9 ms·

>But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again. Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public

by daenz 4y ago

>But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again. Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? I know you mentioned this was a "private lake" but it is unclear of if you mean legally private or de facto private. In case of the latter, even creepers have a right to be there and film. I used to visit a nude beach and there was always some clothed weirdo with their phone out. They would get unfriendly looks by everyone though, and I think the ostracization kept them on the outskirts of the community.

aqme28 4y ago
That’s not the point of being nude in public. For some people sure. Others like the freedom of it. In either case, most just want an ephemeral experience, and don’t want permanent recordings.
- 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 ago
    No. 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 ago
      Your choice to swim nude in a public lake outweighing the choice to be more prudish is destigmatizing.
      - aqme28 4y ago
        Of course, but that’s not why I’m swimming nude.
        daenz 4y ago
        Sorry 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 ago
        Or 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.
        daenz 4y ago
        Why is being nude normal in some places, but not others? That suggests that a stigma exists in one but not the other, and so participating in one or the other is implicitly supporting that.
        aqme28 4y ago
        No one is arguing against that
        aqme28 4y ago
        Then why do people do this in cultures where it's not stigmatized?
        daenz 4y ago
        Which cultures are we talking about?
  - _trampeltier 4y ago
    I 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 ago
    Guess 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.
- jrockway 4y ago
  I don't think people really like permanent recordings even when they're wearing clothes. One of my favorite things about the pandemic is the sense of anonymity in public that wearing a mask offers. Less likely to get messages like "hey I saw you slip on that ice on r/all". Instead you're just some rando slipping on the ice!
sph 4y ago
> Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? Destigmatizing doesn't mean people are free to stare or film you. It's the same if someone were filming on a regular beach because they find people's bodies in bikinis attractive (or to have a wank, as admitted by that old creep). You probably wouldn't like that very much.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  No, but people being free to stare at whatever they like in public means that they are free to stare at you.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Just because there is physical distance it does not mean it is not harassment.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      And just because something upsets you doesn't mean it's against the law.
      - afiori 4y ago
        We can make a very long chain saying vaguely related truism forth and back. Or I could recommend reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap... instead.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        It's not a truism that people are not free to cast their eyes in any direction they like in public.
        afiori 4y ago
fxtentacle 4y ago
The lake was on private property owned by the parents of one of the participants. But there's an "open to the public" hiking trail at the border of their property. So legally, I'd consider this similar to looking over the fence into your neighbor's garden. I'd estimate that for most participants, the point of being nude was to feel free. I mean this was students drinking, swimming, and playing beach games for relaxation, not some political rally.
tremon 4y ago
isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? Context matters. The act itself can be destigmatizing (doesn't have to be the goal), but recording it and displaying it out of context usually causes more stigmatization.

by daenz 4y ago

aqme28 4y ago

That’s not the point of being nude in public. For some people sure. Others like the freedom of it. In either case, most just want an ephemeral experience, and don’t want permanent recordings.

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 ago
  No. 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 ago
    Your choice to swim nude in a public lake outweighing the choice to be more prudish is destigmatizing.
    - aqme28 4y ago
      Of course, but that’s not why I’m swimming nude.
      - daenz 4y ago
        Sorry 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 ago
        Or 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.
        daenz 4y ago
        Why is being nude normal in some places, but not others? That suggests that a stigma exists in one but not the other, and so participating in one or the other is implicitly supporting that.
        aqme28 4y ago
        No one is arguing against that
        aqme28 4y ago
        Then why do people do this in cultures where it's not stigmatized?
        daenz 4y ago
        Which cultures are we talking about?
- _trampeltier 4y ago
  I 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 ago
  Guess 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.
jrockway 4y ago
I don't think people really like permanent recordings even when they're wearing clothes. One of my favorite things about the pandemic is the sense of anonymity in public that wearing a mask offers. Less likely to get messages like "hey I saw you slip on that ice on r/all". Instead you're just some rando slipping on the ice!

sph 4y ago

> Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? Destigmatizing doesn't mean people are free to stare or film you. It's the same if someone were filming on a regular beach because they find people's bodies in bikinis attractive (or to have a wank, as admitted by that old creep). You probably wouldn't like that very much.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
No, but people being free to stare at whatever they like in public means that they are free to stare at you.
- afiori 4y ago
  Just because there is physical distance it does not mean it is not harassment.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    And just because something upsets you doesn't mean it's against the law.
    - afiori 4y ago
      We can make a very long chain saying vaguely related truism forth and back. Or I could recommend reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap... instead.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        It's not a truism that people are not free to cast their eyes in any direction they like in public.
        afiori 4y ago

fxtentacle 4y ago

The lake was on private property owned by the parents of one of the participants. But there's an "open to the public" hiking trail at the border of their property. So legally, I'd consider this similar to looking over the fence into your neighbor's garden. I'd estimate that for most participants, the point of being nude was to feel free. I mean this was students drinking, swimming, and playing beach games for relaxation, not some political rally.

tremon 4y ago

isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? Context matters. The act itself can be destigmatizing (doesn't have to be the goal), but recording it and displaying it out of context usually causes more stigmatization.