Baring It All To Promote Nudism?
Zorro
knowledge. I am speaking of all those seedy links which, when one attempts
to search honestly for true nudism, are instead redirected to nudity only as
it relates to hardcore pornography.
That stuff aside, would you be willing to be photographed in the buff for
the specific intentions of having your pictures posted to a legitimate
website on the nudist lifestyle? Don't take this as an request. Just
curious.
Richard C.
news:12n3l5n...@news.supernews.com...
I do it all the time.....
Zee
you would pay his travel expenses to the white house lawn and expose
his crotch and be completely naked for all of congress to see...but
other than this pervert i wonder myself....jonZeee
cyndiann
Neosapienis
I know what you mean. Sites like purenudism.com can be constituted as
soft-core pornography, and there are other nudist sites like it in which one
has to pay to view the photos and videos using their credit card, and/or
have links to pornography. So much for their disclaimer that nudism is not
to do with sex. I mean, why can't they link to more wholesome, family
orientated sites if they claim nudism is a family-friendly lifestyle?
Regarding your second question: I have been photographed nude a few times in
the magazine "Australian Sun & Health" in the 1990's to promote a nudist
swim club (which is now defunct), a photo-editorial article, and a triathlon
at Pacific Sun Friends to raise money for muscular dystrophy.
--
Regards,
Dario Western
http://www.icq.com/38318214
http://www.myspace.com/25155501
http://theglamgod.spaces.msn.com
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"Zorro" <Loo...@You.dot> wrote in message
news:12n3l5n...@news.supernews.com...
Richard C.
news:1165092550....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> well Zorro ...i really believe that richard c would pose for free if
> you would pay his travel expenses to the white house lawn and expose
> his crotch and be completely naked for all of congress to see...but
> other than this pervert i wonder myself....jonZeee
===============================
Sorry..............
I do NOT do "crotch exposure".
I only do NUDE shoots.
================================
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Dear Zorro,
Of course. The same as others in this NG, we're in nude photos very often.
But "Baring It All" is a childish, non nudist way of describing what's
natural, normal, and healthy.
We don't "Bare It All". We simply enjoy the nude, natural, and normal
experience of clothes freedom.
Casa Blanca Hot Spring
Camilla Van Sickle & Bill Pennington
POB 10, Tonopah, Arizona 85354
CasaBlanc...@mindspring.com
"Zorro" <Loo...@You.dot> wrote in message
news:12n3l5n...@news.supernews.com...
Arfur Moo
meaning what? and pronounced how?) at
<dario....@NOSPAMpowerup.com.auNOSPAM> wrote in
<4571f42e$0$28911$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
> [. . .]
>
> I mean, why can't they link to more wholesome, family orientated sites if
> they claim nudism is a family-friendly lifestyle?
>
That's right -- such family-oriented sites as the famous erotica-oriented one
(it accepts as performers nobody but sylphs, mostly those who are only
_barely_ of "legal" age) at <http://www.met-art.com/>, a credited photograph
from which a reluctant Neosapenis has said he removed a few days ago from his
page at <http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/YoungAussieNudists/> after the
photograph had been lying there for I don't know how long.
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Let's see whether he falls
over backwards. Oh, silly me -- he's performed that feat countless times
already. He's still hoping nobody has noticed.
Why would a talented photographer ever want to pirate a picture from the
erotica business and try to press it into service as an honest advertisement
for nudism/naturism? Why wouldn't he simply use a picture from his own peachy
(oops -- I mean unimpeachable) portfolio?
>
> [. . .]
>
--
Arfur Moo
Wayne
female models but never have I seen any evidence of this. Even when he was
a member of my naturist photography group, he posted a cpl of pics which
were of very poor quality. Definately not the type or quality of images
that anyone proclaiming to be a photography enthusiast with an SLR camera
would post. It is just another figment of his vivid imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Arfur Moo" <arfu...@woollengang.net.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1999955...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Anna
I have often wondered about Holy Nature.
It seems to walk the line between legitimate protrayals of nudism and
exploitive material designed for pedophiles?
What do people here think about Holy Nature and why?
-T.
