Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site ittvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!hagouel
From: hagouel@ittvax.UUCP (Jack Hagouel)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: Re: Photography and Naturism
Message-ID: <1604@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 14:00:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1604
Posted: Thu Jan 17 14:00:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:48:34 EST
References: <303@wjvax.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC, Stratford Ct.
Lines: 27

>                     ...  Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable,
> provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here
> comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male)
> for bringing a camera ...
> 	Ron Christian  (Watkins-Johnson Co.  San Jose, Calif.)

I agree with Ron. 

Since people like to remember naturist activities just like any other
activity in their lives they should have the choice of shooting pictures.
It is possible that these pictures will be misused. Just like pictures
of nudes by famous painters are misused. If discression is used, the 
photographer with clearly offensive attitude may be politely warned
that his act offends somebody (jush like hushing a talker in the movie).

Privately, it is possible that the pictures are shown to audiences
that were not present at the scene. But why should that be different
than showing pictures of any other populated area (like a restaurant)?
Who knows? This may attract new members to naturist activities.

Ultimately, the intentions of the photographer, rather than the
reactions of the viewers count. We cannot come up with a "intention test";
if, at a particular resort or activity, enough members feel unconfortable
about the intentions of other members then cameras may be banned locally.
Otherwise, I see no reason to ban cameras.

Jack