nudity is a crime, part 2

27 04 2009

Appenzell clamps down on nudist hikers.


nudity is a crime

24 04 2009

Man arrested for nudity in Iowa

Naked wizard tasered at Coachella (Yes, tasered. Video NSFW.)


doctor who nude episode?

23 04 2009

Yes, it’s a spoof, but might be interesting, if someone other than Davies were in charge. (Yes, I know he’s done some good stories, but he’s also put out a lot of stinkers, and I’m still pissed about what he did with Rose and with Donna.)

nudist comedy group

17 04 2009

Nudist comedy group makes N.Y. debut:

But the show doesn’t aim just for cheap laughs. It exposes the universal feelings of insecurity and our society’s uncomfortable attitude toward the nude body, Ofiesh said. Many of the comedians’ jokes center around social attitudes toward nudity and body image. Often, the comedians encourage audience participation in the nude — the shows are always clothing-optional.

I wonder if they’ll ever make it to the Midwest?


14 04 2009

Early this week, a Twitter-based outburst arose over what appeared to be a systematic effort by to censor gay and lesbian books. The company insists it was a “glitch” or the result of “an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error.” What appears to have happened is that books categorized with the terms gay, lesbian, etc. lost their sales rank data, and would not show up in searches. They were flagged as “adult,” and apparently has a policy of keeping “adult” themed items from showing up in their searches, presumably to protect the children and the self-righteous from being aware of sex.

The articles linked above provide a pretty good overview of the situation – so please check them out to get a better sense of the story than I can provide here.

This isn’t necessarily a naturist issue, but it could become one if they decide that simple nudity is enough to make a book potentially offensive – which is not currently the case. Presumably they’ll be more careful now that they know everyone is watching them.

I’m inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt, and to assume that it was a careless mistake rather than a corporate decision to prevent certain books from showing up in search results.

Your thoughts?

nudity in prime-time

14 04 2009

Definitely not going to happen in America for a while, but:

This summer, [Britain’s] Channel 4 will broadcast a new series before the watershed featuring nude models. The show, provisionally titled Life Class: Today’s Nude, hopes to promote a return to elementary skills of drawing and painting, and spark a revival of more traditional, figurative art.

An artist named Alan Kane came up with the idea for the show, and apparently the TV folks had no problems with it: “Because it is educational and non-sexualised nudity, Channel 4 didn’t have any concerns with it at all.”

airport scans update

8 04 2009

Just found a piece by William Saletan on where he does a really good job expressing the concern I feel over the new airport scanning technology.

You’ll need to read the whole thing to get the context, but a couple of key points:

Initially, Saletan endorsed the technology, largely because it was less invasive than a pat-down and because faces and private parts would be obscured in the images. He writes:

Now I’m having second thoughts. I still like the technology. It’s the people behind it who worry me. Yes, the scan is less invasive than the pat-down. But TSA has just demonstrated its ability and willingness to move the goalposts. When TSA offered pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in secondary screening, the scan sounded pretty good. Now TSA is offering pat-downs as the alternative to body scans in primary screening, and again, the scan sounds better. And if TSA announces tomorrow that pat-downs are the new alternative for all train or bus passengers, body scans will seem preferable there, too. Anywhere we’re threatened with pat-downs, we’ll settle for body scans. Where does it end?


The TSA is no longer talking about a “privacy algorithm” that obscures faces and genitals. The obscured areas (the genitals specifically, since the face is typically readily visible) provide “gaps” where terrorists could hide things from the scans. In fact, according to the TSA, this has already happened. Saletan writes:

In other words, any detail omitted by airport screeners—a blurred crotch in the body scan, an untouched groin during the pat-down—becomes a “gap” exploited by terrorists or testers, which must then be closed.

“The enhanced pat-down will be used only after all other screening methods have been used and the alarm remains unresolved,” TSA promised last year. It added: “This new procedure will affect a very small percentage of travelers.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s what you said about the body scans. Just put on the gloves and get it over with.

I find myself feeling pretty conflicted about this. Again, I don’t object to the body scans per se. But I’m concerned about the sort of presumption of guilt that is implied and the invasion of personal “space.”