Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your views on having your photo taken while nude??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I've made some posts in another group regarding nude photos, they are long but I think the fit here and may be of interest to some.

    First...

    This may be my first post here, and it's a long one, I hope it isn't my last but I'm seeing some posts here regarding pictures that really disturb me. I feel that this is an important issue as the largest part of communication is visual NOT text or verbal. People are visual. Haven't you heard that a picture is worth a thousand words??? I think it's worth more!

    I'll admit to struggling with this a bit myself having had a web site with photos and currently having one http://rejectshame.com without, because some people where offended by the nude photos and I felt that for those who are set in the belief that nudity is indecent having photos might distract them from getting to the important message in the text on my site. On my previous site the message was supported visually and I've found that there has been far less traffic, interest, and comments, feedback on this site than the one before it
    that had photos. What I'll eventually do is rebuild it and have both.

    Question,

    As nudists do we really believe that the human body is good, pure, decent, and totally acceptable? Especially this group as Christians who supposedly believe the body was created by God as good and to be the temple of the Holy Spirit? If so comments like: "Why would people want to post pic's of families enjoying the naturist lifestyle? Just go to a club, or a beach and enjoy, without invading others privacy. It seems to me that this is bordering on pornography.", "I can't see how someone could want to view nudist pictures without some form of a sexual component.", and "I feel that wanting to view pictures of nudism and naturism to be very dangerous ground, and ground that is fertile for Satan to work" are very troubling. Scripture says that we can't be double minded so either the human body is good and decent or it isn't, that is just as valid for photos as it is live at home, club, or beach. The body is not decent at the club but pornographic and dangerous in photos, that just makes no sense!

    I'm reading an interesting book right now called "Maximum Influence" about effective persuasion. It talks in part about how important the visual aspect of communication in persuasion is. It says "Even watching someone else `do what's right' will give your cause social validation. For example, one study asked 10,000 high school students to give blood. The study found that students who had been exposed to thirty-eight photos of high school blood drive scenes where 17 percent more likely to donate blood than the students who had not seen the photos. Seeing others do the right thing prompts us to socially validate the cause and to jump on board."

    "In another study, researchers had very young children who where terrified of dogs watch a little boy play with his dog for twenty minutes a day. After only four days, 67 percent of the children were willing to sit in a playpen with a dog and even remain with it when everyone else had left the room. The results were lasting too: One month later, the same children were just as eager to play with dogs. In a similar study, children who where afraid of dogs were influenced just as readily by films of a child playing with a dog as they were
    when watching a live child play with a dog." AANR has a lobbyist in D.C. which is great, but I think where nudists really need to have a lobbyist is in Hollywood to get more images on wholesome NON-sexual nudity in the movies and on TV, etc. Just having better and more images of people having fun nude in our own web sites, brochures, and publications would help. We need to get more images of wholesome family, social nudity to the public, not less!

    Shane said: "But why would I want to look at pictures of naked families if I wouldn't want to look at those same families clothed? I've really never gotten the picture thing... I didn't take up naturism to get into photography…"

    Many people aren't "into" photography (I am) that's fine (or at least don't think they are, I wonder how much interest they'd have in a magazine on any topic, a travel brochure or many other things that didn't have photos!), and you may not want to "go" look at pictures of people you don't know. That's also fine, but think about how photos effect you. In travel publications, magazines, and brochures (textile ones) how many show the beaches, pools, facilities, towns, etc. without any people or with people only in a distance? Would you be interested in going to a place that didn't show any people? Does such a photo look inviting? Most textile resorts for example go to great effort to show people having a great time at their resort in their marketing, even having close up images of smiling happy people vs. images of empty pools or beaches. Sadly when it comes to the web sites and brochures of nudist resorts the pictures of the pools and tennis courts, etc. are often empty, or distant, and/or small. The effect that has on most people is to make them think the place isn't very popular, fun, friendly, or inviting. Imagine a picture of an empty street with an empty side walk café. Now imagine the same scene with people (nude or clothed, I don't care) eating at the café, smiling and laughing, which image is warmer, more attractive, AND more inviting? Which place would you rather be in the empty one or the one with happy people? People make the scene come alive!