>It seems to walk the line between legitimate protrayals of nudism and
>exploitive material designed for pedophiles?
>
>What do people here think about Holy Nature and why?
I'll humor you: it seems to walk the line between legitimate
protrayals of nudism and exploitive material designed for pedophiles.
-T.
(and humoring you, just this once, does NOT mean we're friends)
When the man said alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, I just naturally assumed he was making a delivery.
Anna
Richard C.
news:1165342179.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Keep banging your head against that fan, you ass!
http://www.sumo.tv/video/55060
If by "legit", you mean they are a business, sell produce, deliver product
and have customers,
Then YES, they are legit.
Bite me.................
Anna
No I mean that as a nudist do you feel comfortable about them using the
word Nudist to promote their videos or do you think they are just using
the term Nudist as cover for them to produce videos aimed at pedophiles?
cyndiann
Anna
Why would nudists be interested in paying to see for pictures of naked
people? For what purpose? Now I can think of other types of people who
would pay some money to see naked people and their purpose for doing
so, but why would nudists pay for something they get to see for free?
So, yeah, it seems to very, very uncomfortably walk the line (falling
off?). It would really concern me if it had underaged people like the
Holy Nature vidoes do.
Bert Clanton
>
> Would you put this site into that same category?
>
> http://enaturist.com/
>
> cyndiann
While I haven't joined eNaturist, and so haven't reviewed any of the
galleries, I see absolutely nothing about the introductory pages that
anyone could reasonably object to.
Best wishes,
Bert
Anna
They are all young (from what I can see not too young like with Holy
Nature) and very attractive.
I might have a nudist mindset but I can't be naïve to the fact that
most at least in our society do not.
If they want to sell nude photos then they should sell nude photos not
nudist photos. Nudists must not let these types of people hide behind
the word "nudist" when nudism isn't what these people are about.
-T.
wrote:
>Bite me.................
Ah yes, the crushing grip of a well reasoned argument.
;-)
-T.
-T.
>No I mean that as a nudist do you feel comfortable about them using the
>word Nudist to promote their videos or do you think they are just using
>the term Nudist as cover for them to produce videos aimed at pedophiles?
Some of what they do seems to fall under the definition of nudism. I
don't necessarily think they are marketing to pedophiles, but I'd be
surprized if pedophiles were not among their clientelle. Pedophiles
also enjoy the childrens section of the Sears catalogue. So what?
-T.
-T.
wrote:
>
>
>Would you put this site into that same category?
>
>http://enaturist.com/
>
Hell...I hate being pushed into a corner. Okay, so this is how I
really feel about the whole commercial end of things. If you charge
admission for the "nudist" content, it's probably not nudist. I used
to tell folks, "It's not about seeing, it's about being." I still
believe that. That doesn't mean that a nudist/naturist page shouldn't
have pictures. Nor do I have any problem with nude photography. But,
nudism (probably more along the lines of naturism, really) is more
about enjoying the sun and the wind, the lapping of the waves and the
sound of folks being children again. No admission charged. My two
cents. Worth what you paid for it.
-T.
cyndiann
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:05:34 GMT, cyndiann <cynd...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Would you put this site into that same category?
>>
>> http://enaturist.com/
>>
>
> Hell...I hate being pushed into a corner. Okay, so this is how I
> really feel about the whole commercial end of things. If you charge
> admission for the "nudist" content, it's probably not nudist. I used
> to tell folks, "It's not about seeing, it's about being." I still
> believe that. That doesn't mean that a nudist/naturist page shouldn't
> have pictures. Nor do I have any problem with nude photography. But,
> nudism (probably more along the lines of naturism, really) is more
> about enjoying the sun and the wind, the lapping of the waves and the
> sound of folks being children again. No admission charged. My two
> cents. Worth what you paid for it.
>
Ok, that would include http://www.clothesfree.com too? They charge $50 a
year for a "membership" and most of what you get is just plain naked
pictures.
Anna
Considering that only underaged girls are in the Holy Nature videos, I
suspect that they are marketing to pedophiles using the term "nudist"
as cover.
Anna
Yes that would include clothesfree.com . They are hiding behind the
word nudism.
