Cameras on naturist beaches

One thing I’ve noticed on naturist beaches in recent years is that cameras are in evidence. When I started out in naturism cameras were a big ‘no-no’, and producing one, or taking photos of others without express permission was liable to see your camera forcibly removed from you and the film (as it probably was back then, digital would have been in its infancy) removed in front of you, or the camera thrown in the sea.

With digital, cameras have got smaller, and would have good picture taking qualities even in miniature pens, glasses and so on, making it hard to detect ‘the voyeur photographer’.

So many ‘voyeur’ style photographs have been taken, and published, in the internet age. I disagree strongly with this, as I’ve stated in a previous post.

However, the irony here is that, with an explosion of naturist photographs, and representation of the ordinary aspect of the lifestyle, there’s been a little bit of a resurgence of interest in naturism in the internet years, possibly fuelled by a ready source of naturist imagery (I believe almost everyone has some underlying interest in the concept, as any bucket lists I’ve ever seen published almost invariably include ‘skinny dipping’ on it).

As a result of regular exposure to images, and in a society (certainly a European society) wherein nudity is ‘normalised’ people appear to be more relaxed about being photographed naked, either in private, or on their naturist holiday.

Yes, we take photos on our naturist holidays, of course we do. And when we’re on the beach we’d be aware that we could be photographed on the beach. I’m sort of OK with this, with caveats.


Here’s a photo of my RL/SL husband, Jim. He’s the subject of the photo but I’ve inadvertently managed to capture another naked avatar in the background.

If I were minded to publish it on the internet, as a RL photo, there are those who might wish to crop Jim out and focus on the lady (let’s be honest, most nude photography on the internet is of women, for men), it’s going to be difficult for the voyeur/pervert wishing to focus on her.


Because even in the digital age ‘blowing up’ the photo leads to a surfeit of detail. I apply these rules in RL. If someone is obviously taking a photo of their partner, and I happened to be somewhere in the background, I’m OK with it. I’m unlikely to be identified even if that photo makes its way to the internet.

However…there’s also a high chance that, on holiday, I’m involved in some activity with some of my children.


Imagine a Mum playing in the background with a child. Well, I’d sort of expect the photographer to delete out of courtesy to the unintended subjects if he/she realises it at the time, delete when reviewing the photo, or crop out the unintended subjects and delete the original.

The absolute minimum would be that the photographer pixellates the child, and the mother too.

Cameras on naturist beaches are OK, up to a point, as far as I’m concerned, but not for everyone, so when photographing it’s vital to be vigilant not only about your own subject, but the background too. I’ve had some strange looks when turning up with a camera, and my rules are to point it at the ground when not in use, and to make it clear you’re photographing. At the time I was trying to point the camera out to sea, to take a photograph of an impressive yacht, and there was no one swimming between myself and the yacht. Even so, some sunbathers did keep a watchful eye on me in case I tried to photograph them. Which is entirely understandable.

If someone makes it obvious that I’m the subject of their voyeur photography I would, of course, be challenging them immediately. We can be more relaxed about cameras, within limits.

Note: The female in the photograph is one of my SL friends who posed accordingly for the purposes of this post. The ‘child’ in the photo is actually an adult avatar who adjusted their hover height to sink into the sand and appear smaller), and is another SL friend. We didn’t consciously try to set up these photos to illustrate the post. All participants were aware of the shots I was trying to set up. We would not encourage age-play, child-avis or role-play of a similar type in SL. Indeed, I’m uncomfortable being around child avi’s in SL, or petites, as I find myself questioning the motivation of those who feel they must adopt a child or petite avatar.



Photos : a policy guide

When I’m inworld and get talking to people, the topic of the blog often comes up. Some people have been avid readers for years (SLN would be relatively well known amongst some of SL’s naturist community) while others have never heard of it.

Promoting it has always been hard, as syndicating its presence amongst a wider SL community has always been hard. Blog aggregators tend to shy away from anything they consider to be NSFW.

These are the same aggregators who will constantly link to SL bloggers who will pose their models in a new outfit that leaves little or nothing to the imagination. Clearly the difference between being safe for work and NSFW is a diaphanous, see-through body stocking, on the basis that it has a price tag.

Worse, the model may be sporting a new weapon while posing, or have her legs wrapped around a male model in a provocative fashion. But that’s OK. The weapon and the provocative pose also have price tags.

Besides, why are you looking at SL blogs at work anyway? Aren’t you meant to be working? Little wonder I can never contact any arm of government when I need them (but can hum along to Mozart’s 41st Symphony).

It’s often conversations I have with other avatars that steer the blog, and this blog entry is no exception. The avatar I was speaking to mention the issue of photos, and that there was a specific tumblr site he visited which he said featured genuine naturists. I checked it out and I agree, it does contain some excellent genuine naturist photography. The problem I have with it is that most are voyeur photos, pictures taken of subjects without their knowledge or consent.

I’m uncomfortable with this. While, on one hand, these sort of photographs probably best represent naturism as it is, ordinary people doing ordinary things without make-up, a hair stylist or ‘a beach-ready body’ (all bodies are beach-ready…the entire concept of being a specific size or shape for it is silly and offensive).

I love to see these type of photographs. They’re the best representation of naturism. But they remain voyeur photos, so I try not to utilise these on the blog, much as I’d like to, if only to present some naturist facts, these being (a) not all naturists confirm to a specific type of age and body (b) it’s not some group orgy, it’s ordinary people doing ordinary beach holiday things like swimming, sunbathing and kicking a ball around (and c) some of these people have children and naturism is very much family-orientated (watch out for a subsequent blog entry on the manner in which some sick people have helped to further skew the idea of naturism by their fascination for child photography, something that means all of us have to tread carefully about how we present naturism. sometimes it seems there’s never been a naked family on holiday, ever.

Watch out for another subsequent blog entry about cameras on beaches, incidentally, something that has grown more acceptable in naturism in recent years. (Fallow season for naturist related posts? Don’t you believe it).

We will continue to persist with a policy whereby, to the best of our ability, we will studiously avoid utilising ‘voyeur’ type photos, even though they may well be the most accurate pictorial description of naturism.


Probably genuine naturists, and I’m guessing this is France.

Photos of this type are OK as far as SLN2 is concerned.


Probably a voyeur type shot, but as the subject’s identity is not

compromised I would still consider this to be OK for SLN2


Definitely a voyeur shot, but the difficulty is rejecting such a normal, ordinary beach shot when the subject’s face is largely hidden from the camera’s eye. Hidden in that, apart to the subject herself, few of her friends might even recognise her. As a result, I’d probably use such a photo on SLN2.


Definitely a voyeur shot, apparently taken from the other side of a river/lake without the subjects’ knowledge or permission. I would not use this on SLN2, hence the pixellation used on the photo, which did nothing to try to preserve the anonymity of the subjects. This type of photograph (without pixellation) is, for me, is strictly off-limits

There will be other photographs claiming to be ‘naturist’ but which we know, almost certainly, utilise models posing as naturists. I would be relaxed about the models being viewed face-on. However, as the models will almost invariably be specimens of ‘the body beautiful’ they do offer a skewed impression of how you must look on a naturist beach.