    Of course some photo's are good and some are not, when it comes to people photos (unless it's a portrait) a candid photo (or one that looks candid) is much better than a posed one, especially a stiff posed one, yuck! And of course there are beautiful photos without people too, but that's not relevant to this discussion. The point is if we really believe that nudity is good, and that the human body is totally good decent and acceptable we should have NO problems with nude photos. If we want to communicate to others that nudity is good, acceptable, wholesome, family oriented, relaxing, fun, enjoyable and something they may want to try, we need to do that in very large part visually, through photos, video, etc. Even McDonalds shows far more images of people enjoying themselves in their commercials than they do of their food! Likewise I just looked at several non-nudist travel brochures that I have and the emphasis of the photos is always of people enjoying themselves, much more than on the facilities. Yes they always show the facilities, but happy people are almost always in the pictures, often times being the focus of the photo with the actual facilities often being just background rather than the emphasis of the photo.

    2nd, in response to a response...

    Bill H. wrote:

    > All well and good, except that nudity is not a blood drive, it's
    > not a resort and it's not a little boy playing with his dog.

    I may be streching it, but it seems to me in that statement (in the
    context of what I said) that you are saying that nudity isn't something
    that should be promoted. If that's true I STRONGLY disagree, I know
    personally the harm and devestation of body shame and can see it clearly
    in this society, I feel that nudity / body acceptance very much needs to
    be promoted and doing so visually is very important. To try to promote
    body acceptance without doing it visually simply just doesn't work.

    > Nudity IS, on some level, sexual.

    More correctly HUMANS are sexual. Humans are sexual nude and/or
    CLOTHED, in fact clothes emphasize and distort sexuality. I believe that
    nudity helps balance or normalize it. Both our bodies and sex are
    created by God and both are very good. Most Christian need to change
    their attitudes about both to be in agreement with God that both the
    human body and sex are very good and acceptible. (Realizing of corse
    that both can be abused and misused by us and both are distorted and
    perverted by Satan. So we need to work to keep a Godly attitude about
    both, BUT that attitude should be positive.) I just discovered a few
    days ago that there is a very positve movement developing in the
    Catholic Church regarding this called the "Theology of the Body"
    straight from the Pope himself! I orderd a couple books on it and am
    really looking foward to getting them. I hope this soon filters into
    other churches as well.

    > Yeah, I know the previous examples COULD be, but that would
    > be in aberrent way. My honest belief is that if you are hunting nudist
    > pictures to view, odds are fairly strong (I'd say like 98% - but
    > that's just IMHO) that there is something else at work there.

    I hunt for lots of pictures of Europe, New England, Florida,
    contemporary architecture, mixed use architecture, nature, swimming
    pools, water fountians and much more (webshots is one of my favorite web
    sites) and yes nudism. Some just because of general interest, some
    because of projects I'm thinking about or working on.

    In general you may be right that if someone is "hunting" for nudist
    pictures just to view, there maybe something else at work there.
    Perhaps that is a good thing and they need to see nudity in a non-sexual
    context. I'd say the more such pictures there are showing nudity in
    contexts other then sex the better it is for people and the more it can
    help people develop more balanced attitudes about nudity no matter what
    their origenal motivation for veiwng the pictures are. The way I see it
    is that if the only picture of nudity are sexual, thats a problem, that
    perverts nudity and throws things out of balance, non-sexual pictures of
    nudity can help bring attitudes about nudity back into balance. Do you
    think that avoiding pictures of nudity will help you or anyone have pure
    attitudes about nudity? Col 2:20-23 says, "Since you died with Christ
    and were made free from the ruling spirits of this world, why do you act
    as if you still belonged to this world by following rules like these:
    "Don't eat this," "Don't taste that," "Don't even touch that thing"?
    These rules refer to earthly things that are gone as soon as they are
    used. They are only manmade commands and teachings. They seem to be
    wise, but they are only part of a manmade religion. They make people
    pretend not to be proud and make them punish their bodies, but they do
    not really control the evil desires of the sinful self." Not doing
    something is NOT going to help you control evil desires, in fact trying
    to surppress things tends to create more problems, the answer is to be
    controlled by the Holy Spirit and DOING things in a Godly way. I submit
    that that includes treating the human body, all parts of it, as
    something very good and pure. No part of the body is impure, what we do
    with it and or how we think about it can be pure or inpure.

    > Yes, most communication is visual. But what has that to do with
    > WANTING
    > to view pics of social nudity. Does anyone like to look at pics of people
    > eating, going to concerts, playing tennis, chess etc, just to look at
    > them?