-T.
wrote:
>Ok, that would include http://www.clothesfree.com too? They charge $50 a
>year for a "membership" and most of what you get is just plain naked
>pictures.
Are you trying to make my head explode????? <sigh> Never mind. Long
day. Rhetorical question. Clothesfree.com sends me a news letter now
and then. It doesn't cost me anything, and it is periodically
informative. I don't know what you get for $50 a year, because, again,
if I got to pay for it, it ain't nudism. I pay my dues to the Naturist
Society, and that's about it.
You want to know what pictures I would pay to see? Real people having
a genuine day at the beach or club. Imperfect women with stretch marks
building sand castles with their kids. Average dads showing their kids
how to fly a kite. Children catching frogs. Regular, normal people,
doing regular normal things... like what I see at the beach, the
hotsprings, the resorts. People like me, enjoying creation and one
another.
The problem, of course, is that these things would not be commercially
successful. And many sites have overhead that they have to meet. There
are no easy answers, damnit. I wish there were.
-T.
>Considering that only underaged girls are in the Holy Nature videos
How many videos have you ordered????? That is, where are you getting
"most" from?
David Looser
news:839cn2d0ad6a7ghnk...@4ax.com...
>
> Hell...I hate being pushed into a corner. Okay, so this is how I
> really feel about the whole commercial end of things. If you charge
> admission for the "nudist" content, it's probably not nudist. I used
> to tell folks, "It's not about seeing, it's about being." I still
> believe that. That doesn't mean that a nudist/naturist page shouldn't
> have pictures. Nor do I have any problem with nude photography. But,
> nudism (probably more along the lines of naturism, really) is more
> about enjoying the sun and the wind, the lapping of the waves and the
> sound of folks being children again. No admission charged. My two
> cents. Worth what you paid for it.
>
nudist" pretty much sums up my views Moderate numbers of pictures of nudism
in action are fine, wide-angle views of nudist facilities with people
incidently included. But having large galleries of pictures of people which
are of no interest beyond the fact that they are naked isn't.
David.
Richard C.
>
> Why would nudists be interested in paying to see for pictures of naked
> people? For what purpose?
=========================
Why would people be interested in paying to see pictures of people?
For what purpose?
Richard C.
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:35:40 -0800, "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bite me.................
>
> Ah yes, the crushing grip of a well reasoned argument.
>
And you think that "anna" is even interested in a "well reasoned argument"?
Bert Clanton
>
> They are all young (from what I can see not too young like with Holy
> Nature) and very attractive.
So some nudists are attractive. This is bad?
>
> I might have a nudist mindset but I can't be naïve to the fact that
> most at least in our society do not.
True.
>
> If they want to sell nude photos then they should sell nude photos not
> nudist photos. Nudists must not let these types of people hide behind
> the word "nudist" when nudism isn't what these people are about.
Again, I've only seen the eNaturist introductory material, not the
galleries; but I see nothing in the introductory material to imply that
there is any explicitly sexual content in the galleries. If there is,
and you can document it, I'll stand corrected.
There's a principle involved here, about which reasonable people can
disagree. If there's no portrayal of explicit sexual activity in a
photograph, and no sexual parts are emphasized by the posture of the
people in the photograph, but there are still people who are sexually
aroused by the photograph, should publication of the photograph be
restricted just because some people are aroused by it? I belong to the
school of thought that says "No", that such arousal, if problematic at
all, is a problem owned by the persons who get aroused. Are there
people who can be motivated to rape or to pedophilic action by
photographs with no explicit sexual content? Yes. Does that in and of
itself imply that such photographs should be suppressed? In my view,
no. To say yes would imply that simple photographs of fully-clothed
children at play should be suppressed, since there are people who are
sexually aroused by such photographs; or that pictures of women's shoes
in advertisements should be prohibited, since a few people might be
motivated by them to commit rape.
Best wishes,
Bert
Anna
It says on the web site what the videos are about.
Neosapienis
When does nudism cease to be nudism? How many of us would pay money for a
magazine or for a bulletin to document nudist and naturist activities?
How many us pay money for the privilege of taking our clothes off on
somebody's secluded property?
