6 ms·
You can enjoy the freedom of being nude on your own private property then. No need to add "in public" unless you are trying to a) destigmatize or b) be an exhib
by daenz 4y ago
You can enjoy the freedom of being nude on your own private property then. No need to add "in public" unless you are trying to a) destigmatize or b) be an exhibitionist
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aqme28 4y agoNo. I like to be nude swimming at the lake, but I don’t have a lake on my property. There’s a whole culture of this in Eastern Germany, where I currently live.
- daenz 4y agoYour choice to swim nude in a public lake outweighing the choice to be more prudish is destigmatizing.
- aqme28 4y agoOf course, but that’s not why I’m swimming nude.
- daenz 4y agoSorry but I just don't buy it. There's no functional difference between swimming in undergarments or swimming nude, so if you choose nude, it's because you don't think it should be stigmatized. If you think it feels so much nicer, consider that it's because it's a mild rebellion against a social norm.
- aetherane 4y agoOr it could be because it feels good. Not everything has to be making a point against society. In places where being nude is normal, it isn't considered a weird thing.
- aqme28 4y agoThen why do people do this in cultures where it's not stigmatized?
- foobarbecue 4y agoIt's nice to get an even tan and some exercise and feel the sun and wind and water all over your body. Daenz... have you tried it?
- daenz 4y agoYes. I've probably spent more time tanning at nude beaches than most people.
- foobarbecue 4y agoPurely as a political demonstration?
- saiya-jin 4y agoLook mr prudent, you don't get the motivation why folks do it, fine, but show some respect. And yes there is huge difference between swimming naked and in some swim shorts. I couldn't care less about rebelling against something, and I am definitely not any kind of exhibitionist. Done it cca twice if I don't count swimming during night, second time got sting on the shoulder from medusa that left burn scar for years and hurt like hell back then. The idea of getting something similar on my johnson makes me shudder even now.
- daenz 4y ago>And yes there is huge difference between swimming naked and in some swim shorts I didn't say "swim shorts", I said underwear, which tend to be tight fitting and not baggy. And there really isn't a "huge difference."
- unethical_ban 4y agoHow can it be so difficult to comprehend, that people might want to be nude with other people but not have it shared with the entire world for all eternity? How can you not comprehend there are stages between "complete and total privacy with one person for a moment" and "film this and display it for all time to everyone"?
- daenz 4y agoThat's not difficult to comprehend at all. It sounds like you're not comprehending my point.
- unethical_ban 4y agoYou shifted the goalposts into a false dichotomy about "public vs. private" and the concept of de-stigmatization. I am saying the entire premise is bunk, there is not only "private" and "public". There is clearly a definition of "public" that involves a limited, semi-unrestricted number of like-minded people in a safe setting without tools to record behavior for eternal and unlimited rebroadcast. You do not acknowledge this; you are talking in binary.
- davidgay 4y ago> There's no functional difference between swimming in undergarments or swimming nude, I can tell you haven't been backpacking.
- _trampeltier 4y agoI think you have a wrong understanding of nude beaches. People are usually very friendly and relaxed. Most have not a model body and are a bit older. When I was younger I also could no imagine I would go to there, but it's just so a much nicer experience. I feel much more calm on a nude beach than on a normal beach.
- Jon_Lowtek 4y agoGuess you are from the USA, where no digital age concept of privacy exists, and the word still has a 17th century meaning of "behind closed curtains at home" instead of the modern interpretation of "requiring consent of the data subject". I am from europa, our laws, culture and philosophy are different. More specifically i am german, and we have a nudist tradition that has nothing to do with making statements. Not everything "in public" is a statement made with the consent to be recorded, shared over the internet by bystanders, exploited by corporations and archived for eternity. A public nude beach, and take note that this thread is actually about a private nude beach but let's argue the weaker point, is a place for people to be nude, not a place to be exploited to make porn. The fact that it is physically possibly to exploit a nude beach for softcore porn does not mean it is acceptable. In the same way that being nude at a shopping mall is physically possible, but socially not acceptable and mostly also not legal. Please note that nudism and exhibitionism are not the same. For most participants Nudism is about freedom of self and a return to nature, it is about oneself, not about society or making statements, and not about pushing ones own nudity into other peoples faces. That would be exhibitionism. Many nudists are quite shy and not interested in becoming someone else wank material, or an actor on national television, or instahub. They do not wish to be recorded. They just want to be nude at the beach, there is no larger meaning or implied consent. Let me repeat that: being nude at a nude beach does not automatically imply consent to be filmed by anyone for any purpose. And we can argue this finer detail of "privacy" as being different from "privatly/publicly" and how it hinges on consent, without looking at nudism in particular: Imagine every time you leave the house a national television crew follows you around. It doesn't actually matter what you do, they will cut and manipulate the footage to fit their narrative. You are not getting paid and are not consenting, and you have no influence on what the show is about. But it is going to be degrading, let's call it "americans most stupid". You should have stayed inside if you don't want to be exploited like that. This is the american idea of privacy: once you step outside, you have none. The usa does not differentiate between "being seen on the street, at a bar, at a beach" and "being published on national television, on instagram, on pornhub". If you want to use the former, you must accept to be exploited by the later and their endless supply of unpaid content creators. The european interpretation says that these people are not content creators, but creeps that are violating your human right to privacy and self determination by recording and publishing your activities without your consent. The public is facing the tragedy of the commons as "public spaces" have become freely and easily exploitable by corporations in the age of surveillance capitalism and social media. Note that european style privacy law is differentiated in the finer details: a person who films at a nude beach can claim to do so as a technological extension of their own personal memories and with no intention to publish the material and that is not in violation of privacy laws. This is the case in the thread starter. For the law it is the exploitation of the material, turning personal data of unwilling subjects into commodities without their consent, which is illegal. This is a detail most people at nude beaches do not like: they find the act of filming itself to be as creepy as a wanker sitting in the bushes.