Audrina: No Clothes, No Problem

[Davin]

TMZ is reporting that Actress Audrina has no regrets about taking it all off for some nudie pictures.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/03/20/audrina-no-clothes-no-problem/

[NudonyII]

I was hoping someone would come along and be like: "That's right; I posed nude. Any more questions?" I was getting tired of young ladies apologizing:

"I'd like to present my apologies to all my fans for allowing myself to be nude."

It just didn't make any sense.

[Fitz1980]

I agree, great way to handle the situation.

[Ken Palmer]

Hello Davin. A hearty congrtulations is in order for this actress.

Ken Palmer





QUOTE=Davin;188515]TMZ is reporting that Actress Audrina has no regrets about taking it all off for some nudie pictures.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/03/20/audrina-no-clothes-no-problem/[/QUOTE]

[Stu2630]

Attractive, ambitious actress does nude pictures. Does anyone really think this is non-sexual? Get real, folks, she's exploiting the sexuality of her naked body for guys to drool over and thereby personal gain.

What has this got to do with nudism? How does this help nudism?

Stu

[Boreas]

I did not get to see the video, so I am replying in a theoretical manner. Apparently I do not have the right stuff to view that video.

I agree that it is great that a woman can stand proud and say, "yes I posed nude. So?" Even if it is a sexual thing, she is not ashamed. Perhaps then the "nudie pictures" would have a little power. I think a lot of the power from these pictures comes from the secrecy and shame surrounding general nudity.

Perhaps if Janet Jackson and Jason Timberlake (? was that the man?) had said "So?" in response to the nipple issue, it would not have gotten so big and stupid.

[nacktman]

What has this got to do with nudism? How does this help nudism?
Stu

The title of this section is NUDES IN THE NEWS not Nudists IN THE NEWS and therefore stands that topics other than 'nudist' or 'nudism' topics would be found herein.

Any woman with the strength of character to stand up and say she is proud of her body of work is a wonderful thing given the social and cultural garbage (such as the entire repetitive mantra of yours) women are burdened under.

The fact her body of work includes nudity has not a twit to do with it outside of the perverted minds who buy into and perpetuate that social and cultural garbage mentioned above.

[Stu2630]

Personally, I have no issues at all with what she is doing. Naked pics aren't my thing, but if she wants to pose, and other men want to drool after her, that's fine by me.

I would, however, have thought that nudists would have said that, by posing nude for the sexual gratification of others, this woman is affirming and perpetuating the popular association between nakedness and sex.

Stu

[nimrod]

Wow, I never heard her say that she posed to deliberatly bring sexual gratification of others. Where was that in the clip? For someone who says they know nudity is not about sex sure jumped to the quick conclusion that her posing nude has every thing to do with sex.

[jon71]

There's more than two categories. We can't put all nude pictures or videos in either the naturist category or the sex/porn category. I haven't seen the pics or vid but would like to. One thing I read said that she applied for Playboy. I would put that in a third category. It's not naturist but I wouldn't call it porn either. It's beautiful women naked. Maybe artistic nudes would be the best description. I know a lot of people are very used to calling Playboy porn but there's nothing in the pictorals that I'd mind my eight year old girl seeing. It's only because of the sexual content of the cartoons that we don't let her see my issues (she wouldn't bother to read the Playboy adviser which isn't age appropriate either).

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

Wow, I never heard her say that she posed to deliberatly bring sexual gratification of others. Where was that in the clip?You think she's exposing herself for the sake of art? Or as an expression of the beauty of nature? Well check this out:

http://www.donlewisrocks.com/index_015.htm

Nope. That removes any doubt: this lady is selling visual sex.

For someone who says they know nudity is not about sex sure jumped to the quick conclusion that her posing nude has every thing to do with sex.I don't believe nudism is about sex, but nudity often is - and it certainly appears to be in this case.

Stu

[NudonyII]

We're going on a tangent here. We were merely applauding the fact that she didn't "cower in shame" when confronted with those nude pics. Whether the pics themselves contain a sexual element or not is another topic and another conversation.

