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