There's been some talk about the recent suspension of Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park's Twitter account, and it seems to be raising the same concerns I've seen again and again from nudists online - that there is a conspiracy among social media platforms to censor and discriminate against legitimate, nonsexualized depictions of nudism, even where explicit pornography (often described as "filth", which betrays the sex-negative prejudice of the people making this claim) is given a free pass. Allow me a moment to attempt to ferret out the kernel of truth that resides at the heart of this myth.
Unfortunately, it's not unusual for even legitimate nudist accounts on social media to face the threat of suspension from time to time. The fact is, no matter what nudists say about the innocent purity of nonsexualized nudity, this is not a mainstream view. So, posting about nudity (especially if it involves posting images of nudity) is always going to put you at risk. That's why this is a problem nudism has, that other interests like sports or cooking or gaming don't.
Now, every time this happens, people jump to conclusions. Everybody wants to believe they're being persecuted by an organized adversary with an oppressive agenda. It makes you feel important. And it provides an excuse for every setback you encounter. But whether it's the fashion industry, oil and gas companies who feel threatened by environmentalist reform, or the alleged billion dollar pornography empire - the truth is, nudism just isn't common enough or influential enough to be targeted in this way.
Twitter is somewhat unique in that, as a mainstream social media platform, it permits explicit pornography (for now). As such, it creates a rare environment that allows for the development of a belief that there is a conspiracy specifically aimed (for some reason) at non-sexualized depictions of nudity. What this view fails to acknowledge, however, is just how often pornography - moreso than simple nudity - is placed first and foremost in the line of fire, whenever freedom of expression is up for debate. That pornography thrives in spite of this is not evidence that a powerful force is suppressing nudism. It just means that porn is really popular. Humans may be able to survive just fine with or without clothing, but without a sex drive, humanity would go extinct in a single generation.
On more conservative platforms like Facebook and Instagram, nudists will point to the fact that innocent depictions of nudity often get censored while heavily sexualized images of scantily clad women are ignored. I agree that this is evidence of discrimination against nudity. But not against nudism. For that to be the case, these platforms would have to permit nude images as long as they are overtly sexualized, and these are platforms that absolutely do not allow explicit pornography. It's not a value judgment that's being made here, about the legitimacy of sexual expression versus the purity of the human body. It's simply a matter of logistics, in an increasingly machine-driven landscape of content filtering.
I've spent years on art sharing sites where you could post the most stunning artistic portrait of a sexual act, tastefully framed, but explicitly depicted, and have it deleted, while countless people's low effort snapshots of their nether regions go untouched by censors. They're not judging the quality or value of your art. They're just coldly enforcing the rules. It would be great if we could construct a filtering algorithm that allows for consideration of artistic intent and technical construction. But the simple fact is that this is impossible. These qualities are highly subjective, and hard to gauge. The best we can do is determine whether an image contains explicit nudity or sexuality, or not.
That those two things are often conflated is an unfortunate problem, but again - it's hard to judge whether a nude body is being "sexualized" or not. What's more, society has determined that nudity is more offensive than the mere suggestion of sexuality (however overt). You can take issue with that view (personally, I think they're both fine), but it's a society-wide issue, not the secret agenda of an elite cabal, or a personal morality coincidentally shared by a few competing CEOs.
So how does a legitimate nudist account end up getting suspended on a platform that permits explicit sexuality? The answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, and very few (if any) people have all the facts in a particular case. But if you think it's only nudist accounts that get censored, then you're not paying very much attention to how much trouble porn accounts have (and it's my experience that nudists give porn accounts very little attention beyond hitting the block button and gleefully contributing to their difficulties staying afloat). That there are still plenty of porn accounts out there at any given time, proves no more than the fact that with every suspension, there are still plenty of nudist accounts out there, too.
But what, specifically, can get a nudist account suspended? Sometimes mistakes are made - both by the account holder, and also the algorithm that flags it, as well as the staff that reviews those flags. Let's assume the account in question is above suspicion of behavioral infractions - harassment and the like. Bare Oaks is a highly respected naturist resort - and one that I would very much like to visit someday. I'm confident that they have conducted themselves with nothing but the utmost professionalism.
A common issue that can lead to suspension is improper filtering of sensitive content. Sometimes, nudists think that images of nudity shouldn't be filtered because they're not pornographic. This is a valid position to argue, but it doesn't align with the guidelines for any community I'm aware of outside of nudism, besides websites specifically designed for the sharing of explicit images. I applaud you if you want to make a stand for your beliefs, but you should be aware of the repercussions when the governing body disagrees with you. Alternatively, accounts sometimes post improperly filtered content by mistake, by not being aware that your banner image or profile picture can be viewed publicly.
I'm willing to give Bare Oaks the benefit of the doubt, because I believe they are seasoned enough to understand all these things. I had not been following Bare Oaks on Twitter, so I do not know what type of content they were posting, but Planet Nude's reassuringly sensible account of the incident provides a very plausible cause. According to the author, Bare Oaks had recently posted material promoting good old-fashioned family naturism (which is consistent with what I know of Bare Oaks). It's also plausible that Twitter would have flagged it in a misguided and overzealous attempt to stamp out child exploitation. Mystery solved.
Look, I get it. Growing up in a safe environment with casual exposure to nudity is healthy - not harmful - for children. There are arguments to be made about whether it is approriate to depict this aspect of nudism publicly. Personally, I believe that censoring family-oriented nudism does more harm than good. But I think we should address the relevant issue, instead of framing it in vague terms as ammunition against a phantom menace. Does this incident support the conclusion that social media is engaged in a conspiracy against nudism? Or is it just bad code influenced by a gymnophobic society that, among other things, remains unconvinced that nudist accounts should be allowed to post images of children?
It's unfortunate that social media platforms are often unable to parse sexually explicit media from nonsexual depictions of nudity. It's not impossible to do - there are websites that have already figured it out. However, these websites still do not generally permit nudity involving minors, no matter how innocent. It sucks that the human body, by itself, is considered pornographic by default, especially when heavily sexualized depictions of clothed people are not. Raising awareness of these problems is a noble effort. But waving your hands about invisible enemies is not the way to make progress. Nudists aren't being singled out. Their unconventional lifestyle is just placing them in the crosshairs of a broader societal issue - fear of the human body, and its relationship to sex. Taking it personally ("they're targeting nudists!") or taking it out on other media you don't like ("why aren't they targeting porn?") isn't going to help.