[Stu2630]

We were merely applauding the fact that she didn't "cower in shame" when confronted with those nude pics.

I don't think anyone would think less of this lady if she had a genuine interest in photographic art and wanted some shots of herself for that purpose. That's not what these photos were about: they were erotic photos designed to be sexually arousing to men. She used nudity and partial nudity as a way of making the shots sexually enticing, thus reinforcing the popular perception that nudity and sex are two sides of the same coin. I can't see how nudists can think this is in any way a positive development for nudism. How would nudists here feel if their own wives and daughters had posed for pictures of this nature?

Stu

[jon71]

It's not naturism but it's certainly nothing to be ashamed of either. While not Playboy like I mentioned earlier (the Rolls Royle of men's magazines) it's fairly nice. If either my wife or daughter (a decade or more from now, of course) did something like this I think I'd take it in stride. Yes I know there are some really trashy, blatantly raunchy stuff out there but those six pics were pretty nice. They were sexy without going to extremes.

[Bobby Hill]

It was Not 100% nude. She was only topless and showed her bum. She should have done some artsy type nude photo shoot. She is very beautiful and has nothing to be ashamed of.

[nacktman]

We're going on a tangent here.

Actually only one of "us" is going off on a tangent, but that is his standard modus operendi so we do our best to ignore him.

Therefore, I resubmit the following ...


<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Stu2630 http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?p=188724#post188724)
What has this got to do with nudism? How does this help nudism?
Stu
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The title of this section is NUDES IN THE NEWS not Nudists IN THE NEWS and therefore stands that topics other than 'nudist' or 'nudism' topics would be found herein.

Any woman with the strength of character to stand up and say she is proud of her body of work is a wonderful thing given the social and cultural garbage (such as the entire repetitive mantra of yours) women are burdened under.

The fact her body of work includes nudity has not a twit to do with it outside of the perverted minds who buy into and perpetuate that social and cultural garbage mentioned above.

[MoonShadow]

Sheesh, the whirring is now on this thread! He just won't go away

[nacktman]

Sheesh, the whirring is now on this thread! He just won't go away

Sadly, tis true.:disappointed:
He is sorta like one of those insects that scurries into the dark recesses when the light is turned on and no matter what you do it always comes back out when the light goes out.

But it is still a great thing that Audrina can say she is proud of her work despsite what the prudes howl.

And to answer one of his diverting questions, my wife has, my daughter has, my granddaughter has and my daughter-in-law has and they are proud of their work as well ... so am I.

[Stu2630]

He is sorta like one of those insects that scurries into the dark recesses when the light is turned on and no matter what you do it always comes back out when the light goes out.

I'm here all the time - light or no light. And I don't provide dubious statistics to back up an outlandish claim. :)

But it is still a great thing that Audrina can say she is proud of her work despsite what the prudes howl.

Who is 'howling' about Audina? If she wants to take sexually provocative, soft porn photos, that's a matter between her, the photographer, and the guys who get turned on by it.

And to answer one of his diverting questions, my wife has, my daughter has, my granddaughter has and my daughter-in-law has and they are proud of their work as well ... so am I.

Really? So proud that you would, say, post them on here so that we can all see them?

Thought not! :laugh:

Stu

[GrayWolf]

So, Stu, I don't understand why you enjoy looking at nudes so much while at the same time condemning the nude lifestyle being visible to others. Isn't there a conflict there?

[nacktman]

Stu, they have already been posted already on several of my blogs for your information.
And no I will not provide links to my blogs for you.

A few here have seen them but no prudes are allowed onto my blogs - differing philosophies other than prudism are, and even a few of the right-wing leaning members here have been by for a visit.

The topic of this thread is the fact that a woman has the strength of character to be proud of her body of work - not your obsessed and warped sensibilities - in the face of the outrageous burdens placed on women simply for not being men.

