Water Park

[description: fashion selfies modeling a t-shirt and shorts, and a swim brief]

Saying goodbye to summer with one last trip to a water park. It wasn't quite the last day of August, but it was the weekend before Labor Day, when the season comes to a close. (To say that my posts are running a little bit behind would be an understatement). Like Persephone descending into the Underworld, on the way home I was lamenting that it would probably be at least another nine months before I got to see another girl in a bikini...

I tell you, it always gets to me - every single time. Pools and beaches and water parks - anywhere there's swimming - are like another world from the one we inhabit day in and day out. Every day, we receive these signals - some explicit, some subliminal - reinforcing the "sinfulness" of what could be considered "the pleasures of the flesh". Even if it's something as passive as people going about their business, their bodies mostly covered up in their clothes. Sure, people like sexiness - they consume it in mass quantities - but you're supposed to feel ashamed about it, and keep it hidden away behind a NSFW filter. A skirt that bares too much thigh invites disapproving looks. But then you go swimming, and it's like a veritable meat market. Butts and boobs are hanging out everywhere and nobody bats an eyelash. It's almost like they don't notice (although I'm certain they do - the fact that everybody still behaves in a civilized manner, as nudists do, demonstrates that it's not a problem having all that flesh on display). Because in that isolated context, for some reason, it's accepted.

And I couldn't be happier. There are so many beautiful girls wearing skimpy clothing with so much skin on display, it's almost blinding - long legs and bare feet, tight butts and flat tummies, collar bones and shoulder blades. It's a veritable feast for the eyes. And although you get a good variety, there are always plenty of fit, attractive specimens on display - and of all ages, not limited by the arbitrary taboos of "civilized" society. What I wouldn't give to be a model scout. I'm telling you, I could die on that boardwalk, and be the happiest soul in the universe haunting it for all eternity, just watching the bodies stroll on by, day after day after day. I appreciate the slightly fuller view you get in nudist situations, but honestly, the demographics can't compare. I've learned over the years that I'm willing to concede a few small strips of clothing for that enormous trade-off.

[description: a man in a swim brief stands in front of a fountain under grey skies]
Not the prettiest weather for a day at the water park, but it
was hot and humid, and the rain stayed away, so no complaints.

The other thing that gets to me (and by now you're probably bored of hearing me complain about this) is the sheer ridiculousness of the double standard that exists between men and women, in terms of how much (or which) skin it is appropriate to display. I'm aware of the relativity of my perspective - in society, men are expected to fit one role (the appraisers), and women are expected to fit another (the appraised), and most people just fall into line without questioning it. To them, I am certainly an anomaly. I've always been told that I am unique - in the way that all parents tell their children they're unique - but out of the hundreds of people at the water park that day, I was literally one of a kind (from what I could see), as the only man wearing anything remotely akin to a swim brief.

But if you actually sit down and think about it - and as someone who freely crosses the gender divide, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it - it just doesn't make any damn sense that, for example, a girl with her own butt cheeks hanging shamelessly out of her bikini bottoms would physically make the effort to turn her head and cover her eyes to avoid the sight of a man in the same condition.

Now, I get it. Men are, typically, gross. Not all are, by a long shot - but just as the archetype of womanhood is a curvy supermodel, the archetype of manhood is a hairy ape with a beer belly. If I'd have been an average male with a hairy ass jammed into a Speedo, and a belly spilling over the waistband, I could understand. But I'm not. And not all men are. Just because men aren't traditionally held up to the same level of grooming standards that women are, doesn't mean they are incapable of rising to those standards. I think that, to the same extent that it should be acceptable for a woman to not shave her legs consistently (and I actually saw one girl on the lazy river with visible leg hair), men should be subjected to the same pressure as women are to shave theirs. I am an equalist, that's all. A true egalitarian. Not a feminist who calls for equality, but really just wants to prop women up on a pedestal.

