Thank you for tuning in every month! I’m sure I probably missed a couple still, but I agree it is an interesting study to see what the trends are every month, and how they evolve throughout the year. So much of it can be attributed more to media trends than nudist trends, I believe, but hey that’s interesting too.
Volume 2 for 2nd year. Very easy way to organize history as well as references to something written previously without additional math skills required.
I almost always did, until menopause hit. Then the night hot flashes meant I wore a t-shirt to change once it became sweat-soaked, instead of having to wake all the way and change the bedding. Nude is preferable of course.
After reading these synopses, I came away disheartened but not surprised. I appreciate your matter-of-fact tone, Evan, but most of these portend negative outcomes for nudism. The cancellation of the Channel 4 show does indeed mean less non-sexual nudity in the mainstream, which supports the textile status quo. I was significantly more concerned, though, about the Antiques Roadshow controversy, especially since it was the BBC version. Sadly, it would’ve been completely predictable if some U.S. viewers objected to a nude art piece, given our ingrained societal fear of the body. But for Brits to do so, when their public nudity laws are more rational (albeit not uniformly popular), indicates that the relative maturity of a country offers no presumptive guarantee of body acceptance. Finally, of course, the attacks against the Kinsey Institute hardly count as news anymore in the U.S. Indiana might as well be Florida given the heavy-handed tactics used, specifically, a legal ban on state funding of an educational institution because certain non-academics are uncomfortable with the human body or pretend to be for political gain. I hope these and similar stories simply reflect normal vicissitudes, that the pendulum is currently, but only temporarily, visiting the overly modest end of its path.
To speak on the Nirvana issue, I feel this is more a product of a litigious society more than any true attack on child nudity in media. The subject in question was recorded as being perfectly fine with it for years until a few lawyers convinced him they could make him a shit tonne of money... But yes, that aspect does indeed make it dangerous to use such imagery, especially if you're well known and well off.
This is why my own works don't reflect identity. It's simply better to err on the side of caution these days, where greed and hate and anger have begun to take over on a grand scale
Unless the lawsuit specifically alleges "child pornography," then the AOL headline is disingenuous click-bait. If the lawsuit does allege child porn, then it brings to mind the US government's attempt to prosecute Jock Sturges in the 1980's. That case was dropped when a federal grand jury declined to indict Sturges, in large part because no one in the artistic community backed the government's allegation that his work was pornographic. As far as being harmed, my understanding is that the plaintiff's parents signed a photographer's release. If that is not deemed to be sufficient, then that means no more child models of any kind, since no one under age 21 can sign a binding contract. I can't see a judge letting that happen, so I just don't see the path for this lawsuit to succeed. For the Appeals Court to allow it to be tried on the merits is one thing, but, and I'm not a lawyer, I don't see how it succeeds on the merits.
Thanks for bringing the latest installment together. Always interesting to see what’s out there, what I might have missed, and look for any trends.
Thank you for tuning in every month! I’m sure I probably missed a couple still, but I agree it is an interesting study to see what the trends are every month, and how they evolve throughout the year. So much of it can be attributed more to media trends than nudist trends, I believe, but hey that’s interesting too.
Volume 2 for 2nd year. Very easy way to organize history as well as references to something written previously without additional math skills required.
Great point!
Re: the sleeping in the nude poll.
I almost always did, until menopause hit. Then the night hot flashes meant I wore a t-shirt to change once it became sweat-soaked, instead of having to wake all the way and change the bedding. Nude is preferable of course.
After reading these synopses, I came away disheartened but not surprised. I appreciate your matter-of-fact tone, Evan, but most of these portend negative outcomes for nudism. The cancellation of the Channel 4 show does indeed mean less non-sexual nudity in the mainstream, which supports the textile status quo. I was significantly more concerned, though, about the Antiques Roadshow controversy, especially since it was the BBC version. Sadly, it would’ve been completely predictable if some U.S. viewers objected to a nude art piece, given our ingrained societal fear of the body. But for Brits to do so, when their public nudity laws are more rational (albeit not uniformly popular), indicates that the relative maturity of a country offers no presumptive guarantee of body acceptance. Finally, of course, the attacks against the Kinsey Institute hardly count as news anymore in the U.S. Indiana might as well be Florida given the heavy-handed tactics used, specifically, a legal ban on state funding of an educational institution because certain non-academics are uncomfortable with the human body or pretend to be for political gain. I hope these and similar stories simply reflect normal vicissitudes, that the pendulum is currently, but only temporarily, visiting the overly modest end of its path.
I don't think I would recognize Spencer Elden from his photograph.
I don’t need to get past the alliteration to be delighted.
To speak on the Nirvana issue, I feel this is more a product of a litigious society more than any true attack on child nudity in media. The subject in question was recorded as being perfectly fine with it for years until a few lawyers convinced him they could make him a shit tonne of money... But yes, that aspect does indeed make it dangerous to use such imagery, especially if you're well known and well off.
This is why my own works don't reflect identity. It's simply better to err on the side of caution these days, where greed and hate and anger have begun to take over on a grand scale
I think you'll find your polar bare beach swim story relates to Surrey in British Columbia, Canada. Surrey in England is landlocked!
😲🤦♂️ thank you for the correction!
Unless the lawsuit specifically alleges "child pornography," then the AOL headline is disingenuous click-bait. If the lawsuit does allege child porn, then it brings to mind the US government's attempt to prosecute Jock Sturges in the 1980's. That case was dropped when a federal grand jury declined to indict Sturges, in large part because no one in the artistic community backed the government's allegation that his work was pornographic. As far as being harmed, my understanding is that the plaintiff's parents signed a photographer's release. If that is not deemed to be sufficient, then that means no more child models of any kind, since no one under age 21 can sign a binding contract. I can't see a judge letting that happen, so I just don't see the path for this lawsuit to succeed. For the Appeals Court to allow it to be tried on the merits is one thing, but, and I'm not a lawyer, I don't see how it succeeds on the merits.