and destruction of resources. It relies on data center that pollute and use more energy than small countries. It is, at its core, the antithesis of EVERYTHING naturism stands for.
So to me it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if it helps naturist visibility. If we use it we become inherently against the very thing we supposedly stand for. It's a case of attempting to take an easy way out against an oppressive culture, only to find that we're just supporting that culture anyway.
So no. Naturists should be absolutely against any use of AI imagery. Period. I shall continue to block and purge and ignore anyone I see using it and call it out to my followers.
I hope we can all resist AI as much as possible. The graphics that INF has been using in their social media do a great job of presenting diversity while skirting the need for brave souls to consent to photo use, and I like them all the more precisely because they are not AI - at least I hope I understood correctly that they are not, that they are made by an artist paid for their individual work.
I appreciate Evan raising this and the thoughtful responses. One thing cuts across the AI debate: regardless of whether we use candid photos, paid models, illustrations, or AI, we must ensure imagery reflects naturist ideals rather than body ideals.
Someone paralyzed by body shame needs to see bodies like theirs—not perfected versions. They need social normalcy, not aesthetic performance. This matters whether we’re curating candid photos or commissioning illustrated work.
I understand concerns about AI consent and environmental issues. But maybe it’s not choosing one approach—it’s being clear about purpose and ensuring any imagery embodies our values: diverse, non-idealized, social rather than sexual.
Any art can influence society whether landscape, plants, animals or human with or without clothing. AI imagery might try to look like live photography, although often too perfect. I would miss real people enjoying naked activity even if imperfect. That is what originally attracted me to naturism.
In social media (at least in Meta apps) nowadays you need to tell if/when an image is made by AI, i.e. it's a fake picture or "art" if you like...
Does that mean that you can post an uncensored AI generated naturist nude image, marked as AI and get away with it and not having it removed for any "sexual" reason (they otherwise makes it up to be) - as it's not a real person...?
I think increasing visibility requires telling stories about naturism, it's goals and it's ideals. For these stories, you need to show the real people behind them.
AI generated images have no story attached to them, and are therefore meaningless in most contexts.
When you have little or no way to determine if what you're seeing is real or not, what does "visibility" even mean? If real images of real bodies are flattened into the same noise as generated images of generated bodies, can those images - or any images - still contain any meaning? I don't think AI images will convey or not convey consent, authenticity, and trust, I'm more afraid that AI images will create a world were consent, authenticity, and trust simply are concepts that cannot be applied to anything seen online.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the image and the composition. If the normal mix of body types that would be seen in naturist settings are used rather than the more “pleasing to the eye” types which often border on pornographic, then it could be a useful substitute while maintaining anonymity.
In an ideal world, it wouldn't make any difference; in our world, it seems excessively stupid.
I'm already a convert; I don't need images, and when words are more authentic, I prefer them. We do have a similar problem with AI generated text. I see a fair amount of it, some of it with a 'naturist' bent. What is real/natural/naturist about AI text?
Just say no to AI. Keep it real.
I think it's really the same as asking "Do AI images of human rights protesters have a place in the fight against injustice?" The HUMANITY of the subjects of these images IS the content. If you strip that away you are left with something meaningless. We're in a struggle against propaganda about our bodies. Our (real, imperfect) bodies are the means of our resistance.
What’s the purpose of naturist photos? To provide enjoyable viewing material, or to encourage people to participate in naturist events? I don’t think it makes sense to use fake people to entice real people to do something in real life. I also think that any Ai naturist photos will have the same flaws that the advertising and beauty industries features in their models: none! Unrealistic, hairless bodies with taut, unblemished skin do not accurately represent the naturist movement, nor humanity in general.
I think if one wants to share photos of a naturist event, but doesn’t want to show naked bodies explcitly, one should rethink WHY they want to share such photos. A good experience can be conveyed with smiling faces and above-the-bust photos. Dicks and boobs (organic or otherwise) should not be the motivation for viewing a naturist ad or joining a naturist event, at least not the target audience we want.