I, personally, hold myself up to higher grooming standards than the average male. Indeed, my standards are close (not equivalent - as I don't usually wear makeup - but close) to that of the average female. If you were to isolate a certain part of my body - say, my butt in a tight swim brief - and were then unable to reliably distinguish it from a woman's butt in a bikini bottom, then why should your reaction to either one be different, if the stimulus is close to identical? You don't have to like it or think it's attractive, but how can you shrug off a hundred women's asses, and then have such a visceral reaction to one man, whose butt does not look appreciably different? (Especially if you're sexually attracted to men - that's the part that really bakes my noodle).

Is it just because you're not prepared to think of a guy in that way? It's transphobic is what it is. I want to be able to play the role that females embrace without a second thought. I'm willing to work extra hard for it, because I'm coming from a different starting position. I just want it to be an option, a possibility. Why are people so hard-wired to respond with disgust to something they're not used to? Something that violates certain unspoken rules they've become accustomed to? I get that it's human nature, but it seems to me like an inferior nature. A cloistering, suffocating nature. Why would anyone want to just see the same thing over and over and over again? I mean, if it's what you like, that's great - I never want the parade of beautiful girls in bikinis to end (and I certainly wouldn't enjoy them wearing board shorts, even if they wore them topless - although I would absolutely defend their freedom to do so). But why would you disparage other options from even existing, when you know they could mean happiness for another person? We don't all have to be the same. Indeed, we are not the same. And trying to force us to act like it breeds unhappiness. So don't disparage the outliers, the trend-breakers, the trailblazers, and the nonconformists. You don't have to be one of them. Any more than they have to be one of you.

Afterthought: I don't know why I'm so preoccupied with butts. It occurs to me that the thing other people could be primarily concerned with is the bulge. Still, it's not healthy to live with a traumatic fear of even the vague suggestion of the shape of the male anatomy. Alternatively, perhaps it's because we live in an adolescent culture preoccupied with the size of men's "packages", and most guys want to keep their hand concealed. But I don't understand why it should be so much different than judging women by the size of their chests - something that's hard to hide in any kind of swimsuit. And it's not like the particularly well-endowed are in the habit of wearing so-called "banana hammocks" - reticence for swim briefs is across the board. Maybe I'm wasting my time trying to rationalize the issue - most people in this culture just aren't used to it, and have been programmed to respond with either humor or disgust. All there is to do is re-program - and the only way to do that is with more exposure. See enough plum smugglers, and the novelty is bound to wear off...eventually. Right?

Communicate

I wish I could communicate to you in a photograph the warmth of the summer sunshine on my exposed skin, the texture of the grass and pavement under my feet - a constant reminder of my unclothed state - or the pleasant sensation of freedom that comes from the feeling of my genitalia swinging freely as I move (which would not be possible in an otherwise body-baring pair of shorts or a swim brief). I can hardly describe the holistic sensation of being naked, especially outdoors (but indoors, too). It is not sexual in nature (although it is not immune to erotic interpretation), but more akin to a spiritual delight. I can show the beauty of the human body in an image, and even hint at the joy I feel in practicing nudism, but I can't make you feel those things. Only by participating in the activity yourself is that possible.

But you may not experience it the way I do. Whatever combination of physical and psychological factors contributes to my enjoyment of being nude may not combine to form the perfect cocktail for you as it does for me. You cannot know without trying, but trying is not a guarantee of agreement. I can use my words to describe my perspective, and hope that you can empathize with me. But there is a possibility that you will not believe me, either because you do not know me and cannot trust me, or because my perspective clashes with your opposing one in some fundamental way.

What to do then, if you cannot understand me? Should I be forced to submit to your view, or should you be forced to submit to mine? And if either be the case, what justification is there for it not being the other way around? The only equitable solution I can foresee is for us to "agree to disagree". You continue your life under your perspective, and I continue my life under mine. Not forcing others to behave as we would choose to in the same circumstances, but allowing them the freedom to diverge.

