The sad reality is that even on Facebook market you can accidentally find yourself viewing soft porn by clicking on an innocent ad. I find this to be a detriment to the positive aspects of wholesome nudism. Why is it that social media such as Facebook allows these baited ads to go unchecked, yet condemns the healthy body image that true nudism is all about?
I think it depends entirely on how you do it. If you want to be an activist for social nudity then you need to be sure to remove all possibility of being seen as trying to be sexual in any way by a reasonable person. Seeing that type of photo ages ago is what got me to better understand the conventions of nudism and how it could be done.
Posting normal life depicting nude humans can help dispel the misunderstanding that all social nudity is sexually contrived. The more instances of public interacting with nonsexual nudity helps normalize the naturist concept.
It's all about the content and context of how it is delivered. The United States is very conservative leaning when it comes to the issue of nudism/naturism due in large part by the linking of nudity with sex. Unfortunately the nudist/naturist community tends to attract some who cannot or who do not want to make the distinction between the two things. Plus there are concerns (legitimately so) about individuals using images of minors in an undressed state for purposes of child exploitation.
It is because of this, the nanny-like state occurrs with legislation that treats nudist/naturist behaviors/groups/actions with the same as they do some sex offenders or adult themed businesses.
As so many social media sites are censored, posting nudes on them only leads to deletion of the pictures or banning of the poster, neither is publicised so I don’t think can qualify as activism - unseen = inactive. Posting on sites where pictures aren’t removed is publicising, perhaps, but mostly it’s preaching to the converted or at least the tolerant, so is not really activism.
As sculptor who often focuses on nudes as a subject matter, I have to deal with censorship and bias all the time. However, it never stops me from still posting my work. When it comes to posting nudes as activism, I would say it depends on the situation. If changing unfair and tyrannical policies that stop me from expressing myself, when others are freely allowed to express theirs, then yes I think it can be a form of active activism. However, when doing activism for this particularly, you have to be darn sure your activism is for the right reasons and not for your own personal fulfillment and pleasure. Posting nudes that are designed to be sexually suggestive, I don’t think count. When it comes to drawing the line between nude art and pornography, it’s all about the intentions and the desired impact of the image. Pornography’s intention is to bring about sexual feelings, desires, and arousal in its impact on the veiwer. There does even have to be nudity in the image to bring about these feelings. So technically any image can be a form of pornography. Nude art on the other hand uses the nude form or image to appeal to other feelings not related to sex with the intention of changing perspectives. If anyone has seen the nude statue of liberty I made, the intention behind that is to appeal to the viewer’s sense of freedom and liberation. The reason she’s nude is because nudity from a certain perspective can be seen as a way of expressing freedom and liberation. The fact that we are living in a time where freedom is being crushed, makes the statue a form of activism. She’s in the same pose as the original statue, but if I had made her legs spread show off her vulva, that would have been trying to illicit sexual feelings and would therefore be pornography.
Is an incidentally visible vulva any different than a penis, it's like the topless issues some people obsess over because they themselves would make the ladies reproductive parts sexual targets?
If a website (like Facebook) doesn't allow nudity, a post including nudity will be removed quickly; so if such a thing is posted as a statement, it won't have much impact. On the other hand, if a site does allow nudity, such a post does not make much of a statement. I'm not sure if there's much of a gray area in between. Starting or publicizing a site that welcomes non-sexual nude photos seems a better statement to me.
Facebook doesn't allow female nipples, men's or females sex organs, or anyone's asshole. Bare buttocks are allowed if the asshole doesn't show. Frontal nudity is deleted.
You ask can 'sharing nudes ... truly challenge censorship and bias' and the answer must be yes or else governments and businesses and prudes would not invest so much time, effort and money in trying to suppress it. Pornography, like prostitution, is a market, existing because people are willing to pay to participate in something that fundamentalists and moralists say is bad for them. People are not stupid, they are paying to service a physiological need that if it is not serviced will be bad for them. The ethics of those markets are another matter - but the driver is sex. Nudism/naturism exists to provide a consensual and boundaried space in which one naked person allows itself to be seen by another naked person. The transaction is not marketable because the viewing-showing is both consensual and boundaried. That is a simple revolutionary act. Showing a naked image of oneself on a general access platform like Substack and other social media is both revolutionary and courageous. We should publicly shame and vilify any person or organisation that would restrict that freedom - the critical point being the viewer is not forced to look, it has the freewill to click/look away. If such a person is genuinely upset by nakedness, a condition we all ultimately share, then their psychological stability is in doubt.
Yes but I also think their is bias when it comes to posing nude whether your male, female, trans, nonbinary or intersex/DSD. When women pose nude, they get all the likes, comments and feedback. As oppose to men, trans nonbinary and intersex/DSD folks who pose nude, get nothing and get treated as if they are a freak, fetish or a kink
My wife was shooting some nudes of me today indoors with Christmas things. She had to keep bugging me about body posture and facial expression, preferably a welcoming smile.