    YES in fact many people do. We all have a tendency to assume that
    others veiw things as we do and do things like we do. I'm so glad thats
    not true, if people where all the same this world would not be very
    functional or interesting, viva diversity! I will admit that because I
    can view nudist pictures without it being sexual that I forget that (in
    this culture especialy where nudity and sex have become so perverted)
    many people don't see such pictures the same way. You seem to be
    forgetting that because you don't enjoy looking at pictures of people
    eating, going to concerts, playing tennis, chess etc. that many people
    do enjoy doing that. It seems that you may also be forgeting that many
    people can look at nude pictire without it becoming sexual, OR that even
    if there is something sexual in their interest at looking at nude
    pictures, that looking at non-sexual nude pictures may be good and help
    them develop more balanced attitudes about nudity and sex. I will admit
    that when I first discovered nudist magazines as a kid that looking at
    the pictures fullfilled sexual interest and courisoty. It also helped
    satisfy that interest and courisoty and helped me develop a much more
    balanced, healthy,accepting, non-sexual attitude about nudity than many
    people in this culture have.

    > I submit that those who do are few and far between. I challenge anyone to
    > HONESTLY say that they would want to look at say pics of Mennonite or
    > Amish JUST BECAUSE they like the lifestyle.

    Some people do and some people take pics of the Amish or Mennonites
    because they are interested in them and find them to be very
    interesting, although the Amish in particular don't like having photo's
    taken of them. There are many beauitiful books of ordinary people doing
    ordenary things that celibrate life, National Geographic in particurlar
    has published some wonderful books like this, and there are many
    others. I even remember one book where the photos really weren't that
    great but it was fascinating anyway. It showed people standing in front
    of their homes surrounded by everything they owened (which had all been
    taken out of their houses etc. for the photo).

    > Satan is a crafty devil,

    Yes he is and one of his most successful deceptions is that the human
    body that God created, made in His image and called very good is
    indecent or bad, that is a deception that needs to be challanged. When
    we are in a right relationship with God we should be able to be naked
    and unashamed, to feel good about and accept the human body as very good
    just as God created it. Satan doesn't want that he wants us to think
    it's indecent, shameful, disgusting, unfortionatly he has been very
    successful in deceiving humans into thinking just that!

    > When I am in God's will, I don't need or even feel a need to justify
    > or rationalize my actions.

    I agree, Jesus himself never justified himself when accuesed people
    will think what they will think, God knows the truth. I could care less
    what you or others think because I enjoy looking at naturist pictures,
    taking naturist pictures or publishing naturist pictures. However, I
    will admit that the attitude you expressed that looking at nudist
    pictures is dangerious is very disturbing to me. I think that IT is a
    very dangerious attitude that plays right into Satans deception that
    there is something dangerious or evil about the human body and it is
    directly the oppesite of God creating the human body and calling it very
    good.
    /
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them. Gen. 1:27/

    /God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Gen 1:31/

    /What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care
    for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and
    crowned him with glory and honor. Psalm 8:4,5/

    /How great are your deeds O Lord: I sing for joy at the works of your
    hand. How great are your works, O Lord, how profound your thoughts!
    Psalm 92:4,5/

    /I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works
    are wonderful, I know that full well. Psalm 139:14/

    /You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like
    the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not
    make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"? Isaiah
    29:16/

    /"Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd
    among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter,
    "What are you Making?' Does your work say, "He has no hands"? Woe to
    him who says to his father, "what have you begotten?' or to his mother,
    What have you brought to birth?' "This is what the Lord says - the Holy
    One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question
    me about my children, or give orders about the work of my hands? It is
    I who made the Earth and created mankind upon it." Isaiah 45:9-12/

    /Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter;
    we are all the work of your hand. Isaiah 64:8/

    /But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "shall what is formed say
    to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Romans 9:20/

    /Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's
    Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's Temple, God Will destroy
    him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. 1st Cor.
    3:16,17/

    /Do you not know that your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, who is
    in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you
    were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 1st Cor.
    6:19,20/

    /For we are the temple of the living God. 2nd Cor.6:16/

    /For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it
    is received with thanksgiving, 1 Tim. 4:4/

    /To those that are pure, all things are pure, but to those who are full
    of sin and do not believe, nothing is pure. Both their minds and their
    consciences have been ruined. They say they know God, but their actions
    show they do not accept Him. They are hateful people, they refuse to
    obey, and they are useless for doing anything good. Titus 1:15,16/

    > (The Christian religion) made sex, and by extension nudity, dirty and
    > shameful. And because of Christianitys success, those beliefs made it
    > into mainstream secular thought.

    I would agree except I would emphasize the RELIGION part of that. It is
    religion, man, and Satan that made sex and by extension nudity dirty and
    shameful NOT God. That is why it needs to be confronted, expossed, and
    challanged rather than simply accepted in defeat. If we do that Satan
    wins this battle and what God said is very good continues to be seen as
    shameful by default.

