The Good the Bad and the Ugly

[jbeegoode]

Weird thing happened. I'm sorting out my feelings.

Last week I published the Two Gouls in the night story. This week, I was looking over the site's stats and saw a boost of 400 visitors for one day and 200 the next. I of course investigated to figure out who, and why. That's good stuff.

The cape idea was taken as an original idea and someone on a reddit nude site account mentioned it pointed to my site as a Halloween holidays idea. The next post suggested that it get tagged as a NSFW. I looked it up and that means not safe for work. They use this for nudity, and sexual content. It got tagged warning others that nude was involved, but it could have meant sexual content. There is no discrimination.

It is one thing that these networks, platforms, or what ever are characterizing nudity a problem, but now, they are consolidating it with sexual content. My gut feeling this morning after sleeping on it is demeaned and probably I'm somewhat ticked down inside. We have a solid naturist site, wholesome fun, serious. The intent is to fight back against this cavalier social repression from ignorant private business entities.

There is that "YET" they sent an extra 600 people our way. To make an omelet one must break eggs. To get the word out and make change in people's lives. Sometimes one must demonstrate when the system doesn't work.

That site on reddit is getting more people than our two sites and then the message is being undermined. I suppose that one must roll up sleeves and part of that is getting dirty in order to get things done.

I dunno. Any thoughts on this, situation on the net and the necessity for using, or accepting dichotomy while making a point and spreading the news?
Jbee

[Peter S]

I see your dilemma, JBee, and share your confusion. All of us in the “naturist community” (if there is such a thing) want to dissociate sex from nudity, not because we’re anti sex but because the two things are not the same, any more than car engines and sex are the same. We try to convince others that naturism is A Good Thing, it’s safe for women in the #metoo age, it’s safe for children in a sexting, internet-porn fuelled paedophile-fearing world.

But because those whose minds we are trying to educate still lump us in with NSFW items because the snowflakes might get upset, lo and behold it gets us more followers!

Except does it? Because it’s NSFW and therefore potentially porn, in all likelihood those who don’t find what they want will just give up and go away or, worse, leave disparaging remarks about imperfect bodies and wierdos who want to flaunt themselves.

I appreciate the extra site traffic is gratifying, JBee, but that’s only part of the story. Do your site stats offer any deeper insight what visitors do, such as time spent on site, additional pages explored, etc, which might help your deliberations?

[jbeegoode]

Most of these people went to the article and I was surprised that most went to the about page. Hard to nail it down, but somewhere between 10% and 20% may have looked further, but just a couple of articles. Maybe they'll come back, maybe not.

Maybe, the first pair of pages discourage people from looking further and they don't realize that here are a couple of hundred stories, or they are in a hurry, or....

The reddit spot seems to be a place to promote nudism and with no pics, and stated rules, it is a lousy for porn use.
Jbee

[jbeegoode]

I placed a new thread on their website:

"NSFW Needs to be Changed"

"I think that NSFW should be split into two types of warnings. The use of the broad term NSFW is the act of naturist/nudist shooting themselves in the foot. Here is a place that promotes clothing optional nudity, but it lumps photos of simply nude activities content in with sexual content.

Recently, my website TheFreeRangeNaturist was referenced from here. It is a legitimate naturist place to promote free ranging nude activities. It was labeled NSFW which is misleading, because there is no sexual content there. The label is demeaning to the site and to the people there who have bravely and generously consented to have their nude images published.

I take it that one purpose of this site is to make people aware that nudism/naturism is not any more sexual than textile covered people. A separate “rating’, “warning” label needs to be instituted, one about sexual content and one about nude depictions, or none at all."

Somehow, a NSFW tag was placed on the post.
Jbee

[Peter S]

Somehow, a NSFW tag was placed on the post.

Irony at its best!

[John P]

Since you've copied over what you wrote on Reddit, I'll copy my reply!

This is an unfortunate situation, but JBG, you have to be aware that lots of workplaces would really frown on anyone looking at nude activities while on a company computer (and that's assuming that there isn't a policy forbidding recreational use of the computers). The poor employee explaining that it was naturism and not pornography might not be listened to or understood! But of course, we want to emphasize that naturism isn't pornography, and not confuse the two. I agree with you that the same label "NSFW" does get applied to sexual and non-sexual nudity, but in this case it might be wiser to accept it.

I don't know what the rule is for linking to naturist sites from Facebook, which doesn't allow nudity on its own pages. I will occasionally put links in Facebook posts, but I say "Contains pictures of non-sexual nudity". NSFW is quicker and easier, though.

[jbeegoode]

I didn't know it was a computer at work thing. However, the reddit site that labeled mine is called "nudism" and has some nudes in the header. I would assume that one should not be visiting that one at work either, to get to mine.

I envisioned a bunch of people on smart phones using reddit.

The naughty label might get more people reading my post? Maybe, maybe not....
Jbee

[rrfalcon]

The NSFW label gets applied to any nudity, sexual or not, because of several sexual harassment cases brought a couple of decades ago where people objected to being exposed to nude images at work. The businesses/governments involved lost the cases, so to avoid further expenses most businesses now ban nude images of any sort on company property. It is, literally, not safe for work. The label also gets applied to anything else that might inspire someone to bring a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, regardless of sexual content. Our over-lawyered society over-reacts and we all lose another increment of freedom as a result.

[jbeegoode]

A major suppression of our liberties, our bodies, imposed by a minority by a misconceived court and judgement happened and we weren't even aware of it! In other words, some putz overreacts to an image of a member of its own species and and another putz agrees, setting us back a great deal. That is like one step forward and two steps back. It angers me. I feel like a fight and see no where to punch.

Next, some Muslim in a burka doesn't want to see a woman's knees at work and it is sexual harassment, because knees are sexy?
Jbee