6
Nudist Photography
Something I’ve been contemplating and not sure I have an answer (if there is one). I know nudists have been wrestling with this for awhile:
What is the difference between nudist photos / videos and pornography?
Portrayal of a any sexual act would be one obvious answer. But does it end there?
A lot of the sites on the Internet claim to be nudist when, in reality, they are pornographic.
I’d be curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this one.
This solution has been deemed correct by the post author
I am both a nudist and an art nude photographer.
First, to the definition of pornography: It will probably never be nailed down, but as it is close to my heart because I don’t want people viewing my art as pornography, the way I and and my artistic associates see pornography, it must be sexually explicit. There must be something clearly a sexual act. Like nudists, artists don’t see simple nudity as sexual. Though eroticism is often a theme, and sometimes sexual situations can be art, It’s usually pretty clear what the intention is.
As for the porn sites that show nude beach-goers without their knowledge, that is voyeurism, and it’s wrong. The people in those images don’t believe they’re doing anything sexual, but their likenesses are being put on the internet in a forum that promotes pornography, without permission.
It also paints nudists in a bad light.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikePhydeau, that makes sense. Thank you for your input.
I don’t view nude art as pornographic, but as a celebration of something beautiful, when done properly. So, from what you’ve said, it is a sexual act that makes something pornographic.
As for the voyeurism on websites, to my mind, the people taking the photos need to be held accountable for their actions.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeTo clarify, I’m talking about the individuals illegally taking voyeuristic pictures of unwitting subjects.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeI think Phydeau reply is as good as it gets. Nude is not lewd. By the same token, when there is lewd intentions we can hardly call it simple nudity. The problem is where the line is drawn which may become very subjective.
A few decades ago, many nudist resort ruled out all forms of body contact. Currently most true family nudist resorts allow for normal body contact: greetings, embraces or hugs, kisses and regular contact while playing sports or games. This more realistic approach is consistent with what I feel constitutes nudist photography. Any explicit sexual behavior at those resorts and you will be asked to leave. This is were I see in photography the pornography line kicks in.
Of course there are gray areas, like erections and the occasional touching of someone else’s private part without further sexual intention. I think you can find people that will defend these as non-porn while many others will feel the line is crossed. I think it gets down to the true interaction and intentions of those involved. An erection where the individual chooses attempt to conceal it or take a cool swim would not be construed porn; however clearly flaunt it in an exhibitionist fashion probably will and would be considered lewd and get someone dismissed from most resorts. There will always be a gray area and it is probably safest to steer clear of these areas.
Why do porn sites insist in adding nudist images to their sites? I see this as a clear Marketing approach. They clearly feel tat they are not getting enough visitors on their own so they try and mislead nudist or naturist to their site to increase their revenue. I see it as false marketing and unfortunately is a big disservice to the naturist/nudist community as it adds to societies belief that nudity equals sex. While it would be great to get them to stop doing this, as most of the photos were taken at a public location it is real hard to hold these people accountable for their actions as clothesless1 suggests.
A final comment on the photo policy at most Family Nudist Resorts. While their policies on physical contact have loosened up there policies on photos have not followed suit. They rightfully feel a need to ensure the privacy of their members. This is even more key in light of non nudist sites using photos off the internet without permission. However, this goes along with many nudist/naturist still being in the closet. Unfortunately, while as a component of society we feel we need to hide the fact that we are nudist/naturist because of what others will think; society will continue to believe that there is something wrong with us being nude and that “things happen” at even the Family Friendly Nudist resorts. Hopefully over time more nudist/naturist will be proud of their lifestyle and maybe one day these resorts will find a way of modifying their photography policies to allow photos of individuals that have signed a annual or permanent photo release of some sort. It is clear on the internet that many more individuals are becoming more comfortable being photographed nude in appropriate settings however they may be reluctant to label themselves naturist or nudist. At some point the resort policies need to cater to that population as well.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeMost definitions of pornography that I’ve seen include something about the intent. For example, Merriam-Webster includes “is intended to cause sexual excitement” as part of the definition. So pornography can be anything that is created for the purpose of arousing someone. So if a person has a foot fetish and you take pictures of feet in order to give them a thrill, you are a pornographer. If you are taking pictures of feet for other reasons, then you are not. The same difference exists with regards to a photo of nudists. If the picture is being published in a magazine that is intentionally targeted at people who get aroused by the photo, then it is pornography. If it is published in an authentic nudist magazine, then it is not.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislikeFor me, any photo that is of nude people, done artistically (look at Phydeau’s work on Deviant Art)or without sexual intent, is not pornographic. It doesn’t FOCUS on the pubic region (male nor female), nor does any of it include sexual acts. It is nudity done as an art form or as a statement of a fact of life.
For me, sexual acts AND a FOCUS on the pubic regions is what defines pornography. Now genitals (in the case of a male) will show (hard to take a picture without that), but is not the full intent of the photograph. I think that is my full definition.
However, since in the ’70s (I believe), the Supreme Court couldn’t decide the definition of pornography, I don’t suspect we will be able to here.
Was this answer helpful?
LikeDislike