A recent hot take I posted on Bluesky unexpectedly turned into one of the biggest (and more divided) discussions I've seen in the naturist community in quite a while. Arguments emerged that blurring a face is simply a practical way to protect a career or maintain privacy. Others questioned whether hiding a face unintentionally changes the message a naturist photo sends, especially when the goal is advocacy.
So, in this week’s #UndressedThread, we invite you to share your thoughts.
What’s your first impression of a blurred face?
Does the photographer’s intent outweigh the viewer’s interpretation?
Does advocacy change your answer?
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. 🪐
I’m in the “why bother posting on the first place if you’re going to blur your face” camp. What is one trying to satisfy through such a post anyway? If it’s a matter of privacy, don’t post in the first place. There are plenty of nude images consistent with naturist values out there already. Attempting to add to the mix with a blurred face does not help anyone.
It seems weird to post nude pictures of yourself at all if you’re going to censor them. If privacy is a concern, it’s probably best to not risk putting nude pictures on the internet at all, even if you do hide your face.
Also, it makes the nudity the subject of the image rather than the whole person. I don’t feel like a faceless nude body communicates nudity as something that could be mundane and normal (which in my opinion should be a goal of Naturism), but rather makes the nudity appear intentional, performative, and titillating. I think there can actually be a time and place for that sort of thing, but to do so means ceding the context of Naturism to eroticism.