If you do not want to pay money for nudism, then go naked in your own
backyard. It's as simple as that. We live in a capitalist society where
sex and nudity (at least with young and nubile types) sell to the masses.
I see nothing wrong with the Enaturist or e-nature sites. It's just young
people enjoying themselves without the need for clothes. Most young people
in our culture tend to envy these types that they don't seem to have any
hangups about themselves.
--
Regards,
Dario Western
http://www.icq.com/38318214
http://www.myspace.com/25155501
http://theglamgod.spaces.msn.com
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"cyndiann" <cynd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:op.tj3wy5p4iunudf@s3e5c3...
-T.
wrote:
>"-T." <stinson...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:pv7cn2d2ov6nejdjj...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:35:40 -0800, "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bite me.................
>>
>> Ah yes, the crushing grip of a well reasoned argument.
>>
>=============================
>And you think that "anna" is even interested in a "well reasoned argument"?
Hey, Richard. I'm on your side. It just amused the hell out of me
that's all. I put the smiley in so I wouldn't be misinterpreted.
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
...
>Bite me.................
Be careful what you ask Anna for, Richard. :-) S/he might just.
Could hurt ....
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
>Why would people be interested in paying to see pictures of people?
>For what purpose?
There are the sex sites.
Then there are medical sites and the like that are of professional
interest and charge. Beyond that, I am having a hard time. There are
many sites like Kodak's with galleries of pictures of all kinds, just
not charging money and personal (you must join, however).
Moving pictures and videos are popular. Also, there are fan magazines,
women's and men's magazines, and comics where people pay money to see
pictures of people.
I have no idea what to make of that. There is no association I know of
between what pictures people see and what they do, except in the case
of violence causing increases in spousal/child abuse by men.
Why do you ask?
Richard C.
news:226fn2djievei0rgl...@4ax.com...
You did not read clearly.
My [sarcastic] response was to the previous poster who said :
"why would nudists pay to see pictures of nude people".
David Looser
news:2pSdnTYzV_P0RuvY...@comcast.com...
1/ "Pin-ups"
2/ Pictures of celebrities (preferably candid pictures)
3/ Pictures with real artistic merit
4/ Quirky pictures
I can't think of any others.
Which category do pictures of naked people fall into?
David.
Terry J. Wood
news:FqRch.2358$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Neosapenis is a BS artist. He claims to have taken so many nude pics
> of female models but never have I seen any evidence of this.
I've taken lots of nudes of female friends and you'll never see any
evidence of this either.
Terry J. Wood
news:f28cn2172ecntaebl...@4ax.com:
> Some of what they do seems to fall under the definition of nudism. I
> don't necessarily think they are marketing to pedophiles, but I'd be
> surprized if pedophiles were not among their clientelle. Pedophiles
> also enjoy the childrens section of the Sears catalogue. So what?
Where is the SEARS HALL O' SHAME when you need it?
Terry J. Wood
>>>Bite me.................
>>
>> Ah yes, the crushing grip of a well reasoned argument.
> =============================
> And you think that "anna" is even interested in a "well reasoned
> argument"?
"Bite me" sums it up very nicely, I think.
Terry J. Wood
@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Why would nudists be interested in paying to see for pictures of naked
> people?
We pay to see pictures of clothed people. People wearing fur coats in the
middle of July. They're HOT, HOT, HOT pictures.
Terry J. Wood
news:1165372107.3...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hiding? I thought they were out in the open?
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 07:01:59 -0800, "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Why would people be interested in paying to see pictures of people?
...
>==============================
>You did not read clearly.
>My [sarcastic] response was to the previous poster who said :
>"why would nudists pay to see pictures of nude people".
I read it OK. I just didn't understand it to be sarcasm because I was
not aware that people pay to see pictures of people on the Internet
that are not sex related.
I now see you did not limit your reply to the Internet, and there are
plenty of people who pay to see pictures of people otherwise. In fact,
there is a magazine called "People" dedicated to just that
proposition, in addition to all the fan rags, posters, and so on.
Also, people pay for cable and get CNN, for example, as part of a
package. Then there are the DVDs, movies and other videos, travel
guides, human interest stories and so on. Then there are the soaps.
