no law forbidding nakedness in public

[Joyce Fleming]

I expect some of you will have noticed the article on page 14 of the LISTENER dated February 25 2012. This is Bill Ralston's weekly column, Life, headed "The bare facts." Well, believe it or not, he's got the facts right regarding legal aspects of nudity.

In my opinion, it's not a bad article.

Unfortunately it is accompanied by a photo which puts me in mind of those post-war pictures of hordes of naked people on their way to the gas chambers, except that these are less emaciated. However in this instance the photo is there to illustrate a light-hearted piece about bums, probably inspired by the Binh Trinh's photo sessions, (which are a bit gimmicky for my liking.) I guess there's a time and place for everything.

 

Joyce

[Blair & Tania Hinton]

Award winning photography is hardly “gimmicky”

--
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.

[jono]

These are question of personal taste I think. I find Binh Trinh's
work a bit gimmicky too, so I agree with Joyce, but I think it's an
interesting project and he has made some satisfying images so all
kudos for the award.

Personally, and maybe Joyce agrees with me, I enjoy portraits and
figure studies that reveal something about the subject as a unique
person, rather than subordinating him or her to a formal composition.

I read the Listener article and I agree. It's message of live and let
live is positive, and so is the observation that a perfect bum is not
a prerequisite for getting naked.

:-)

[alan.geeves]

I agree with Blair & tania as i've taken part in one of his photo shots.

Linda.

[David R.]

I think there is a place for Binh's projects, as works of art of a
kind, and in terms of the enjoyment of those taking part, the
opportunity to meet up and join together in such a project. I don't
think the mass photos necessarily do anything to open people's minds
up, but perhaps that's not Binh's aim, except in an artistic sense.

[jono]

I totally think there is a place for his work. I think it must open
people's minds too. I bet there were people at those shoots who had
never been naked with a bunch of other people before. Wld that be
right?

[alan.geeves]

Bound to have been but a lot of those people that stripped off for the photo
will not till the next time Binh is in town. They are there for the
nakedness for art not the nakedness for naturism. Noone here or anywhere
else has ever said anything bad about his work ever

[jono]

Are nakedness for art and nakedness for naturism different?

[William Scuby]

I think that the personal experience and perception is different. You might not find being naked appealing, nice, comfortable, relaxing or similar, but you overcome those feelings as a result of wanting to make a statement, be part of an event, or to extend your personal boundaries (I'm sure there are more). 

Looking at it from a bystanders point of view, the nakedness appears to be the same, with the feeling that for the photo experience it seems to be somewhat unnatural, posed (:)), forced.

Nakedness for naturism is not forced, in general comes across as natural, and people do what they and others would do if they were (partly) dressed.

If seems to follow that the personal experience is different for both the participants and the onlookers.

[jono]

So being naked is like putting on a uniform? The 'club uniform' I suppose!

And I guess there are a lot of other kinds of uniformed nakedness...
such as for medical examination, for intimate activity, for washing,
for making a statement or protest, etc...

But.. when a baby is born, which uniform is he wearing? His birthday
suit obviously, but is it a statement? ("Here I am!") A medical
exam? An intimate activity? Or is he just ready for a bath?

Other than maybe posing for an art work (but see
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/43/dtg_marniupdate3_2011_10_28_bk.html)
one could argue all of these to be true in some sense.

I think there's a wild aspect to nudity, a 'state of nature' where we
can be animals for a while, and conventional social categories are
blurred. This is often recognized when people say that naturism
strips away social barriers along with clothes, but this is a fairly
superficial observation. Nakedness doesn't strip away race or
tattoos, for example. But for the baby being born, none of these
categories exist. He is in a sense experiencing true nakedness.

Maybe being naked enables us to return to this undifferentiated state,
and feel a little like that baby?

The sense of being an animal, or at least a primitive human, is one of
the delights of naturism for me. Walking naked through thick bush,
climbing a cliff, diving in surf, all seem to be fundamentally
different experiences without clothes or footwear. One of the things
I notice is that I'm extremely aware of the natural world and
sometimes feel quite vulnerable, just like a baby. At one with nature

This is a personal experience but the picture changes when other
people are involved.

Some aspects of social naturism are highly conventional. Because of
what has been stripped away, there is a residual need to preserve a
core of human dignity. People want to feel free, but also safe.
Respect for other people's feelings, common decency and also the
special etiquette of naturism all work to enable a sense of trust and
openness that offsets the edgier rawness of the natural state.

I think that, along with wildness, mutual respect is one of the most
appealing elements of naturism. Working together they take away a lot
of the stresses of the everyday world.

So yep, maybe wearing the 'club uniform' is different to all those
other ways of not wearing clothes, but I also think it refers to them
all by association, and that part of the fun is to return to a state
where categories aren't important.

[Mark Kennedy]

Crikey I must buy the Listener to see what all the fuss is all about.
Mark

Mark Kennedy

 

> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:52:21 +1300

> Subject: Re: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public

> From: rarom...@gmail.com
> To: gona...@googlegroups.com

[Joyce Fleming]

[My reply to Mark]

Excuse me for laughing, but I am pleasantly amused by the fact that Bill Ralston's entertaining personal comments in this week's column in the Listener has developed into our examination of the philosophy of naturism.

To save you having to buy a copy of the Listener, I attached a scanned copy of Ralston's article in my email of 22 Feb (12:59).

I am surprised at the number of topics which have arison for discussion as a result of this. By the way, I only mentioned Binh Trinh because of the picture though that is not the subject of the article (but as an illustration it is not very nice).

