diegob@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (01/08/85)
It seems a little ironic that folks who would consider bowling as a nude activity are camera-shy, but that's the way the world goes. I can understand that some of us may be anxious about becoming part of someone's "Nudes on Beaches I Have Visited" collection. On the other hand . . .! Whether I go to a "regular" beach or a clothing-optional one, I like to take a camera to record my good times. Granted, most of the time my photography is limited to the family and friends I go with. However, there have been times when my group has been joined by others or I have joined with others in some fun activity. The clay baths at Gay Head, for example. Everyone took pictures of us naturists -- in and out of clay -- as we sported and played. My nature photography used to be limited to rocks, trees, flowers, sand, water, etc. Now I feel that my good times should be captured with the people who help to make them good. If anyone wishes that the camera not record their presence, I happily honor that expression. So far, no naturist enjoying the play that I am has declined to appear in any photographs. I strongly agree with Evelyn and the others who say that naturists enjoying a beach have as much right to privacy as anyone else; I would never exploit that right with my camera. I do feel, though, that if we are comfortable and honest in our nudity there is no reason we should not preserve the pleasant times we spend without our clothes. It's rather like the baby pictures sometimes taken. The child grows up to be embarrassed by it's infant nudity. The wrong is not the picture or the "invasion of privacy", but the social attitude htat the picture is anything but what it is: an expression of the parents excitement and love of their child. It is the baby's body, sort of its essence of being, that the photo attempts to capture. The child is then socialized to feel "up-tight" about its nakedness. We don't have to feel that way; I hope my child never does. Love, diego@cca