But I cannot hope for all mankind to be so reasonable. Certainly, experience bears out the fallibility of the human condition. If I expect another to be my rational and tolerant equal, I should have no fear in going about my business, content that he will not object on grounds of mutual liberty. But I have learned not to be so gracious, for fear of my own safety. If that other is less than perfect, as we all are, then he may object on account of personal distaste; and however unjustified his complaint may be, I am likely to experience as much discomfort as I have "inflicted" upon him, whether at his hands or at the hands of the machinery of the state. What is the likelihood of this outcome? I do not know. For sure, it is not guaranteed. But it remains a possibility, and not an entirely unlikely one. So I must make a gamble, between living the life I want to lead, and caving to peer pressure in order to avoid a lesser or greater potential inconvenience.

I don't want this anxiety on my mind. To be true, my opponent has already won. Because even if I do continue my lifestyle as desired, I do so with a mental burden of fear. Is this just the price I have to pay for being different from the majority? Before, I was unselfconsciously pursuing my happiness - being naked outdoors, pursuing the vocation of photography. Not harming, not bothering anybody. Just minding my own business. But the fear of external judgment sabotages that peace. Should I continue minding my own business as long as anyone who stumbles upon me continues minding their own? Or should I make a self-sacrifice, to prevent the possibility of future complications? There are no easy answers in life.

The Glittering Veil

[description: series of selfies in a sheer, pink, glittering miniskirt - and nothing else]

I actually wore this outfit on a quick run to the gas station - just as you see it: no shirt, no shoes, just skirt and purse. I didn't go in the gas station, of course; I just waited in the car. But it was still fun.

Although rationally, it's good to be prepared for contingencies (i.e., have something on hand with which to cover up), there's something thrilling about not having that safety net - the thought that, if something were to come up, you couldn't cover yourself even if you wanted to, and therefore you'd be forced into novel situations you wouldn't dare enter without a crutch, if you had the chance to make a reasoned choice. Situations with a likelihood of undesirable consequences that nevertheless seem like they'd be exciting in your fantasies, where everything works out to your benefit.

I don't know why there should be such a disconnect between the idea and the reality - that walking into a gas station naked should seem like it would be a good time, when in reality it would likely result in a stressful confrontation or worse. Perhaps that's why this sort of sexual psychology is considered an abnormality. The ideal scenario, I think, would be one in which I was aware of any and all potential onlookers, and able to evade each and every one, sneaking in and out of dangerous situations with the potential of being caught, but having the heightened sensory awareness to avoid detection (a scenario that our modern security camera-fixated society renders pretty much impossible).

Perhaps this sort of scenario is effective because it maximizes the thrill of being naked where you shouldn't, while ensuring that the negative outcome (getting caught) is never actualized. That's what I think makes this sort of activity so exciting - the constant reminder that you are only one small step from being exposed, without having to leave what minimal comfort zone you've maintained for yourself. More potent than couch surfing naked, but less dangerous than actually walking into a store. Like balancing on a razor wire - you get all the thrill of heights, without [one hopes] actually falling. But the excitement wouldn't be nearly as strong if there were not an actual drop below you.

Garden Pest

As far as voyeurism goes, I know most people these days have a strict "consent only" policy. Call me a villain if you must, but I believe "least harm" is a better rule. Certainly, as long as these things are considered taboo, a pervert's going to have to reach a little bit in pursuit of his happiness. If you want to improve shady behaviors, you have to stop demonizing the desires that lead to them in the first place. Empathetic redirection is superior to an "exterminate the pests" approach.

[description: a naked man with erection hides in the bushes next to a girl sun tanning in a bikini]

Anyway, if you manage to get a peek at something, what you do with that view is what matters. If you call the cops and complain (about something harmless like getting dressed in front of a window), then you're being a pest. If you use that information to harm the person in any way - e.g., spreading rumors, damaging their reputation - then you're also being a pest. Certainly, if you're trespassing in any form, then you're not just being a pest, but a criminal, too.