Unpopular opinion: it depends what kind of nudes you are sharing. Classy pictures of nude couples or frontal pictures of single dudes? I am all for advertising and normalizing nudism, but aesthetic beauty matters a lot.
Sex sells. That's why I think so my social media ads gravitate toward pornagraphic themes. Yes, sharing nudes, especially in a non sexual family environment. Educatating the public on what non judgemental body freedom is all about, especially healthwise. As I said in a previous post, it's
"Stength in Numbers" that will truly challenge censorship and bias. Let's look at those antiquated laws and nudism history such as how Germany and Scandinavian countries handle it.
Nudity is feared by clothists because they almost never see nudity outside of their bedroom or on porn sites. It's easy for them to equate nudity with sex because they never see an actual person anywhere else. The cure for that is for nudists to be seen, and to be seen, and to be seen so often that seeing nude people becomes unremarkable. We have to be "out" there, and push the envelope. When we can't safely be seen in public by clothists, we can be seen on-line in social forums frequented by clothists. We can be seen doing a full range of normal human activity without clothing. If we ever want nudity to be generally accepted it has to become common.
I post naked selfies and other non-sexual images on social media every day. I post often on X and Quora. I post sometimes on Facebook (with their required censorship blurring). I post naked on Flickr, Instagram, MeWe, and other sites too.
Nudity is educational for children and positive for adults. Making nudity common enough to be generally accepted is up to US. In addition to getting out and being seen often, we also need to be pro-active in political activism. World Naked Bike Ride is one step, and more is needed in more places.
We need to support Nudist Organizations that promote legalizing nudity in daily life, not those orgs that restrict nudity to hidden "pay-for-play" resort vacations from our daily lives.
Here's maybe a provocation for the next thread: does a nude need to be visual or does prose also count? When I see substituted words/emojis like "corn" 🌽 or "grape" 🍇 and others, it makes me wonder. I know that people are doing this on social media because the post may be censored and most likely be depressed. But the. It makes me wonder what is nude when it comes to language? If I honestly write about my body using anatomic words instead of euphomisms, is it more naked to do so?
And if it does make a difference, then is there an equivalent visually and what is that equivalent? Or if there isn't, then why not?
The sad reality is that even on Facebook market you can accidentally find yourself viewing soft porn by clicking on an innocent ad. I find this to be a detriment to the positive aspects of wholesome nudism. Why is it that social media such as Facebook allows these baited ads to go unchecked, yet condemns the healthy body image that true nudism is all about?
MONEY. FB allows anything that PAYS them.
I think it depends entirely on how you do it. If you want to be an activist for social nudity then you need to be sure to remove all possibility of being seen as trying to be sexual in any way by a reasonable person. Seeing that type of photo ages ago is what got me to better understand the conventions of nudism and how it could be done.
Posting normal life depicting nude humans can help dispel the misunderstanding that all social nudity is sexually contrived. The more instances of public interacting with nonsexual nudity helps normalize the naturist concept.
It's all about the content and context of how it is delivered. The United States is very conservative leaning when it comes to the issue of nudism/naturism due in large part by the linking of nudity with sex. Unfortunately the nudist/naturist community tends to attract some who cannot or who do not want to make the distinction between the two things. Plus there are concerns (legitimately so) about individuals using images of minors in an undressed state for purposes of child exploitation.
It is because of this, the nanny-like state occurrs with legislation that treats nudist/naturist behaviors/groups/actions with the same as they do some sex offenders or adult themed businesses.
As so many social media sites are censored, posting nudes on them only leads to deletion of the pictures or banning of the poster, neither is publicised so I don’t think can qualify as activism - unseen = inactive. Posting on sites where pictures aren’t removed is publicising, perhaps, but mostly it’s preaching to the converted or at least the tolerant, so is not really activism.
somebody said that all publicity is good publicity. In that striect sense nudity is good publicity.
I think it is important that nude images are kept separate from porn. Otherwise, nudity will be seen to be part of porn.
Many people subscribe to "porn" because they are starved for images of their own species.
I don't see why so many are so afraid to accept natural body feelings and emotions. That seems the opposite of "body acceptance" to me.
As sculptor who often focuses on nudes as a subject matter, I have to deal with censorship and bias all the time. However, it never stops me from still posting my work. When it comes to posting nudes as activism, I would say it depends on the situation. If changing unfair and tyrannical policies that stop me from expressing myself, when others are freely allowed to express theirs, then yes I think it can be a form of active activism. However, when doing activism for this particularly, you have to be darn sure your activism is for the right reasons and not for your own personal fulfillment and pleasure. Posting nudes that are designed to be sexually suggestive, I don’t think count. When it comes to drawing the line between nude art and pornography, it’s all about the intentions and the desired impact of the image. Pornography’s intention is to bring about sexual feelings, desires, and arousal in its impact on the veiwer. There does even have to be nudity in the image to bring about these feelings. So technically any image can be a form of pornography. Nude art on the other hand uses the nude form or image to appeal to other feelings not related to sex with the intention of changing perspectives. If anyone has seen the nude statue of liberty I made, the intention behind that is to appeal to the viewer’s sense of freedom and liberation. The reason she’s nude is because nudity from a certain perspective can be seen as a way of expressing freedom and liberation. The fact that we are living in a time where freedom is being crushed, makes the statue a form of activism. She’s in the same pose as the original statue, but if I had made her legs spread show off her vulva, that would have been trying to illicit sexual feelings and would therefore be pornography.