I post my (censored) full-body naturist nudes in social media "to encourage people to participate in naturist events" such as, for example, nude hikes all #NakedInNature.
...and it works too! I lost count, years ago, of how many followers/fans that have told me that they get inspired by my nude adventures and wanna start doing the same, or at least say they would like to do it (but haven't got the nerves to do it)...!
So, that's my purpose of my naturist photos. 🌞🌞🌞
In my opinion, this is not a good move forward in naturism as AI imagery will never represent actual naturism as it is intended. More salacious images of beautiful bodies that (yes, there are beautiful naturists) doesn't reflect a true a more diverse body types.
I voted no to AI. We all have a body, we don't need images to remind ourselves of that. Nudism/naturism was always about confronting social restrictions on the ownership of our bodies. Today, more than at any time during my lifetime, those restrictions are tightening, but always with weasel-worded excuses. Sharing social interaction without clothes is a personal choice and it is governed by the boundaries we agree jointly with those we socialise with. We need to address and publicise the philosophy of choosing boundaries as an expression of body freedom. I would now argue that we use as few visual images as possible, preferably none, but ABSOLUTELY NONE that are AI created or enhanced - that would be a betrayal of the purpose of nudism/naturism...
Say no to AI. Generative AI is horrible for a lot of reasons and AI will not do anything to help naturist visibility. When it comes to AI there is no consent anyway. AI can't generate anything new so if it generates a nude image it would be of a real person or atleast contain the likeness of a real person and I'm willing to bet that individual more than likely did not consent. AI very recently has come under very justified scrutiny for being used to generate nude and pornographic images of people (including children) without their consent. AI needs to be kept far away from naturism.
I don't think we're asking the entire question here.
AI imagery is, itself, built on a lie. On theft and non-consent and destruction of resources. It relies on data center that pollute and use more energy than small countries. It is, at its core, the antithesis of EVERYTHING naturism stands for.
So to me it doesn't make any difference whatsoever if it helps naturist visibility. If we use it we become inherently against the very thing we supposedly stand for. It's a case of attempting to take an easy way out against an oppressive culture, only to find that we're just supporting that culture anyway.
So no. Naturists should be absolutely against any use of AI imagery. Period. I shall continue to block and purge and ignore anyone I see using it and call it out to my followers.
I hope we can all resist AI as much as possible. The graphics that INF has been using in their social media do a great job of presenting diversity while skirting the need for brave souls to consent to photo use, and I like them all the more precisely because they are not AI - at least I hope I understood correctly that they are not, that they are made by an artist paid for their individual work.
I don’t like ai imagery of any kind and it needs regulation (look what grok was doing).
I appreciate Evan raising this and the thoughtful responses. One thing cuts across the AI debate: regardless of whether we use candid photos, paid models, illustrations, or AI, we must ensure imagery reflects naturist ideals rather than body ideals.
Someone paralyzed by body shame needs to see bodies like theirs—not perfected versions. They need social normalcy, not aesthetic performance. This matters whether we’re curating candid photos or commissioning illustrated work.
I understand concerns about AI consent and environmental issues. But maybe it’s not choosing one approach—it’s being clear about purpose and ensuring any imagery embodies our values: diverse, non-idealized, social rather than sexual.
Any art can influence society whether landscape, plants, animals or human with or without clothing. AI imagery might try to look like live photography, although often too perfect. I would miss real people enjoying naked activity even if imperfect. That is what originally attracted me to naturism.
A thought...
In social media (at least in Meta apps) nowadays you need to tell if/when an image is made by AI, i.e. it's a fake picture or "art" if you like...
Does that mean that you can post an uncensored AI generated naturist nude image, marked as AI and get away with it and not having it removed for any "sexual" reason (they otherwise makes it up to be) - as it's not a real person...?
I don't think it helps at all.
I think increasing visibility requires telling stories about naturism, it's goals and it's ideals. For these stories, you need to show the real people behind them.
AI generated images have no story attached to them, and are therefore meaningless in most contexts.