But if you just enjoy the view and then go on your way, there's no harm done. Erotic appreciation is far from the worst thing anyone can do to another person - that belief is symptomatic of a sex-negative perspective, in which sexuality at its base is this violative, corruptive influence, instead of a positive background energy that imbues most of our interactions in life.

More-ning Sun (+ Bikini Top)

It's amazing how the light - from the same source (the sun, duh) - can have such a different personality or "flavor profile" at different times of the day.

[description: nude portraits in full, golden, morning sunlight]

I haven't had a whole lot of chances to get out and shoot in the morning before noon, so this look has a novel appeal to me. I took advantage of it to do another bikini fashion show, to settle an issue that was on my mind.

The number one problem that prevents me from wearing bikinis (or women's swimsuits in general) in public is the fact that, due to the differences in male and female anatomy, the section that covers the crotch is woefully inadequate at containing my genitalia. As such, I'm often hanging out all over the place, or the fabric of the suit does not stretch far enough to close the gap between it and my body (either along the top, or between the thighs), leading to some potentially indecent exposure.

The new low-rise swim brief I bought this year is an excellent solution because it's designed to securely hold a man's package, but the cut of it is very similar to a woman's bikini bottom, and doesn't have the characteristic "Speedo look", which tends to come up too high on the waist. It doesn't conceal my bulge (although basic black is fairly forgiving), but paired with a bikini top, especially at a glance or from a distance, it may effectively create the illusion that I'm female, as long as nobody's taking a closer look. So it may not be good for, say, a crowded pool, but at the lake, where everybody is spread out, it might prevent (as has happened recently) some confusion as to whether I'm a topless woman, or just a really feminine guy in a "Speedo".

So I tried pairing it with this really cute frilly pink top I picked up, but although I think tube tops are sexy, they don't stay in place very well (probably even more so because I don't really have breasts for them to hug), and they're not the most flattering cut for my shoulders, either. So I was wondering if I had some other bikini top I could wear this swim brief with, and that seemed like an excellent excuse to do a fashion show!

[description: video montage wearing a swim brief paired with different bikini tops]

I think I like the black string bikini top the best. I don't know if it'll stay in place any better than the tube top (I've never worn a string bikini for actual swimming), but it's worth a try!

Of course, this is my favorite way to wear a swim brief:

[description: followup video in just the swim brief, and a black mesh coverup]

This swim coverup is so cute. It's a thick mesh (so it mostly covers you up, but with a hint of exposure), with a skewed skirt that comes up high enough on one side to show some "bikini cheek", and a slit on the other side for your leg to come through. I've had a hard time taking a picture that does it justice, though.

Nudity in the Park

Sometimes you see advertisements for "music in the park", or "movies in the park", or things like that. I thought it would be fun if they had clothing optional days. I mean, I think public parks should be clothing optional by default - to provide "nude in nature" opportunities as a community service. But this would be an acceptable compromise. The same goes for pools and water parks.

[description: series of selfies enjoying nude recreation in the park]

I deliberately left my tripod at home, because I wasn't planning on taking any pictures (I had built up enough of a backlog at that point and didn't want to add to the workload), but then we ended up coming to this park and I regretted not having my tripod with me. So I had to get creative. That's why there are leaves in the foreground - I spent a lot of time finding a spot where I could perch my phone in the branches of a tree. It's a neat effect, though.

[description: further selfies sitting on a park bench naked]

It occurs to me that I haven't done much of this - getting naked out in the woods - this summer. I must be spoiled by my yard.

