Naked News

[Danee]

I would respectfully disagree with your sentiment. One of the great things about naturism is that it gives everyone ways to express themselves without fear of judgment. If some women (and men as well) choose to express themselves through tattoos and piercings, then that's wonderful. At least when you are a naturist, you are given the ability to actually express yourself with those parts of your body to more people rather than having to hide it under your clothing. I do not have any tattoos and piercing, because I choose not to express myself that way. However, I'm glad that naturism gives many the opportunity to express themselves that way.

NN models also have lots of piercings (including nipples and clit hood) and gaudy tattoos (not as natural as naturism expects).

Come on girls - your bodies are not bulletin boards or paint boards.

exactly.

I would very much like to know where you got that percentage mentioned in you last post though. That is just plain silly.  (and totally inaccurate)

[rg007]

Well, this thread was about whether Naked News can be considered a naturism related show or not?

Skin is the best (and natural) outfit for naturists - the body is beautiful in its entirety - I, personally, do not like extra attention to specific body parts via enhancements, piercings and tattoos?

Anyways, if the same can also serve as a good (and larger one for naturists) canvas, so be it...

[NudieDaniel]

I find this interesting this argument over aesthetics of presenters rather whether this Naked News has any news to speak of or whether it is just desperation on the part of TV media in the dying days Roman empire. The Naked News I want is proper honest journalism the clothing they wear or not is up to them.         

[gj83]

A couple of men angrily arguing about what women do with their bodies. This is bound to go well. (And yes, I recognize the irony of me injecting myself into the discussion.)

And now, back to the real original question. I do not think that Naked News should be considered a naturist show. It's pretty clear that it is done both to arouse, even if it does convey some legitimate news in the process. Naturism is not about sex, but naked news is intended to be sexual.

Having said that, it's very close to naturism. For large portions of it, they really are just reading the actual news while naked. I think that if they were naked the entire time, there would be less of a striptease element to it. It's that slow unveiling of the body done in order to arouse the sexual interest of the watcher that makes it less naturist and more sexual. I think that removing the striptease element that would make it more of a naturist show.

[Riot.EXE]

A couple of men angrily arguing about what women do with their bodies. This is bound to go well. (And yes, I recognize the irony of me injecting myself into the discussion.)

And now, back to the real original question. I do not think that Naked News should be considered a naturist show. It's pretty clear that it is done both to arouse, even if it does convey some legitimate news in the process. Naturism is not about sex, but naked news is intended to be sexual.

Having said that, it's very close to naturism. For large portions of it, they really are just reading the actual news while naked. I think that if they were naked the entire time, there would be less of a striptease element to it. It's that slow unveiling of the body done in order to arouse the sexual interest of the watcher that makes it less naturist and more sexual. I think that removing the striptease element that would make it more of a naturist show.

They've done reports and interviews at nude beaches and whatnot. What do you think about that? Genuinely asking.

[gj83]

A couple of men angrily arguing about what women do with their bodies. This is bound to go well. (And yes, I recognize the irony of me injecting myself into the discussion.)

And now, back to the real original question. I do not think that Naked News should be considered a naturist show. It's pretty clear that it is done both to arouse, even if it does convey some legitimate news in the process. Naturism is not about sex, but naked news is intended to be sexual.

Having said that, it's very close to naturism. For large portions of it, they really are just reading the actual news while naked. I think that if they were naked the entire time, there would be less of a striptease element to it. It's that slow unveiling of the body done in order to arouse the sexual interest of the watcher that makes it less naturist and more sexual. I think that removing the striptease element that would make it more of a naturist show.

They've done reports and interviews at nude beaches and whatnot. What do you think about that? Genuinely asking.

Like I said, it's very close to being a naturist show. Certainly, it's great that they are doing something to promote naturist locations. That is great advertising for those places, and it's probably not bad for naturism as a whole.

And having given it a little bit of thought, I would revise my answer. The question is too simple to give a good answer. It asks whether something is naturist in a completely binary sense. The question presupposes that either a show is naturist or not with no room for middle ground.

However, I think that there is lots of room for middle ground. It's good that the show promotes the normalization of nudity. That is very naturist. Also, it's great that they often do it in natural locations which shows just how wonderful an experience it can be to be nude in a natural setting. Those things about the show are great, and I'm sure that people who are more acquainted with it can give more reasons why it promotes naturist values.

Having said that, it also does have a tendency to sexualize simple nudity, which is not a naturist value. Also, it tends to teach acceptance of only very specific body types (attractive, generally low-weight females) rather than acceptance of all body types. As a counterpoint, I do know that one of the newscasters did the show while she was pregnant, so that is more in line with acceptance of variously shaped bodies.

So, I would say that it has some good naturist elements and some elements that are not in line with naturism. It's just not one of those things that we can slap a label on of "naturist" or "not naturist" then move on. It does not squarely fit into one category or the other.

It's like the various naked reality shows that have been on basic cable television in the US recently. Some make nudity seem like a gimmick and something to be laughed at, which is not good for naturism. However, they have helped normalize nudity on television. You now will regularly see bare butts on basic cable. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. Maybe there will be more normalization of nudity in the next decade or two, and we will have "Naked and Afraid" and "Dating Naked" to thank for it.

