The recent Naturism in the News ( https://www.anaturistworld.com/news-view/1/43/sports-bra-ad-banned-bare-breasts-of-all-shapes-and-sizes) item about the Adidas advert raises questions.

Does displaying a collection of naked breasts of various different shapes and sizes help to encourage people to become more body aware, accepting and hopefully more receptive to naturism?

Or is it just another example of using the body to sell a product? 

Are adverts like this just exploiting the human body to shock people, get attention and make money? 

Or do they also help to encourage a more laid back attitude towards nudity and possibly naturism? 

Is is possible that they can do both at the same time? Do they encourage debate about nudity and body positivity as well as bring attention to the company involved? 

How do we judge what is helpful for body confidence and what is good for naturism? Would a beautiful naked model have a negative or positive effect? Or is it only those people deemed as average that can bring about change? 

If adverts like this help, then why doesn't nudity in magazines like Playboy help - or does it? When do we cross the line from sexualising and objectifying to body positivity and naturalising the nude? 

Does a famous actress appearing naked in a film help promote a healthier attitude towards nudity or is she little different to a stripper being paid to take of her clothes for an audience. Where does exploitation stop - or is there no difference. 

When Hitchcock made Rear Window he commented that the way he edited what Jimmy Stewart saw and what he was shown to be looking at was a key to the experiment of the film. The pairing of the image and the reaction were key to how we judged him as a character. 

So if we took the same advert for Adidas (a collection of breasts with no faces - of various sizes and shapes) and used it as an advert for Breast Cancer awareness with a line about how cancer can effect any woman so self check regularly then that may seem helpful and good, if the image was used to sell a Porn Channel with the line "We know men like different size breasts so we offer a huge variety" then the advert is completely different in suitability. It is the line and the meaning of the advert that causes offense and not the image. 

Isn't that the same with naturism. It isn't nudity that is a problem. It is how people behave while naked that should matter. Genuine naturists do nothing to cause offense and so naturism should never be seen as offensive. However, some people are simply shocked by the human body and believe it should be censored. The wrong publicity of the human body will encourage them to believe they are correct, the right publicity of the human body will encourage them to change their mind. 

So all nudity is not good news, but which nudity is? Do adverts like the Adidas promotion do more harm than good? How do we measure which nudity is helpful and which isn't?

Oh Dear… Where do we begin?

 

As know you Steve, because we have debated this, and it is something we as a couple have spoken together about since our first post, it is a tricky issue, and we feel one that depends a great deal on where your starting position is. If you are a Mary Whitehouse type fire and brimstone entrenched conservative, no number of words will ever change that, if not, we feel the advert can be looked at in a positive light.

 

Would the image work from breast cancer awareness, we feel yes it would, does it have a positive that goes beyond the Adidas adverts real intention, which is to make money selling sports bras, we also think yes. Is it positive for naturisum, probably not, but it could be!

 

 Let us take the point of view, that every day, the average woman rides a bus to work, and at the bus stop, she looks out of the window, and see the huge billboard on the side of a building with the same twenty images of naked breasts on it. We would pose, that her first reaction would not be, “I need that bra.” We would pose it would be, “Wow look at how different they are… Mine are like those second from the left.”

 

It is that thought, which to a degree will connect with her subconscious, that will be a seed of positive. In that moment several things happen, the first is, the woman understands that she has normal breasts. Second, seeing them up there on the wall, backed by a major brand name, makes them less offensive and more acceptable, because a great many people are subdued by societal standards, and be honest, Adidas is a huge and well established and acceptable brand. Thirdly, it will undo the photoshop power of the media, as she will understand, that there is no set type and size of acceptable breasts, all breasts are unique.

 

From a psychological point of view, this is a massive deal for the positive, and for a body positive reaction, with understanding why, the viewer becomes more accepting, and less shaming of themselves. Look at the art exhibition done by Jamie McCartney ‘The Wall of Vaginas’ It was a massively controversial exhibition, and the usual types tried to stop it. The gallery supported their artist and let it go ahead, and on view, were the plaster casts of 400 vaginas, and everyone of them unique and different.

 

Women sat on the benches looking at this huge wall of 400 casts, and wept, because for the first time in their lives, they understood that were ‘Normal’ And that their own vagina was as unique as everyone of the others cast on the wall. It was a massively positive thing for women.

 

The adidas advert may have been done to shock, it was certainly done to increase revenues, and yet 14 people were able to get it banned, ask yourself why?

 

We would surmise, because the simple act of accepting normal breasts, defeats the narrative of the controlled digitally enhanced media, and in that regard, this advert is good for naturisum, because everyone who looks at and thinks about those twenty images, will view nudity less harshly.

14 people were able to get it banned, because that is the culture we now live in. It's fashionable and novel.
"Hey, whaddya wanna do this weekend?"  "I dunno... cancel something...?" "Jolly good! Put on your 'offended face' and Llet's go find something that hasn't been banned yet!"

Steve, you've summarized it: "It isn't nudity that is a problem. It is how people behave while naked that should matter." this requires a lot of pedagogy as well from nudists and naturists to explain that in every community, there are black sheeps, and we should not throw the baby with the bathwater, but ensure that people who don't behave in a respectful manner be explained how they cause harm to the movement. The sad thing is a tiny minority can now have more power that the majority for communalism reasons. Tough times indeed, but let's keep the naturist flag fly high as we all know it such a wonderful, positive and respectful way of life.

I think all the comments are excellent.  All I can add is that the current "cancel culture", amplified by social media (Facebook, Twitter and the like - definitely NOT ANW) have a lot in common with the Inquisition.  While the page style created by Facebook (and of course emulated here) has some value, I think in time many will come to see Facebook and Twitter as detriments to society.