Decoupling everyday nudity from sex remains the biggest obstacle.
Ain't it just! This goes to the heart of the matter of almost all the prurient treatment of nakedness that we see all around us. Obsessive modesty and outrage are almost as common as naked pictures themselves. Why can't we all grow up! Naturists have - why is that such a relatively rare thing?
On Bob's last post, I can't argue with any of it really especially
Photos of human bodies is way more respectful of the person than a psychotic demand that the person be covered up and never seen.
How true.
I would opine though, Bob, that you cant generalise to that extent. The spectrum of 'consequences' of people having their photos taken nude, must, like all human things, be wider. For instance, in the matter of consent, there is a spectrum - some people don't care and are willing to show themselves nude and quite happily appear nude in media like feature films or are happy to be shown in very revealing circumstances e.g. internet porn (which, like it or not, is the world's biggest repository of (apparently) unashamed nudity). In the middle ground, there are those unashamed of nudity but only in some sort of restricted circumstances, e.g. domestically, requiring a level of privacy. For some at the other end of the spectrum nudity is anathema and never even see themselves naked!
So in the military, there are probably women soldiers that happily act as pin ups when photographed by their male peers. There are probably others, that might be pressured and coerced but are robust enough not to mind, although in such circumstances my guess is that they would often contract to retain some privacy and might be rightfully offended if their pictures escape (onto, say, the internet) from the limited viewership that was the original agreement. And I will also surmise there are those who are under unfair peer pressure, being unable to make their own stand and choice not to be nude in pictures, where even the apparently consensual taking of nude photos is, underneath, deeply unsettling and from which they might rightly claim to have been abused, however unaware the abuser may have been of their real feelings. To that latter group I might more cynically say to them 'get over it' - what harm can a picture do? But I won't go that far - I can feel sympathy and regret that there are those people that get thus exploited even though from a naturist or more permissive standpoint it is hard to see why such nude exposure should be an issue (which I think is Bob's point). In such cases one can only hope that some sort of fair justice prevails.
To an extent this is an argument linked to our previous discussion of who is the arbiter of offence in the trial of someone arrested for being publicly naked and accused by a single observer who claims to be offended (sometimes one only amongst many who don't). The law and society should take the initial premise that nudity is not wrong or offensive therefore first ask why the person was offended (by something that the law judges inoffensive) - and the burden of proof should be on the complainant not the defendant. Most nudity law does seem to adopt this stance but the implementation of it by mostly people prejudiced against nudity, means that the principle of emancipation that the law in fact allows does not in fact get applied fairly (as in the case of several of Steve Gough's arrests and trails).
So in the case of this non consensual publication of pictures - it is surely up to the offended to prove why harm is done. That's not to say that such publication is right or acceptable. However, it's equally unacceptable to decide law solely from one individual's feelings and to judge solely on their definition of whether something is offensive or harmful.
Incidentally, I already read the article Duane found. I subscribe to several naturist and nudist streams on Flipboard. Very good source - you don't have to search, someone finds the stuff for you!
John
PS, I just fell asleep over writing the above and realise it is
a bit boring!!!! But this forum is a bastion of free speech so I'm exercising my right not to be coerced to erase the boring bit!