 

A definition of naturism which I like is from the U.S. Naturist Education Foundation:

"'Naturist' is the world-wide term for individuals and families who devote part of their time to being natural in the open expanse of nature , and who adhere to a strict code of conduct." 

 

Put it this way. Yes, we are part of the animal kingdom and I like the state of being in direct contact with the four elements (which are air, earth, water and fire (=sunlight). Most in the "civilised" modern world have lost touch with this and have become too smart for their own good.

Joyce

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

From: Mark Kennedy

To: gona...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 9:14 AM

Subject: RE: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public

Crikey I must buy the Listener to see what all the fuss is all about.
Mark

Mark Kennedy

 

> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:52:21 +1300
> Subject: Re: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public
> From: rarom...@gmail.com
> To: gona...@googlegroups.com
>
> So being naked is like putting on a uniform? The 'club uniform' I suppose!
>
> And I guess there are a lot of other kinds of uniformed nakedness...
> such as for medical examination, for intimate activity, for washing,
> for making a statement or protest, etc...
>
> But.. when a baby is born, which uniform is he wearing? His birthday
> suit obviously, but is it a statement? ("Here I am!") A medical
> exam? An intimate activity? Or is he just ready for a bath?
>
> Other than maybe posing for an art work (but see

> http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/43/dtg_marniupdate3_2011_10_28_bk..html)

[Mark Kennedy]

Thanks Joyce, Yes it is quite amusing way of looking at Naturism.
Hmm maybe next time I am naked I should take my club with me and clobber something to eat and drag the good woman back to my cave by the hair, Ugg Ugg !!!.
Regards, Mark

Mark Kennedy

 

---

From: joy...@xtra.co.nz
To: gona...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:47:44 +1300

[alan.geeves]

so little more for me to say Actualy I think you all understand

[David R.]

For me, Jono's contribution describes so much of my own experience and
feelings. My appreciation for such a thoughtful piece.

David

On Feb 23, 6:52 pm, jono <raromau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So being naked is like putting on a uniform?  The 'club uniform' I suppose!
>
> And I guess there are a lot of other kinds of uniformed nakedness...
> such as for medical examination, for intimate activity, for washing,
> for making a statement or protest, etc...
>
> But..  when a baby is born, which uniform is he wearing?  His birthday
> suit obviously, but is it a statement?  ("Here I am!")  A medical
> exam?  An intimate activity?  Or is he just ready for a bath?
>

> Other than maybe posing for an art work (but seehttp://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/43/dtg_marniupdate3_2011_10_2...)

> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM, jono <raromau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Are nakedness for art and nakedness for naturism different?
>
> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM, alan.geeves
> >> <alan.gee...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> >> > Bound to have been but a lot of those people that stripped off for the
> >> > photo
> >> > will not till the next time Binh is in town. They are there for the
> >> > nakedness for art not the nakedness for naturism. Noone here or anywhere
> >> > else has ever said anything bad about his work ever

> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "jono" <raromau...@gmail.com>

> >> > To: <gona...@googlegroups.com>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:13 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public
>
> >> > I totally think there is a place for his work.  I think it must open
> >> > people's minds too.  I bet there were people at those shoots who had
> >> > never been naked with a bunch of other people before.  Wld that be
> >> > right?
>

> >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM, David R. <dmbrichard...@tiscali.co.uk>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/gonatural?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[jono]

Thankyou David. I get a bit carried away with the philosophizing but
it's great to know it's been interesting for someone!
:-)

Jono

[Jim Waters]

Hi all

I hope you don't mind me adding more this late, but I had a few things I wanted to add to this interesting discussion in response to others.

Firstly in relation to Allan's comment that "Noone here or anywhere

else has ever said anything bad about his work ever"

That is a bold statement.  It appears to be true in relation to the media coverage, although I suspect there may be letters to the Listener soon (which Bill may not accept for publication, so we may never know).
I doubt that he wrote the article to stimulate a letter writing campaign.

Outside the media though I don't think the statement is correct.  Some people definitely do react negatively Binh's projects.  I was with a family member when the John Campbell interview came on, and the TV was promptly turned off much to my disappointment.  I was not surprised though as a comment along the line "why would anyone want to do that?" had previously been made by the same relative (way back before the Breaker Bay shoot which got front page Dominion coverage).  Interestingly due to the delay of the event on account of the tsunami I was able to attend that first Wgtn event myself.  Naturally I did not need to tell everyone about it.

It seemed to me that there definitely were people present who were not used to being nude in public or a mixed group, and in that respect I agree with Jono who wrote " I bet there were people at those shoots who had never been naked with a bunch of other people before.  Wld that be
right?"  I saw some people who appeared to be wanting to go but who held back, also.  Even at Te Marua some people appeared to be new to the experience as quite a few people stayed clothed for some time before the photography started which surprised me given that it was a clothes free venue to start with.

In both cases it seems to me that relatively quickly people got used to being nude, and in a way I think the fact that you have Binh to listen to and instructions to follow distracts people from thinking about any self consciousness.

It would be good to have a really large turn out by improving the  communication processes.  I was quite surprised how few were at Bethel's beach given the size of the Auckland population.

The photos of more than 5000 at the Opera house in Sydney should be our target, where they were amazed at the turn out.

Regards too all.

Jim

> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:52:21 +1300

> Subject: Re: [gonatural] Re: no law forbidding nakedness in public

> From: rarom...@gmail.com
> To: gona...@googlegroups.com