[Joyce Fleming]

Thanks for your comments. Have scanned the article at 300 resolution. Hope you can zoom it up to read.

 

[Incidentally. To clarify re my use of the word "gimmicky" : Binh Trinh's mass nude photos are "gimmicky" which is just another word for contrived - for professional "artistic" purposes such as entertaining - and winning awards!   This is OK, good fun and we may all happily take part; but it's not naturism in the usual "natural" sense.]

 

However, that's not the subject of Bill Ralston's amusing article. Moreover he has done his homework regarding legal aspects, which he may well have found on the FBNZ website.

 

In recent years FBNZ has worked hard - and believe me, it's uphill work - to convince the authorities and the general public of the current legal position regarding public nudity. At last it is getting through. That is progress, but while on the subject I recommend that it is in our own best interests at this point to avoid pushing the boundaries, but keep to the "etiquette" which boils down to "respect for others."

 

Joyce

[Blair & Tania Hinton]

That may the case, however I believe it has helped the Naturist movement by showing “non naturists” or perhaps a better word may be “unconverted”, that social nudity is not the big bad beast they perhaps thought it was and being nude for a prolonged period of time around other people is a very comfortable way to be  A fact many of us already knew, but have been looking at finding ways to show others.  WNC used the opportunity to promote the club, with some success too I believe.   Gimmicky or not, the potential exists at these sessions to give people a clearer understanding of the Naturist movement .  Surely this is not a bad thing?  And by definition, isn’t a family portrait contrived?  After all, it is not generally how people would be during a photo, they are instructed where to stand etc.  My wedding photos must be contrived too.  Just a thought.

 

Did you attach the article to this mail, as I cannot see it.  It sounds like a good read

 

Blair

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gonatural" group.
To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.

[Blair & Tania Hinton]

Sorry, found the attachment.  Thanks for that

 

 

From: gona...@googlegroups.com [mailto:gona...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joyce Fleming
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 1:00 p.m.
To: Nick Lowe; Kevin Lundon; Joyce Fleming; John Lowe; Aitch & Alan; Jennie&Jeremy; gona...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Kay Hannam (Ed); Mike Ward
Subject: [gonatural]

 

Thanks for your comments. Have scanned the article at 300 resolution. Hope you can zoom it up to read.

--

[Joyce Fleming]

To Blair and Tania:

 

[Discussing photography] Yes, you're right of course, and I agree with what you say. Many photos - in fact most - are posed or contrived. But sometimes the casual photographer may catch a real moment in time. This depends on the perception of the person behind the camera to capture a "natural" happening or true character.

 

[Note] To anyone interested in photography I'd strongly recommend the NZTV documentary or books about or by Marti Friedlander, Brilliant!

 

Cheers!

Joyce

PS The article by Bill Ralston was attached. If you did not receive it please let me know.

 

----- Original Message -----

To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com..

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.

[alan.geeves]

On whether Binh's photos are part of naturism I have to put my view

Nudism is many things

Fine art nudes are a part of nudism and I believe Binh would expect his work to fit here. He does good work but it is art. In the format he has used it does have a positive spin on naturism but it is still art not naturism

Naturism is a lifestyle choice to enjoy that aspect of nudism. Its not about what it looks like etc its about enjoying life without clothes in an apropiate way.

There are other aspects of nudism best not discussed in detail here but although we would prefer them not to be there they are. But once again if they are not harming anyone or offending anyone so be it.

There is nothing wrong with the first two things but it realy is personal choice as to whether or not they are for you. My wife attended the photo shoot and enjoyed them. Im sure I would be bored in no time.

Even the third thing on my list isnt that bad as long as it affects no one that doesnt want to be affected.

----- Original Message -----

From: Blair & Tania Hinton

To: gona...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:13 PM

Subject: RE: [gonatural]

[jono]

I didn't intend to suggest any critical authority on my part or
anything inferior about Binh Trinh's work, just saying something about
my personal taste. I don't like Renoir much either.

[William Scuby]

Binh's work does have a place within naturism/nudism as it uses the body in all its natural form as a way to create art, without including emotions. This may make it look surreal at times, but fits within the criteria set for his work. By doing it this way, he provides a touch a reality against all those touched up, photo shopped glamour pictures we are bombarded with all the time. I prefer to enjoy naturism while exploring, such as the stream bed of the Ngatuhoa stream, below the falls. (See pic). The main thing, in my opinion, is that you can enjoy doing it in NZ without having to do it in secrecy or having to look over your shoulder all the time.

Enjoy summer as long as it lasts.

[alan.geeves]

Thats not what I meant either. Realy Im saying that naturism is one type of
nudism Art is another type (just as nudism is a type of art) and the third
type is best described as erotism. By splitting nudism into these 3 groups
we can distance ourselves from those parts of nudism we dont like but the
cost is that it also distances us from the part we dont mind. I have no
problem with nudism as art but its not part of me. Im not going to say its
bad or that anyone involved is less of a naturist because of it but I cant
see myself in that setting.