Then there are late night talk shows paid for indirectly by
advertising included in the cost of the products we buy.
The more I think about it, most people spend a lot of time watching
pictures of other people that they paid to see directly or indirectly.
Richard C.
==========================
My point.
David Looser
news:1dGdnfyYs7425uTY...@comcast.com...
nudist photo gallery in the textile world. Just reams and reams of
unintersting pictures of total strangers.
David.
Neosapienis
I've got some samples of my photographic work on these sites:
http://brisman.net-model.com
http://dario-western.deviantart.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrikin70
I have been photographing female nudes since 1993, although I have not been
doing too much photography of late.
--
Regards,
Dario Western
http://www.icq.com/38318214
http://www.myspace.com/25155501
http://theglamgod.spaces.msn.com
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9892A9337FF...@216.168.3.30...
Arfur Moo
<dario....@NOSPAMpowerup.com.auNOSPAM> wrote in
<457a8d59$0$855$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
> [. . .]
>
> I have been photographing female nudes since 1993, although I have not been
> doing too much
>
Dear Neosapenis, nobody would ever want you to do _too_ much of anything.
>
> photography of late.
>
--
Arfur Moo
figleaf
Zorro wrote:
> The illegitimate avenues to the nudist lifestyle on the internet are common
> knowledge. I am speaking of all those seedy links which, when one attempts
> to search honestly for true nudism, are instead redirected to nudity only as
> it relates to hardcore pornography.
> That stuff aside, would you be willing to be photographed in the buff for
> the specific intentions of having your pictures posted to a legitimate
> website on the nudist lifestyle? Don't take this as an request. Just
> curious.
For the intentions of promoting nudism to a legitimate website, I would
love to
be photographed in the buff to show the lifestyle. I would not be
affraid to step
out for the cause.
As for being photographed ust for the purpose of someone making money
by
selling those photos, that I am against. Pornograohy is illegal in my
sight.
Anna
But the pictures are the same regardless of whether it is to promote
nudism or to make money. Are you saying that it is the intent of the
producer of the photos that make it pornography or not instead of the
content of the photos?
Anna
Neosapienis wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> I've got some samples of my photographic work on these sites:
>
> http://brisman.net-model.com
> http://dario-western.deviantart.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrikin70
>
> I have been photographing female nudes since 1993, although I have not been
> doing too much photography of late.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dario Western
>
> http://www.icq.com/38318214
> http://www.myspace.com/25155501
> http://theglamgod.spaces.msn.com
Neosapienis wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> I've got some samples of my photographic work on these sites:
>
> http://brisman.net-model.com
> http://dario-western.deviantart.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrikin70
>
> I have been photographing female nudes since 1993, although I have not been
> doing too much photography of late.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dario Western
Why not male nudes?
If you say it's because you aren't gay, that just proves that the
reason you do female nudes does have a sexual origin. It proves that
you are doing it for sexualized reasons whether it is subconscious or
not.
Or perhaps naked men are not that attractive. I remember on a Seinfeld
once there was an episode where a girlfriend moved in with Seinfeld
and she was going around naked all the time. Jerry decided to start
doing that as well.
Elaine said there was a difference between "good" nudity and "bad"
nudity.
http://www.tv.com/seinfeld/the-apology/episode/2405/summary.html
http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheApology.htm
Jerry: "Well, I was walking around naked in front of Melissa the other
day--"
Elaine: "Whoa! Walking around naked? Ahh... that is not a good look for
a
man."
George: "Why not? It's a good look for a woman."
Elaine: "Well, the female body is a... work of art. The male body is
utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep."
Jerry: "So you don't think it's attractive?"
Elaine: "It's hideous. The hair, the... the lumpiness. It's simian."
In the end Jerry had to break up with this woman for when she saw him
she got the image of a Caveman. Jerry said, "We couldn't carry on a
conversation. I kept trying to picture her naked, she kept trying to
not picture me naked."
It might explain why there are fewer females in nudism than males. It
is very easy for men to get used to seeing naked women but not as easy
for women to get used to seeing naked males especially with their penis
hanging out and flopping around.