[rg007]

Hear it straight from the Horse's mouth

http://www.hulu.com/naked-news-uncovered
http://www.nakednewsuncovered.tv/

[Riot.EXE]

A couple of men angrily arguing about what women do with their bodies. This is bound to go well. (And yes, I recognize the irony of me injecting myself into the discussion.)

And now, back to the real original question. I do not think that Naked News should be considered a naturist show. It's pretty clear that it is done both to arouse, even if it does convey some legitimate news in the process. Naturism is not about sex, but naked news is intended to be sexual.

Having said that, it's very close to naturism. For large portions of it, they really are just reading the actual news while naked. I think that if they were naked the entire time, there would be less of a striptease element to it. It's that slow unveiling of the body done in order to arouse the sexual interest of the watcher that makes it less naturist and more sexual. I think that removing the striptease element that would make it more of a naturist show.

They've done reports and interviews at nude beaches and whatnot. What do you think about that? Genuinely asking.

Like I said, it's very close to being a naturist show. Certainly, it's great that they are doing something to promote naturist locations. That is great advertising for those places, and it's probably not bad for naturism as a whole.

And having given it a little bit of thought, I would revise my answer. The question is too simple to give a good answer. It asks whether something is naturist in a completely binary sense. The question presupposes that either a show is naturist or not with no room for middle ground.

However, I think that there is lots of room for middle ground. It's good that the show promotes the normalization of nudity. That is very naturist. Also, it's great that they often do it in natural locations which shows just how wonderful an experience it can be to be nude in a natural setting. Those things about the show are great, and I'm sure that people who are more acquainted with it can give more reasons why it promotes naturist values.

Having said that, it also does have a tendency to sexualize simple nudity, which is not a naturist value. Also, it tends to teach acceptance of only very specific body types (attractive, generally low-weight females) rather than acceptance of all body types. As a counterpoint, I do know that one of the newscasters did the show while she was pregnant, so that is more in line with acceptance of variously shaped bodies.

So, I would say that it has some good naturist elements and some elements that are not in line with naturism. It's just not one of those things that we can slap a label on of "naturist" or "not naturist" then move on. It does not squarely fit into one category or the other.

It's like the various naked reality shows that have been on basic cable television in the US recently. Some make nudity seem like a gimmick and something to be laughed at, which is not good for naturism. However, they have helped normalize nudity on television. You now will regularly see bare butts on basic cable. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. Maybe there will be more normalization of nudity in the next decade or two, and we will have "Naked and Afraid" and "Dating Naked" to thank for it.

Excellent way of putting it, but you have to remember that on these reality shows that have nudity as a gimmick, pretty much all of the participants that appear aren't nudists, or are at least somewhat alright with their bodies. Also on these shows, not everyone has an, "I WORK OUT EVERY GOD DAMN DAY PEEP THESE ABS" body, so that definitely helps. I mean, it's a baby step, but it's still a step. Doesn't need to promote nudism, but normalizing nudity only helps everyone else in the long run, so hey...take it.

P.S. Of course my post would get deleted without warning. I don't regret saying what I said 'cause it needed to be said.

[Danee]

Excellent way of putting it, but you have to remember that on these reality shows that have nudity as a gimmick, pretty much all of the participants that appear aren't nudists, or are at least somewhat alright with their bodies. Also on these shows, not everyone has an, "I WORK OUT EVERY GOD DAMN DAY PEEP THESE ABS" body, so that definitely helps. I mean, it's a baby step, but it's still a step. Doesn't need to promote nudism, but normalizing nudity only helps everyone else in the long run, so hey...take it.

I agree, Kenny, with your view on this .

P.S. Of course my post would get deleted without warning. I don't regret saying what I said 'cause it needed to be said.

Your post, and the reply, were deleted as in the view of some staffers, they were offensive.  We are pretty liberal, Kenny, but we do have rules on things and while you might not agree, they are rules for interacting here.    If you read them, you will see that  As fora  warning, you do not want that label on your profile. 

I say this with respect as I have known and liked you for a long time but it is how it is.  Period.    We did not contact you , or the other person asking you to change or amend and apologize for the overuse of profanity (its in the rules). We simply took them off. 

[newbie]

well havent seen it, but it sounds like a good step towards a fully naturist society when even the most ordianry and usually serious - like tv news - becomes fully nude ... would be wonderful if all other activities became nude too 

[rockasocka1992]

I think it's kinda cool  .

[Albinl]

There are a bunch of those naked news spin-offs now, NudeMuse News is one example:


I think they definately serve a purpose in normalizing nudity and that they are positive for the naturist community as long as its non-sexual nudity.

 I saw some comment earlier that many of the models have shaved pubes and enlarged breasts and that thats not accepted among naturists and I totally disagree. I believe body acceptance is a huge part of naturism.

[boredude]

i agree @kobe.malta plus it's all women. it's meant to be arousing IMO

judging by the website, its pretty sexualised. I wouldn't consider it naturist at all

[nudeguy]

It isn't overly sexualised, but the anchors are very attractive.

[Ad1210]

The Australian one looks interesting. I had no idea such a thing was produced here