[description: series of selfies hiking naked in the woods]

Now, if nudism were permitted in this park, I'd be content to go naked and not engage in any "illicit" sexual activities - just as I would behave in a nudist environment. I don't think enough of a distinction is made between exhibitionism in the sense of getting naughty outdoors and in public places where such activity is taboo, and exhibitionism in the sense of wanting to be seen by other people. When I go out in the woods and get frisky, I'm enjoying the sexual charge of being outdoors and in a place where such activities are not usually expected. The act isn't "public" in the sense of being performed in front of others, but only in the sense of being performed in a public place. There is the risk of being caught, but I don't actually want to get caught - the act is still functionally private.

I don't necessarily believe we should be allowed to engage in sexual activities anywhere and in front of anyone (with or without their "consent" to view such activities), I just think that if somebody is sneaking around and being naughty, that's harmless fun and not a public menace. In other words, it's not public indecency if nobody sees you - i.e., it's not a crime as long as you don't get caught. The thing about nudist environments is that they permit nudity, while still restricting open displays of sexuality. So when I'm in a nudist environment, I can be naked, but I'm not going to do anything sexual, because that would be inappropriate. But in regular textile society, nudity is just as taboo as sexuality - so if I'm sneaking around in the park being nude, I'm doing it "privately" and not in a specifically nudist capacity. As such, there's nothing stopping me from taking the next step and entering some sexy fun into the equation.

I just wanted to explain why, for someone who enjoys both nudism and exhibitionism (again, not in the sense of "flashing" unsuspecting bystanders, but just getting naughty outdoors and in public places), they can enjoy both consecutively (or even simultaneously), while not necessarily conflating the two. It's like a Venn diagram. Nudity and sexuality are two separate concepts (as nudists will make sure you understand). But what nudists are reluctant to admit is that sometimes they can be combined. It's just a matter of having the maturity and the understanding to know in what contexts this is okay, and in what contexts it is not. Which is why I can be a nudist and behave like a nudist when it is necessary to do so, and then go out and be an exhibitionist in other situations without shame. It would be easier to just keep them always separated - and it is undoubtedly for the benefit of those who have difficulty with details that nudists promote this view - but this does not reflect reality. And if you have the mental acuity to know the difference, life is a whole lot more fun when you allow yourself to enjoy their combination. Responsibly.

Allow me to illustrate (because I love making diagrams):

Allegedly, textile society believes that all nudity is sexual. At least, this is the view that nudists argue against. Certainly, compared to nudists, textiles are rarely exposed to nudity in non-sexual contexts. In order to justify the non-sexuality of their lifestyle, though, sometimes nudists go too far in distancing nudity from sexuality ("de-sexualizing" nudity), almost as if to argue that nudity is never sexual. Presumably, in this view, we get naked during sex to facilitate the unification of our genitals, and that the nudity itself should never be seen as erotic. Well, I don't agree with this view, and I feel that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Nudity is not intrinsically sexual - I have seen more than my fair share of "unsexy" nudity - but it can be. And it's awesome when it is. I have no desire to give that up, even if I could change this aspect of my psychology.

Downblouse

I have this problem with dresses sometimes...

[description: downward-angled selfie in a white dress with nipple visible]

We're in the midst of a war on voyeurism. On the receiving end, if I'm out in public, and I catch a flash of accidental nudity, it'll make my day. I probably wouldn't take a picture of it because 1) it would likely be gone before I got my camera out, and 2) people are really sensitive about having their picture taken, especially in ostensibly "compromising" situations, even though such a picture would be completely harmless in my hands. And even though I don't deny that I am a pervert at heart (and I don't think there's anything shameful about that), I still have to be concerned about my public reputation - and I don't want to be seen as a "creeper". That's a very important distinction. So although I have certain beliefs, I don't necessarily act on them (a novel concept), because I do in fact take into consideration other people's feelings. (I'm not a self-portrait photographer because I'm narcissistic, I'm a self-portrait photographer because I'm the only one whom I can know with 100% certainty - without navigating a complicated social landscape - wants to be in those pictures, and wants them to be shared in the way that I like to share them. So, you see, it's a selfless gesture, not a selfish one. Only taking pictures of myself is a punishment - what I really want to do is take pictures of other people).