Is an incidentally visible vulva any different than a penis, it's like the topless issues some people obsess over because they themselves would make the ladies reproductive parts sexual targets?
Ah, the good, the bad and the ugly (intentions).
As per usual, the good suffer for the bad and the ugly.
If a website (like Facebook) doesn't allow nudity, a post including nudity will be removed quickly; so if such a thing is posted as a statement, it won't have much impact. On the other hand, if a site does allow nudity, such a post does not make much of a statement. I'm not sure if there's much of a gray area in between. Starting or publicizing a site that welcomes non-sexual nude photos seems a better statement to me.
Facebook doesn't allow female nipples, men's or females sex organs, or anyone's asshole. Bare buttocks are allowed if the asshole doesn't show. Frontal nudity is deleted.
Don't bend over gardening and pulling weeds, use those tools with long handles!
You ask can 'sharing nudes ... truly challenge censorship and bias' and the answer must be yes or else governments and businesses and prudes would not invest so much time, effort and money in trying to suppress it. Pornography, like prostitution, is a market, existing because people are willing to pay to participate in something that fundamentalists and moralists say is bad for them. People are not stupid, they are paying to service a physiological need that if it is not serviced will be bad for them. The ethics of those markets are another matter - but the driver is sex. Nudism/naturism exists to provide a consensual and boundaried space in which one naked person allows itself to be seen by another naked person. The transaction is not marketable because the viewing-showing is both consensual and boundaried. That is a simple revolutionary act. Showing a naked image of oneself on a general access platform like Substack and other social media is both revolutionary and courageous. We should publicly shame and vilify any person or organisation that would restrict that freedom - the critical point being the viewer is not forced to look, it has the freewill to click/look away. If such a person is genuinely upset by nakedness, a condition we all ultimately share, then their psychological stability is in doubt.
Yes but I also think their is bias when it comes to posing nude whether your male, female, trans, nonbinary or intersex/DSD. When women pose nude, they get all the likes, comments and feedback. As oppose to men, trans nonbinary and intersex/DSD folks who pose nude, get nothing and get treated as if they are a freak, fetish or a kink
My wife was shooting some nudes of me today indoors with Christmas things. She had to keep bugging me about body posture and facial expression, preferably a welcoming smile.
Unpopular opinion: it depends what kind of nudes you are sharing. Classy pictures of nude couples or frontal pictures of single dudes? I am all for advertising and normalizing nudism, but aesthetic beauty matters a lot.
Sex sells. That's why I think so my social media ads gravitate toward pornagraphic themes. Yes, sharing nudes, especially in a non sexual family environment. Educatating the public on what non judgemental body freedom is all about, especially healthwise. As I said in a previous post, it's
"Stength in Numbers" that will truly challenge censorship and bias. Let's look at those antiquated laws and nudism history such as how Germany and Scandinavian countries handle it.
Nudity is feared by clothists because they almost never see nudity outside of their bedroom or on porn sites. It's easy for them to equate nudity with sex because they never see an actual person anywhere else. The cure for that is for nudists to be seen, and to be seen, and to be seen so often that seeing nude people becomes unremarkable. We have to be "out" there, and push the envelope. When we can't safely be seen in public by clothists, we can be seen on-line in social forums frequented by clothists. We can be seen doing a full range of normal human activity without clothing. If we ever want nudity to be generally accepted it has to become common.
I post naked selfies and other non-sexual images on social media every day. I post often on X and Quora. I post sometimes on Facebook (with their required censorship blurring). I post naked on Flickr, Instagram, MeWe, and other sites too.
Nudity is educational for children and positive for adults. Making nudity common enough to be generally accepted is up to US. In addition to getting out and being seen often, we also need to be pro-active in political activism. World Naked Bike Ride is one step, and more is needed in more places.
We need to support Nudist Organizations that promote legalizing nudity in daily life, not those orgs that restrict nudity to hidden "pay-for-play" resort vacations from our daily lives.
Here's maybe a provocation for the next thread: does a nude need to be visual or does prose also count? When I see substituted words/emojis like "corn" 🌽 or "grape" 🍇 and others, it makes me wonder. I know that people are doing this on social media because the post may be censored and most likely be depressed. But the. It makes me wonder what is nude when it comes to language? If I honestly write about my body using anatomic words instead of euphomisms, is it more naked to do so?
And if it does make a difference, then is there an equivalent visually and what is that equivalent? Or if there isn't, then why not?
I'm just staying in the question right now.