    > One of the reasons I have not made it out to the local nudist camp is
    > that I am struggling with some of these very issues, and until I have
    > dealt with them spiritually, I do not want to put myself in a
    > situation of temptation.

    Thank you for being open and sharing that you are struggling with these
    issues, I hope you will realize that others are not at the same place
    you are and may not be struggling with the same issues, so perhaps they
    shouldn't be put in the same box. It is very good that you are
    confronting these issues and want to deal with them, I very much
    encourage you to study on and deal with these issues spiritually. You
    may find my website at http://rejectshame.com helpful. For issues like
    it seems you are dealing with you might also find
    http://www.experiencegrace.com to be very helpful. There are many other
    good Christian web sites dealing with nudity which could help too, but I
    also suggest doing some study directly on shame and how harmful it is,
    you might also do as I've been doing the last couple weeks and do some
    searches on "Theology of the body" perhaps even order a couple books
    about it. There is also a book soon to be published by Michael McGrath
    called "the Epiphany of the Body" which from talking with and e-mailing
    Micheal I think will be very helpful and wonderful. I'm very anxious
    for it to get published and I hope that many, many people will read it.

    > If someone WANTS to post pics of themselves, well as long as they have
    > examined their motives, prayed over it (We ARE Christians after all)
    > and there are no unhealthy motives (i.e. exhibitionism) well, ok, but
    > why would you want to post nude pics of yourself, given all the porno
    > hungry people driving the net? Especially understanding that any pics
    > you post, you lose control of where they go and to who.

    Although I'm not sure there are any nude pics of me on the web now, my motive would be because I'm not ashamed of what God has given me, any part of
    it. (Although I should perhaps take a bit better care of it and loose
    some weight!) A few months ago I decided that I wanted some nude
    pictures of myself avalible so I asked a freind to take some pictures of
    me playing in the pool. When I looked at the pictures I was VERY
    surprised because not one of them showed my genitals, I asked about that
    and he said he avoided it because he didn't think it was appropriate.
    While I certanly don't want to flaunt my penis the whole point of my
    wanting the pictures (which I could sometime use on one of my web sites)
    is that I'm NOT ashamed of what God has given me, any part of it
    including my penis! As far as what other people might do with them,
    that isn't in my control and I trust that it is in God's care. I also
    know that anything I post would be non-pornagraphic and thus might help
    people see nudity in a non-pornographic way.

    > You want your kids pics from whitetail (Local
    > nudist camp) to end up in the hands of a kiddie porn freak?

    One of my concerns over the concerns about nude childrens pictures is
    that if there are no non-sexual photos of nude kids because of peoples
    fears of what others will do with them, then there will only be sexual
    pictures of kids by default. This is because the perverts who don't
    care about right or wrong will still be publishing and sharing those
    regardless of what the law or others say. THAT is extreamly dangerious
    IMHO because we reap what we sow and if the only images of naked kids
    are sexual that is the impression of kids that is being sown and it is
    what will be reaped, much to the danger of children as the result will
    be more people thinking of children in those terms. A much better
    approach in my veiw is to have so many photos of naked children (really
    naked people of any age) and I mean lots of photos everywhere that are
    innocent, pure, wholesome, and not in any way sexual that the result
    will be that more and more people will start seeing nudity as innocent,
    pure, wholesome, and acceptable, instead of just sexual ESPECAILLY in
    regards to children!!!

    > As to WANTING to view said pics, I've said what I feel needs to be
    > said
    > regarding that. Do you have NO hidden motives(i.e. voyeurism, worse)? Ok,
    > but what is the attraction, if you are a nudist, of looking at nude
    > pictures? Do you buy Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl? If you are a guy,
    > are you
    > only interested in looking at Female Nudity? These are real questions that
    > must be answered.

    Because of the attitudes I've developed regarding goodness and dignity
    of the human body largely through looking at non-sexual nudist pictures,
    I not only have no interest in the exploitive types of photos in those
    publications, I find them distastefull and ugly. They exploit, pervert,
    and distort what God said is good.