I remember photographing attendees at a convention once (where everybody dresses up and takes pictures of each other's costumes). I had my camera out, and in front of me a raver was putting on a performance with a hula hoop. She dipped down, and her underwear was clearly visible beneath her neon tulle skirt. I could have snapped a picture - I probably could have even done it without raising any eyebrows. And I wanted to. But I didn't. Yet that doesn't change the fact that I want to live in a world where that sort of thing is seen as the harmless fun that it is. I pass attractive people on the street (in stores, at the beach, etc.) all the time. I want to take pictures of all of them, just to remember them by. To create a catalog of all the beauty I encounter in the world. The same way that a beautiful sunset makes me stop in my tracks and pull out my camera. But I don't want to make anyone self-conscious. I suppose I could stop them and ask them for a picture - which would be the "appropriate" course of action. But that's also very invasive. I don't want to interrupt them, I don't want to interject myself into their day - I don't want a social interaction, because unlike some people, that's not something I'm very good at. I just want a visual memory of what I've already seen with my naked eyes. What's wrong with that?

Chair Boredom

[description: feet pic with teal green "Mermaid Magic" nail polish]
Mermaid Feet

I know, it's an oxymoron. But arguably the most popular mermaid in pop culture (Ariel from The Little Mermaid) had canonical legs at one point, so there's that. I don't know if I would call myself a foot fetishist - some of that fetish porn is quite honestly beyond the pale, but then it may just be a matter of degree (of obsession) - but I do appreciate the aesthetic and sometimes even erotic appeal of an attractive foot (certainly not just any foot), provided it's not done to excess. I particularly like the curves involved, but also the psychological idea of exposure (the foot being one of the regularly covered body parts that is most frequently uncovered), especially given that your feet come into contact with your surroundings probably more than any other part of your body, except maybe your hands, which aren't typically covered. There may also be a psychological association with a person being on their back with their feet in the air (a common sexual position), one of the few times when the soles of a person's foot are readily visible. I think it's fun to psychoanalyze sexual triggers, but the bottom line is, you like what you like.

Doorways

[description: portrait of a nude man standing at the front door, viewed from inside, and from outside]

For an exhibitionist, there's something exciting about a doorway. It marks the boundary between two worlds - the private world, and the public world - beyond which certain activities may begin to pick up a taboo energy. But it's also a gateway connecting those two worlds, and so there's the implicit suggestion of conjunction and passage. Standing in a doorway is the closest you can get to the outside world, without actually leaving the relative safety (or at least comfort) of the inside world. It's like standing on the brink of a precipice, and savoring the thrill of the height, before (or even without) taking the plunge.

And for the voyeur, there's the excitement of possibility - of what you might get a glimpse of through an open doorway, peeking into that other world. It's no surprise that this theme recurs again and again in my photography.

Clothing (Still) Optional

[description: portrait of a nudist in full sunlight, holding a "clothing optional" sign]

As discussed previously, this is a perfect example of a situation improved by direct sunlight. Sure, there are harsh shadows (especially under my chin), but look at the sunlight gleaming off my skin! I love the way that looks.

[description: triptych of a nudist holding a volleyball, in three different lighting conditions]

Compare these three different shots taken moments apart with different exposures and lighting conditions. The first is full-on direct sunlight. Some of the illuminated portions of skin are overexposed, but honestly, I think that contributes to the impression that the sunlight is very bright and warm. (Certainly, if "high key" photography - which takes this effect to a ridiculous extreme - is a legitimate technique, then my use of a few overblown highlights shouldn't be a problem).

Consider the second image, which is exposed for cloud cover. The figure has less contrast (variance from light to dark sections), and has a much cooler appearance. I do like, however, the way my pale skin looks, almost as if it were glowing from within.

The third image was taken in partial sunlight. My camera was still exposed for full sunlight, which is why the image appears so dark. But compared to the first, the highlights are no longer blown out. However, the rest of the image does appear underexposed. You almost have to strain your eyes to look at it.

