Once again Anna, something we have asked a great deal.

We understand Instagram censorship, Meta are a hard company to please, as we highlighted above, some people can get away with murder, whilst others cannot, but personal and private websites, what is going on there then?

To us it appears a little like swimming against the tide if you are going to write and promote a naturist life, and yet hide the naked form. We have come across a few well know naturists who use camera tricks and angles with props to hide certain parts of the body, and it appears to be a pointless execise.

Rob is known for seeing these sites and exclaiming. "What the hell is wrong with these people, it is their own website?" It does feel like it does damage to naturism. In one of our blogs, Rob did have a bit of a dig at this, when he asked Rin why she was covering her boobs, and she told him.

"I am not sure if I am a naturist superstar, or just avoiding the Zuck!"

If you are going to write about a naturist life, we feel you should show it. Cleverly taken angled pictures show that you are afraid of being seen, which is the most damaging message to give to people who are considering becoming part of the lifestyle. In our mind, you are either a naturist, or not, and if you really belive in what you write, then show it, and stand by the words on the page.

In regard to our children, we have always asked for their consent, we feel if they are going to be up there they should be involved in the process. Our daughter is actually quite shy, so when she told us we could feature her in WNBR pictures, we were thrilled, because it was a huge step for her. We have featured our children, and those shots were censored in so much as they were mainly taken from behind so their full identity was not seen, and they were aware of the pictures we used. It is a fine balancing act, although our daughter does actually take a lot of pictures we use on the blogs, which as she puts it. "Is her contribution." 

We very strongly feel, that if you are going to build a website and add images, they should back up the statements you make. A private website is exactly that, you are the owner and have full editorial and publishing control. To write about nudity and not show it, is somewhat like writing about gardening, and yet showing only pictures of the stems of the plants, then describing the flowers.

So true RnR and I do wonder why not just go whole hog and pixelate the images- H&E referred to the images on Instagram as clever and ingenious - but at the end of the day crossing your legs and holding obstacles in from of your breats and penis are not ingenious but tedious. We could all do it but chose not to because it is actually insulting to what naturism stands for. We often just crop our images and let people consider how stupid it is that this has to happen - but is there any difference between holding a drink bottle, hand or book in front of your breast than simply sticking a monkey face over it or star or blurring. Actually there is one difference I can think of - it reminds everyone that the rules are stupid - instead of creating images that suggest the rules don't exist. 

But in a naturist website it is wrong.  And we have a topic set aside just for these thoughts  https://www.anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/84/do-naturist-websites-that-don-t-show-breasts-genitals-do-harm. It makes me wonder how committed such people are to the life style and how relaxed they truly are with the idea of being seen naked. When Anna and I considered creating a blog and then ANW we first of all realised that we had to be naked on the internet - we had to see that it was no different to being naked at a beach or campsite. If you treat it differently then you are not, (a term I don't like anyway) "normalising it." Unless there is a specific point about the image all of our photos would be exactly the same if we were dressed. Our pose, the angles, what can and can't be seen. That is always our rule - we don't think about being naked - we think about taking a photo. I do not believe that anyone would naturally take a photo where they use obstacles to hide parts of themselves already covered by clothes - so why are they doing it naked?

I am reminded of a BN international forum I once took part in, most people were naked and the breasts of many women were exposed. Yet one female blogger had a t-shirt on with breast drawn on it. The live texting was all raving about what a cool t-shirt it was. I thought "wait a minute this is an international naturist meeting and people are all excited by a t-shirt." The irony seemed a little too much for my naturist soul. But there was more than that. She was being noticed for being covered. Many women were not congratulate for being uncovered - I simply couldn't understand it. More than that she had a t-shirt with drawn breasts on it. So she was making a statement that beneath her clothing she had breasts and suggesting it was cool to advertise the fact. Surely simply exposing her breasts would have been more meaningful and certain totally acceptable in the situation. I did wonder how would the reaction have been if I had worn a pair of shorts with a penis drawn on it. I think I would have probably been removed - and I feel justifiably.  Why chose the breasts - why not have a t-shirt with a belly button on it too, or wear a hat with hair on it, or a long sleeve top with elbows on it. The simple fact is that she was thinking breasts and got everyone else thinking breasts and then we wonder why more women aren't naturists? It was completely wrong, and until we start considering such reality we will never get non-naturists to understand. Did she make those that were showing their breasts feel a little exhibitionist? We read how wearing trendy clothes is becoming an issue at some of the large campsites in France. Once one person does it others like to follow - then before you know it it makes some people in some groups feel awkward about being naked in some of these circumstances. I wonder if some of the women on that live forum felt wrong for being exposed - or wished that they had worn an item of clothing that got such positive response themselves. Maybe a kitchen apron with a fully naked body on it? I was saddened by the clothing she wore but even more saddened by the response. Talk about Emporer' New Clothes - I wanted a young boy to shout out - "Wait a minute she isn't naked!"  

I see no excuse for clothes in a naturist online meeting. Either it's too cold where you are (and a t-shirt doesn't cut it, it should be obvious to the other participants that being naked would be an unecessary sacrifice) or you're just drawing attention to yourself. Also, if one is near enough of the camera, breasts need not to be in view, but I can't think of any good reason to hide them on purpose in that context.

One thing that I've been thinking a lot lately is the idea of desexualizing the naked body. It can't be done. It's the denial of something which has a physical and mechanical component. What can and should be done is desexualizing the naked body in context. It's not necessarily sexual in the shower and most certainly it isn't sexual in those horrid concentration camps. Therefor, the naked body can also be a dehumanizing thing. As it's context that matters, we ought to be concerned about promoting a good context for nakedness: a safe, non judgmental, everybody who behaves is welcomed environement, not great open ideas that are more philosophical than practical. That's what I mean when I say naturism promotes itself. 

I think often there is an incorrect belief that naturists do actual desexualise themselves. I think based on the idea that we often say naturism isn't about sex, but also on the idea that by spending so much time around the naked body we must become bored by it. I have just created this spin off topic https://www.anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/175/desexualising-the-naked-body. 

In terms of pixelation I would say that the need for it shows how much we sexualise the human body and the use of it does so too. In someways it is ugly and nasty and desexualises us in as much as it removes our body parts that are unique to our gender - but at the same time this censorship also reminds us that society/media see those body parts as purely sexual hence the need to hide them. This is not just the case with pixelation but sadly also the case with naturists sites and their more subtly censored images. Hold an object or hand infront of that body part and the message is as clear as a monkey face in a newspaper - "these are our naughty bits and we should always hide them - for they are shocking and upsetting." If naturists cannot show the mature way forward in naturist websites and magazine then how in the world is general media going to grow up. 

Naturists involved in "selling nudity" via patreon /only fans etc are even worse. "If you want to see our images without censorship then pay us money." Sorry but isn't that the oldest profession just updated for the modern man? Like buying that peanut packet in a pub to hopefully see the ladies breast behind, or paying a stripper to remove her skimpy top. If the newspaper above said pay to remove the monkey faces we would be appalled and yet when naturists do it we continue to see them as healthily promoting the lifestyle. As I mentioned in this topic https://www.anaturistworld.com/forums/topic/157/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-of-national-naturist-bodies - naturist organisations need to see the difference between real positives and false positives when it comes to the way naturism is promoted. We and they need to lead by example. 

As Vitor says above :