But then video cameras became cheap and easy enough to use. So eventually, a creepy old man showed up and started filming our swimming event without anyone's consent. As part of the organization team, it was my duty to confront him and ask for him to wipe the tapes. His wife had died, he was lonely and horny and just wanted to capture his lucky sight for himself.

So we succeeded after a long discussion and he let me wipe the tape. But the damage was done. Afterwards, everyone was afraid of being filmed without consent again. We never got enough sign-ups for another event after that.

Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it? I know you mentioned this was a "private lake" but it is unclear of if you mean legally private or de facto private. In case of the latter, even creepers have a right to be there and film.

I used to visit a nude beach and there was always some clothed weirdo with their phone out. They would get unfriendly looks by everyone though, and I think the ostracization kept them on the outskirts of the community.

I'd estimate that for most participants, the point of being nude was to feel free. I mean this was students drinking, swimming, and playing beach games for relaxation, not some political rally.

In either case, most just want an ephemeral experience, and don’t want permanent recordings.

I like to be nude swimming at the lake, but I don’t have a lake on my property.

There’s a whole culture of this in Eastern Germany, where I currently live.

Done it cca twice if I don't count swimming during night, second time got sting on the shoulder from medusa that left burn scar for years and hurt like hell back then. The idea of getting something similar on my johnson makes me shudder even now.

I didn't say "swim shorts", I said underwear, which tend to be tight fitting and not baggy. And there really isn't a "huge difference."

Not everything has to be making a point against society. In places where being nude is normal, it isn't considered a weird thing.

How can you not comprehend there are stages between "complete and total privacy with one person for a moment" and "film this and display it for all time to everyone"?

There is clearly a definition of "public" that involves a limited, semi-unrestricted number of like-minded people in a safe setting without tools to record behavior for eternal and unlimited rebroadcast. You do not acknowledge this; you are talking in binary.

I can tell you haven't been backpacking.

Not everything "in public" is a statement made with the consent to be recorded, shared over the internet by bystanders, exploited by corporations and archived for eternity. A public nude beach, and take note that this thread is actually about a private nude beach but let's argue the weaker point, is a place for people to be nude, not a place to be exploited to make porn. The fact that it is physically possibly to exploit a nude beach for softcore porn does not mean it is acceptable. In the same way that being nude at a shopping mall is physically possible, but socially not acceptable and mostly also not legal. Please note that nudism and exhibitionism are not the same.

For most participants Nudism is about freedom of self and a return to nature, it is about oneself, not about society or making statements, and not about pushing ones own nudity into other peoples faces. That would be exhibitionism. Many nudists are quite shy and not interested in becoming someone else wank material, or an actor on national television, or instahub. They do not wish to be recorded. They just want to be nude at the beach, there is no larger meaning or implied consent. Let me repeat that: being nude at a nude beach does not automatically imply consent to be filmed by anyone for any purpose. And we can argue this finer detail of "privacy" as being different from "privatly/publicly" and how it hinges on consent, without looking at nudism in particular:

Imagine every time you leave the house a national television crew follows you around. It doesn't actually matter what you do, they will cut and manipulate the footage to fit their narrative. You are not getting paid and are not consenting, and you have no influence on what the show is about. But it is going to be degrading, let's call it "americans most stupid". You should have stayed inside if you don't want to be exploited like that. This is the american idea of privacy: once you step outside, you have none. The usa does not differentiate between "being seen on the street, at a bar, at a beach" and "being published on national television, on instagram, on pornhub". If you want to use the former, you must accept to be exploited by the later and their endless supply of unpaid content creators. The european interpretation says that these people are not content creators, but creeps that are violating your human right to privacy and self determination by recording and publishing your activities without your consent.

The public is facing the tragedy of the commons as "public spaces" have become freely and easily exploitable by corporations in the age of surveillance capitalism and social media.

Note that european style privacy law is differentiated in the finer details: a person who films at a nude beach can claim to do so as a technological extension of their own personal memories and with no intention to publish the material and that is not in violation of privacy laws. This is the case in the thread starter. For the law it is the exploitation of the material, turning personal data of unwilling subjects into commodities without their consent, which is illegal. This is a detail most people at nude beaches do not like: they find the act of filming itself to be as creepy as a wanker sitting in the bushes.

> Note that european style privacy law is differentiated in the finer details: a person who films at a nude beach can claim to do so as a technological extension of their own personal memories and with no intention to publish the material and that is not in violation of privacy laws.

This would be reasonably clear-cut if images were being published on a professional pornography site or whatever, but what happens when the voyeur changes their mind and sends a pic to a friend who never re-shares it?

There are two possibilities here: either the law is unenforceable in cases like these and acts more like a security blanket than any sort of protection to be relied upon, baiting people into a false sense of privacy where they're open for exploitation by creeps - or you've got mandatory on-device image scanning / no E2E / etc, as compromising private communications is required in cases where the material would never hit public services.