> showing �non naturists� or perhaps a better word may be �unconverted�,

> that
> social nudity is not the big bad beast they perhaps thought it was and
> being
> nude for a prolonged period of time around other people is a very
> comfortable way to be A fact many of us already knew, but have been
> looking
> at finding ways to show others. WNC used the opportunity to promote the
> club, with some success too I believe. Gimmicky or not, the potential
> exists at these sessions to give people a clearer understanding of the
> Naturist movement . Surely this is not a bad thing? And by definition,

> isn�t a family portrait contrived? After all, it is not generally how

[Joyce Fleming]

Yes - and Thanks for the pic.

Joyce

> To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com..

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "gonatural" group.

> To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com..

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "gonatural" group.

> To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com..

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gonatural" group.

To post to this group, send email to gona...@googlegroups.com..

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gonatural+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.

[Joyce Fleming]

To Alan Geeves:
A good assessment of 3 perfectly valid types of nudism.

Joyce

Note that eroticism is not to be confused with (#4 - lewdness and vulgarity
which is something else again - to be avoided, as we all agree!)
(Getting into some philosophising here)

[jono]

I have an interesting article somewhere on nudism in Germany during
the rise of the 3rd Reich. There were Nazi nudist groups and
socialist/communist nudist groups and both saw social nudity as an
expression of their own particular political stance.

There were clear differences in the style of nudism practiced, but I
won't attempt to summarize the article from memory. If I can find it
maybe I'll scan it and post here.

>> showing “non naturists” or perhaps a better word may be “unconverted”,

>> that
>> social nudity is not the big bad beast they perhaps thought it was and
>> being
>> nude for a prolonged period of time around other people is a very
>> comfortable way to be A fact many of us already knew, but have been
>> looking
>> at finding ways to show others. WNC used the opportunity to promote the
>> club, with some success too I believe. Gimmicky or not, the potential
>> exists at these sessions to give people a clearer understanding of the
>> Naturist movement . Surely this is not a bad thing? And by definition,

>> isn’t a family portrait contrived? After all, it is not generally how

[John Lowe [BrBnd]]

Hi Joyce,

 

[Incidentally. To clarify re my use of the word "gimmicky" : Binh Trinh's mass nude photos are "gimmicky" which is just another word for contrived - for professional "artistic" purposes such as entertaining - and winning awards!   This is OK, good fun and we may all happily take part; but it's not naturism in the usual "natural" sense.]

 

However, that's not the subject of Bill Ralston's amusing article. Moreover he has done his homework regarding legal aspects, which he may well have found on the FBNZ website.

 

It that was so, I’d have expected him to include a crucial point: intent. Bill says only: “In the Summary Offences Act 1981, you discover that for it to fit into the category of Obscene or Indecent Exposure, the offence would require an element of lewdness or lasciviousness.” But the police also need to prove intent to be obscene or indecent – which means that for anyone claiming to have followed naturist etiquette those criteria must fail, forensically. However, the remaining charge is ‘disorderly behaviour’ for which at present our only real defence is the Bill of Rights Act (which permits public expression of an ethical belief), which has not been prominent in any defence, yet.

 

In recent years FBNZ has worked hard - and believe me, it's uphill work - to convince the authorities and the general public of the current legal position regarding public nudity. At last it is getting through. That is progress, but while on the subject I recommend that it is in our own best interests at this point to avoid pushing the boundaries, but keep to the "etiquette" which boils down to "respect for others."

 

Agreed: but I’d like to expand on the need for a low-ish profile. Any politician can put any bill into parliament – if enough noise is generated, the likes of Bob McCroskie, could quite easily get one to simply ‘ban nudity in public’ introduced, than we’d be protected only by the ‘ballot system’ they have, as to weather that bill gets drawn ‘for reading’. That, I’ve always seen as our biggest threat.

 

Cheers,

John Lowe

[William Scuby]

To some extent I agree with John's to keep a 'low-ish profile', but only to the point of not having the intent to be indecent or obscene. Perhaps I can give an example here. Last year, I was on my normal spot on the beach, and, as I often do, I put on my shoes and went for a coastal walk along the rocks (quite a climb I might say) to another beautiful beach. I spend some time there and when I came back, two families with a couple of kids had landed their boat right in front of 'my spot' and made themselves comfy in the shade of the same tree where I had 'my spot'. I saw that when I came around the rocks. about 150m away. I had nothing to cover up with, so had no choice but to walk to 'my spot', just passed those people. I greeted them and I heard one of the women say to the kids 'he looks almost the same as you do'  and left it to that. I draped myself on my towel and just did my own thing, including going for a swim.

The kids played around me and didn't pay any attention, neither did the parents. When they left, one of the women asked a few questions about access to the beach by foot etc.

This could have easily resulted in a complaint, but it would not have been able to proof 'intent'. Even disorderly behaviour would not have stood a chance in court, I believe. 

With regards to a bill against nudity, it would need to be explicit with regards to certain body parts, otherwise, in the above example, I would have been sufficiently dressed (shoes) to meet that requirement. 

Nudity is quite often used in team building exercises and the examples used by Alan earlier fall in that category I think. It creates a 'them and us' competitive environment, which I would not recommend in a social environment. That would end up with dedicated beaches/areas and separation, while I prefer integration more or less under the principle of 'live and let live' or 'mind your own business'. If you don't like it keep your distance, I'll have the courtesy to keep my distance when 'they' are on the beach first. (that's one of the reason I go very early in the morning :).