[nacktman]

So, Stu, I don't understand why you enjoy looking at nudes so much while at the same time condemning the nude lifestyle being visible to others. Isn't there a conflict there?

Oh, and how!:laugh:

[Stu2630]

GrayWolf

I don't understand why you enjoy looking at nudes so much while at the same time condemning the nude lifestyle being visible to others. Isn't there a conflict there?

I haven't said I enjoy looking at nudes: I don't. I was simply challenging nacktman that, if he considered such pictures to be so wonderful, that he wouldn't mind posting them so that anyone with an Internet connection can see them. In other words, I was exposing his double standards.

nacktman

Stu, they have already been posted already on several of my blogs for your information. And no I will not provide links to my blogs for you.

I don't want to see them. If you did post them, I can absolutely 100% promise you I wouldn't look at them because I don't find anything remotely pleasurable about looking at pictures of naked people. But, as I'm sure you know, it's not a matter of ME seeing them at all - it's simply that, if they are so harmless and natural as you claim, and we shouldn't worry about people seeing nakedness, why don't you post them so that the whole world can see them? Hmm - that's a tricky one, isn't it? :laugh:

A few here have seen them but no prudes are allowed onto my blogs - differing philosophies other than prudism are, and even a few of the right-wing leaning members here have been by for a visit.

Erm...let me get this right...you don't mind people seeing your family naked so long as they are not prudes. Well, that counts me out because I'm a prude - in fact, you could call me St. Stu - Patron Saint of Prudes. But hang on...there are other prudes out there, too. You won't let your family go naked anywhere where there might be prudes - but that's everywhere. So you won't be going naked in public then ... because prudes are everywhere and a prude might see you?

nacktman - I know you don't like me, but I really like you. You're funny!

:mademyday:

Stu

[GrayWolf]

GrayWolf



I haven't said I enjoy looking at nudes: I don't. I was simply challenging nacktman that, if he considered such pictures to be so wonderful, that he wouldn't mind posting them so that anyone with an Internet connection can see them. In other words, I was exposing his double standards.
:mademyday:

Stu

But just on this thread alone, you obviously went to several sites and viewed nudes before you found "http://www.donlewisrocks.com/index_015.htm" and provided the link to back up your argument. And not even nudist sites at that! Your arguments on various threads discloses that you view pictures posted on this site or how else could you debate the various merits of the nude pictures you abhor? If you can view nudes just to bolster an argument then I find it hard to believe that you are what you say you are. I'm guessing that you, and your family, are not nearly so prudish as you maintain and the prude aspect of your on-line persona is just to bait us. No problem. It's amusing - for a while.

[Boreas]

If you can view nudes just to bolster an argument then I find it hard to believe that you are what you say you are. I'm guessing that you, and your family, are not nearly so prudish as you maintain and the prude aspect of your on-line persona is just to bait us. No problem. It's amusing - for a while.

Interesting! :yes:

[Stu2630]

Graywolf

But just on this thread alone, you obviously went to several sites and viewed nudes before you found "http://www.donlewisrocks.com/index_015.htm" and provided the link to back up your argument.

No I didn't. I just clicked on the link supplied here, found the relevant picture, right-clicked it, looked on "properties", copied and pasted the web address into my browser and that was it! I did it because I suspected it would show the context of these pictures and i was right. :)

Your arguments on various threads discloses that you view pictures posted on this site or how else could you debate the various merits of the nude pictures you abhor?

Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? I haven't said I "abhor" such pictures - I said "I don't find anything remotely pleasurable about looking at pictures of naked people". If I have to look at them to prove a point here, I'll do it. I don't find it pleasurable looking at pictures of dead pigs, but if I wanted to engage in a debate about the diseases of livestock, I'd have to see such pictures.

If you can view nudes just to bolster an argument then I find it hard to believe that you are what you say you are. I'm guessing that you, and your family, are not nearly so prudish as you maintain and the prude aspect of your on-line persona is just to bait us. No problem. It's amusing - for a while.