    > Bottom line. IMHO, if you are a nudist, esp a Christian nudist, I
    > can't
    > see how you'd be okay with posting pics. Or with wanting to view pics.
    >
    > Nudism is about BEING not SEEING.
    >
    For me, IMHO a nudist especailly a Christian nudist should have no
    problem at all in anyway with nudist photos, either having them taken of
    you, having them posted, or seeing photos of others. It may not be
    something to "hunt" for but a nudist certanly shouldn't have a problem
    looking at nudist photos. It seems absurd to me that a nudist would
    have problems with nudist photos! To me if a nudist has a problem with
    nude photos that's an indication something is wrong, there is perhaps
    still something sexual or sinful to them about nudity that they feel
    guilty about. If there wasn't it wouldn't be any kind of issue.

    Comment


    • #32
      Please make no mistake. The above post was not by me.

      This person posting joined the forum on June/26/04 and has made 3 posts.
      I joined the forum on 2/09/02 and have made over 1260 posts.

      I go by David77.
      He goes by David177.
      This one thin number can confuse everyone.

      There are a number of Davids on this board, which is fine, but they are easily distinguisable from my name on this forum.

      I don't think this other person wants to be confused with me, (and I don't want my ideas to be confused with his), so I question his wisdom in choosing this nearly identical number that could be so easily confused.

      Since he has posted only three posts so far, I wish he would change his number or add a more identifiable suffix word or number to his name. Please.

      Comment


      • #33
        He used to post with the name Nate Dekan although he's also gone by David Blood.

        Don't know why he'd want to imitate you David but it's no contest. You are the original and I love reading your posts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Thank you Cyndiann. You have truly made my day.

          Comment


          • #35
            I have never liked having my picture taken, clothes or no clothes. Maybe 1 out of 100 photos are acceptable to me and then with reservations.

            As I've said before, if I get a digital camera, maybe. But it depends on how I look in the picture.

            Comment


            • #36
              quote:
              Originally posted by missouriboy:
              barbararuth, your once-lovely avatar has been damaged, cut off along the lower edge. Could you or someone please restore it to its formerly completeness and glory? Thanks.


              Sorry missouriboy, I was asked to replace my original avatar by the site moderator as a result of complaints from some of the members. Some felt I was playing with my nipple in the full picture... which I was not, and that was offensive to some! Instead of replacing the picture, I simply cropped the original to satisfy his request.

              Comment


              • #37
                LOL What a vivid description, cyndiann, of where some people's minds are!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Wow! Nice pool Cyndiann !!

                  Is that your Back Yard???



                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    What the heck was that all about? Damn, david 177 just needs to sit down and finish the novel (please don’t post here!)
                    Cyndiann! I have never seen that side of you. Hey did someone say nipple? Auh might have been Sinfield.
                    Hey ca nt we all just get along? OK slap me. Old phrase.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I got some very tasteful nude done of me for my g/f last year for christmas. It was a rush getting photographed as I couldn't wait to see how they turned out.

                      i've never been photographed nude in a public place (beach, club, etc), but I can't imagine it would bother me as long as someone was taking the pic with my camera. If they just walked up and wanted to take a pic, i'd be wary.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        quote:
                        Originally posted by Nude in the North:
                        Wow! Nice pool Cyndiann !!

                        Is that your Back Yard???



                        Steve


                        No, the pool belongs to a friend, Doug. He just posted on here someplace about looking for a roommate so somebody could be lucky enough to live there.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          By Barbararuth: Sorry missouriboy, I was asked to replace my original avatar by the site moderator as a result of complaints from some of the members. Some felt I was playing with my nipple in the full picture... which I was not, and that was offensive to some! Instead of replacing the picture, I simply cropped the original to satisfy his request.[/QUOTE]

                          That's a darned shame barbararuth, your pic was cool, still is. Some pople have too much spare time. I hope nobody thinks I'm playing with my hips.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            You bring up a good point Dazza. The problem here is we have "nudists" who don't walk the walk and insist on making the rest of us live up to their low expectations. If we are not ashamed of our bodies and feel nudism is not sexual then why are some getting upset over a finger near a nipple but not a finger near a hip?

                            Body parts are body parts, they should all be treated the same. Instead of giving in to complaints based on their personal phobias we should be educating them. I think INA has been evolving, trying to become more family oriented and going overboard with it.

                            It wasn't that long ago that INA was mixed up with the Surfdogs, which turned out to be a fake organization that caused nudists a lot of grief. Anybody remember that mess?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I agree, it is sad we cannot just see the body as a whole. All its parts should have the same value we should not attach special significance to those parts that non-nudists aren't used to seeing.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I have had self nude photos taken and also ones with friends. I enjoy being able to look at my nudist photos to remember the day or event as much as I do my clothed pictures. It's just another memory for the photo album. I do prefer to know who is taking the picture and the purpose. I also prefer digital over 35 mm.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X