Look, I'm an asshole. I make no apologies for that fact, but the way I see it the whining and the moaning about the appearance of the warning pages on Blogger sites is just another symptom of the crazy sense of entitlement that takes hold in any special interest group. We go from discussing simple non sexual nudity in a welcoming environment, and everything seems rational. We support public breastfeeding, fine. Somehow we eventually break from reality, and it all becomes all so very political. Suddenly we have a RIGHT to offend the public. We have a RIGHT to be nude in the town square. We have a RIGHT to FORCE our neighbors to confront our nude bodies and their irrational attachment to textile products. Gradually we begin to believe that we have a RIGHT to free and unconditional hosting, bandwidth, advertising, and the ability to promote our business without cost or interference. Then we're a little surprised when the public views us as crackpots.Whenever you open an argument by declaring yourself an "asshole", chances are you are not going to get a lot of support.
Look, I'm not whining about Google's sudden decision to censor nudist blogs, but I am complaining, and I am doing something about it. Dreadfree makes the argument that "you get what you pay for" so when you get something for free, you have no right to complain. If that were a truism, then nobody would have any cause to complain about what they see on network television, or hear on the radio airwaves.
I have news for Dreadfree. Even though he pays for his web hosting, he is still at the mercy of a third party, who can shut him down at any time if someone complains. Just because you pay for something does not mean you own it.
Google's censorship came out of the blue for this blog after nearly 3 years of postings. Certainly some "little Miss. Moral Majority" clicked on that little flag icon over and over during that time, but suddenly something caused Google to take action, not only against Diary of a Nudist, but several other nudist blogs as well.
Nudists and naturists do not want to make the lifestyle a political issue, but far-right conservatives were in control of local and national government for over a decade, and in that time tons of anti-nudity laws have been passed, and the FCC has turned into a censorship-crazy agency.
If you don't think that even private nudist resorts are not at risk, then think again, because the right would close them all down tomorrow if it could muster the support.
And I don't know who's advocating that we have the RIGHT to offend the public, or force nudity upon others. This is a weak straw-man argument that comes out of nowhere. Frankly, I'm surprised that Dreadfree would go down that road.
Anyway, I'm chalking it all up to the fact that Dread is having a bad hair day. We all have them now and then.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
4 comments:
Sorry Nudiarist, but I am with Dreadfree on this one. Responsible nudists happily post a sign on the beach indicating that "Beyond this point, you may encounter nude sunbathers". I view the google warnings as an equivalent and reasonable accommodation to the general public for sights that are posting nude pictures - even if they are non-sexual in nature.
This is off-topic, but I would also state that I find the vintage nudist picture to be the 50s equivalent of today's men's magazines. It is clear to me that their original intent was to titillate rather than to accurately depict this lifestyle.
Finally, not everyone who favors reasonable accommodations to the general public (you might call it censorship) is a right-wing, nutjob, moralist. I find the folks walk down the street in Brattleboro naked to be bigger nutjobs. And I find the folks who wish to cram their lifestyle down my throat (nudism, vegans, fur-phobic) to be equal in irrational fervor to the most ardent right-wingers.
There are a lot of us in the middle that don't agree with either end of the spectrum. And some of us in the middle are nudists, too.
Red, the question I have is why suddenly, after 3 years of posting, Google decided to begin censoring nudist blogs.
The warning page is not a reasonable accomodation, because it blocks search engine robots from indexing the site. Also, the censorship came completely out of the blue - no warning whatsoever. Signs warning of nude sunbathers don't close the beach; the warning page effectively closes my blog.
As for the 50s photos, yes, some are of the cheesecake variety. In this society, it's hard for people to view any images of a nude body without being titillated. I would consider many of the images to be sexy, but not sexual. But you are wrong when you paint all 50s nudist photos in this way, because many of the magazines, such as Sun, Helios, Health and Efficiency, Sun and Health, Der Naturist, American Nudism, FKK, Australian Sun and Health, and virtually all of the European publications show real nudists.
Again, you make the "cram their lifestyle down my throat" straw man argument. Nobody is advocating this anywhere, anyhow, anyway.
Nudists just want their little place in the sun.
I would say that Google provided ample warning because acted exactly as they say they will in their terms of service when they observe sites with potentially objectionable content. The fact that it took them 3 years to notice is not relevant. There are zillions of pages on the internet and they respond when they get information from readers or observe the sites directly. You just got lucky for 3 years.
I agree with the indexing argument. I think your page should be indexed and folks can decide after viewing the warning whether to enter or not.
I'm not suggesting that you are cramming your lifestyle down people throats, but the folks advocating nudity in the public square certainly are.
Red, please provide examples of people who are "advocating nudity in the public square".
Post a Comment