I don't like pictures of naked people, but I am nowhere near as offended by pictures as I am of real life naked people in the flesh. Similarly, I see naked men showering at my local gym, but that doesn't mean I would find the sight of naked men at my favourite beach to be acceptable. We go to the movies and we may see a nude scene and it may make us a bit uncomfortable, but we don't get up and storm out of the cinema. And the fact I can sit through a film containing a nude scene doesn't mean I am cool for there to be naked people frolicking about in our local park. All this is pretty normal for a textile.

Your logic is a tad faulty today, Graywolf. :eek:

Stu

[nimrod]

The two pics I saw were on the erotic side, but that does not mean that she did it to sexually gratify men. Was she trying to further her career? Well yes, it is called publicity. Some men will use just about any image to gratify themselves sexually, it does not have to be a erotic nude pic of an actress.

The why she did it is not the topic, just that she is not ashamed of what she did is. It is the people who are intolerant to nudity that want to make what she did wrong and that she should be ashamed of her actions. I say more power to her for not listening to those backward attitudes.

[nacktman]

The why she did it is not the topic, just that she is not ashamed of what she did is. It is the people who are intolerant to nudity that want to make what she did wrong and that she should be ashamed of her actions. I say more power to her for not listening to those backward attitudes.

:doh: Now that makes sense and all but one are making it.:sneaky:

[Stu2630]

nimrod

The why she did it is not the topic, just that she is not ashamed of what she did is.

The people who make hardcore porn films are not generally ashamed - but their nakedness has nothing to do with nudism or nudist values so far as I can tell. Sexually provocative "glamour" pictures are just the very mildest end of that same spectrum.

It is the people who are intolerant to nudity that want to make what she did wrong and that she should be ashamed of her actions.

I don't know who you are referring to but it can't be me. I have never said she did wrong, nor that she should be ashamed of her actions. I am, in fact, completely neutral: I neither approve nor disapprove. It's entirely her own business and nothing to do with anyone else. But I'm puzzled by the highly positive attitude of nudists here to a woman selling her nakedness in a highly sexual way to enhance her own career. I would have thought that you "enlightened" naturists would have thought that, by allowing herself to be photographed in this way, she is guilty of feeding the objectification of women for male gratification.

Stu

[nacktman]

http://www.mobile-pedia.com/images/thumbnails/illusion_Spinning.png

[nimrod]

The way I see it is there are three seperate issues, the motivation behind the pictures, the content of the pictures, and what this thread is about, her attitude about what she did.

If you want to speculate as to why she did the photo shoot, it is just that, speculation.

If you want to question wether or not the pictures promotes a healthy attitude for nudism, open another thread.

The thread is about her attitude after the fact, which I can suport regardless of what I may or may not think of the other two issues. You want to combine them so that you can call us down on what you will consider a lack of "enlightenment".

[Stu2630]

nimrod

You want to combine them so that you can call us down on what you will consider a lack of "enlightenment".

Why do you always misjudge me? I haven't said that I think you have a "lack of enlightenment" - I don't.

I was simply saying that I would have thought you would have been reluctant to have championed a woman for using nudity and semi-nudity in such a blatantly sexual way. Your response surprised me - that's all. Personally, I have no feelings about what she did, positive or negative.

Stu

[Boreas]

You know, it certainly may be objectifying etc for her to be posing for sexual pictures. On the other hand, one of the goals of the women's movement was to change things so women could choose their own lives, rather than being dictated to by men. This woman is making her own choices and is not ashamed to say so.

[MoonShadow]

You bet we did, Boreas! I was and still am actively involved in many causes, one being the women's movement of the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. Women can now make choices although I do not, personally, find "posing seductively" to be a wise choice but it is a choice and a free choice and not something for me to judge about others.

Whoooeee, nactkman, eyes went haywire at that picture! LOL

[nacktman]

Whoooeee, nactkman, eyes went haywire at that picture! LOL

It just reminded me of some posts I have read here and elsewhere.;)