I can't say that any one of these images is "right" and that the rest are "wrong" - it all depends on what kind of look you're going for.

Nudist Phone Use

[description: a naked man sitting on a cot outdoors stares at a mobile phone]

I feel like this photograph should be accompanied by a study or discussion of nudist cell phone use, but I'm not sure there's that much to say (edit: I'm about to prove myself wrong, lol). The only reason nudists treat cell phones differently than textile society is because they have cameras. And, ostensibly contrary to their openness about their bodies, nudists are paranoid about having their picture taken, for one of two reasons:

1) They want to keep their involvement in nudism a secret, to avoid work/family conflicts, or

2) they're afraid of being targeted by "gawkers" who have either a sexual or judgmental (in the sense of pointing and laughing) motivation.

The first reason is understandable, if unfortunate - personally, I believe that nudists ought to live out in the open, not necessarily in the sense of being naked in textile society (which, under certain circumstances, could be illegal, in addition to being considered eccentric), but in the sense of not hiding the fact that they participate in the lifestyle, owing to a more visible and transparent public image. But, I understand that human beings are imperfect, and not everyone is in a position to be honest and open in this cutthroat, dog-eat-dog world. C'est la vie.

I believe the second reason, however, is overblown. Cameras don't capture souls, and if somebody happens to masturbate over an image of your naked body - excuse me for having lost my sensitivity on this issue, but - big deal. I subscribe to the philosophy of "no harm, no foul".

If somebody walks up to you and starts jacking off in your face (not necessarily literally, but that, too), then by all means, ban him from the park and put his name on a blacklist. Did you hear me? I said ban him from the park and put his name on a blacklist. That kind of behavior isn't acceptable. If he's following you around taking pictures of you (regardless of the reason) and this bothers you, then he needs a stern talking to (if not by you or your protector/guardian, then by a staff member or kind stranger), and if he persists, then by all means, ban him from the park. I don't know that blacklisting is appropriate for a first offense of this sort, but let's not quibble about the details.

But if you're minding your business and somebody innocuously snaps a picture of you because they like what they see, then what's the problem? The benefit of being less anal about anyone who whips out a camera at a nudist function is that the people who are actually interested in requesting and obtaining consent (as necessary) for taking and posing in pictures (e.g., families and friends documenting their vacations, or professional photographers interested in documenting the lifestyle) will be able to go about their business without undue hassle.

I suppose it's a matter of either safe or sorry. Play it safe, and ban all cameras, so that good photography is sacrificed. Or take the permissive approach, and run the risk that somebody might abuse the house's good will and snap a surreptitious picture here or there. All I'm saying is let's do a cost-benefit analysis. Somebody takes a nonconsensual picture of you and that hurts you exactly how? If they do anything with it that does hurt you (like out you as a nudist, or make fun of your body, or "submit" you to the shame of being the target of impure thoughts), then reparative actions can be taken.

But unless you're actually losing a job or custody of a child, or something serious like that (and these are battles that need to be fought in society so that injustices can stop being done against people just for engaging in a nudist lifestyle), you brush it off and move on with your life. I understand that it's not politically correct right now to tell somebody that they're overreacting, but all this fear of somebody taking your picture against your "consent" - even if we're considering people fully dressed in full view of public and outside of any nudist environment - is ridiculous, and that's where I stand on the issue.

And all that ignores what people spend the most time doing on their phones: namely, communicating with people, surfing the net, listening to music, and playing games. The latter is what I was doing when I thought to myself, "huh, a nudist using a cell phone, how quaint - I should take a picture of this!" Imagine you're a kid growing up in the nineties, and your family spends their vacation at a resort that outlaws Gameboys, Walkmans, computers, and telephones. I know you're supposed to be there to enjoy the vacation, but we're living in an increasingly technological society, and this sort of attitude is bound to turn young people away.