Btw, I don't even really see this as a US vs. EU philosophy-of-law thing - the US has plenty of dumb unenforceable laws that do more harm than good as well, but imo does at least get the privacy in public issue roughly correct.

e: downthread, this is at least anecdotally a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673402

My uncharitable take is that this is the result of this style of privacy protection's unenforceability problems. If it works so well, why the decline in participation / increase in electronic voyeurism?

Let's meet in the middle, at "freedoms end where rights begin". For most interactions this balance is kept not by a government agency, but by the people respecting each others rights. The censor that decide if it is appropriate in real time is not part of some government agency, it is the little voice of moral and reason in your head that says "don't punch him in the face" and, if you get my drift, "don't film at a nude beach". The government steps in after people sue.

I bring the european understanding of a human right to privacy based on consent into this discussion, as a consideration about limiting the right to film, as a counterpoint to your "even creepers have a right to be there and film.", which you made as the devils advocate and which is true, but ignores the creepers disrespect for the right to privacy of those they film. The american interpretation is that humans have no right to privacy in public spaces, at all, that the creepers freedom to film is unrestricted in such a situation because privacy only exists behind closed doors and drawn curtains. This further means the creepers right to sell the content to distributors is unrestricted and their right to edit and frame this material is unrestricted, without any consent of he people filmed, because in an american public space their human right to privacy is non-existent. In the post I answered to, you reinforced this by claiming a person going to a public space makes a statement, implying consent. I reject that. There is a fundamental difference between using the commons and consenting to be exploited. I think the american threshold of where one sides freedom ends and the others sides rights begin in this matter is unfit for postmodern times where cameras have become cheap and omnipresent and publishing of the filmed material turned into a big market.

The american understanding of privacy comes from a time when the discussion was about being seen by neighbors, not about being filmed and published on the internet for millions to gawk at. Had the founding fathers bathing nude in a public lake not only implied that some fellow people present there could see them, but that pictures and videos were being made available on the world wide web, the concept of privacy in the bill of rights may be very different. Times have changed, technology changes possibilities and the evaluation of the freedom to do whatever you want in respect to other peoples rights to not be subject to whatever someone else wants must change with that as well.

As a moral and constitutional framework, i prefer consent based privacy above curtain based privacy.

Destigmatizing doesn't mean people are free to stare or film you. It's the same if someone were filming on a regular beach because they find people's bodies in bikinis attractive (or to have a wank, as admitted by that old creep). You probably wouldn't like that very much.

Still, free or not, I can approach the guy with the camera and complain, like OP did with the nudist beach creep.

I'm in Europe, not sure how this works to be honest.

But yes, people are also free to complain to the person and make them feel uncomfortable for the scumbag behavior.

That's the thing about going about in public, you have accept that others will be there and tolerate what they do even if you don't like it.

Try go acting the clown in public and see if people won't stare and record you.

Start with the context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673550

I don't know what you're having trouble understanding.

> It feels like you're bringing in NAP or something without actually saying it.

I don't know what NAP is or how that might address what I wrote.

Because the law allows them and prevents you stopping them.

> Are there people who are going to make me?

Police officers perhaps. Depending what you mean by not accepting it.

> If so, then they have some justification to do so - what is it?

Who and what? I don't really follow. People are free to look at what they like in public. I feel I'm repeating myself, I don't quite know what the difficulty is with this.

And what is NAP?

NAP is the non-aggression principle[1]. I brought it up, not because I agree or disagree with it, but to jump to that part of the dialog were that your basis for framework.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

But people are free to be in public and look at things that are in public view. This is not a statement of my beliefs or principles it's just a matter of fact. If you disagree, can you provide evidence?

Generally people are permitted to do something unless it is prohibited, so as I see it the burden is on you to prove your claim.

Or I could recommend reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap... instead.

I never said anything about what people can or cannot do in public or in private, I only pointed out that "just looking" is not an ironclad defense.

Harassment is better defined in terms of both side intent, personal effects, and reasonable expectations, especially when anonymity and safety can be at risk.

Context matters. The act itself can be destigmatizing (doesn't have to be the goal), but recording it and displaying it out of context usually causes more stigmatization.

Nowadays average girls sleep with the top x% guys from tinder instead of finding local average peers. They also out-earn their male peers and just a small percentage is willing to date down and settle with a guy earning less then them.

This brought kids to find refuge in videogames or the internet in general and be overall very lonely.

The media outrage towards typically male traits (think toxic masculinity) and a unmeritocratic culture (think everybody gets a prize, "positive" discrimination for "minorities" in college admissions and in the work force) is also incredibly damaging to guys who struggle more then ever to be successful.

The rise of porn, onlyfans and twitch (as it provides companionship) are clear symptoms that each passing generation is more and more lonely.

Loneliness will eventually breed creeps, incels, school shooters or people who are easily radicalised by terrorist organisations.

I think this is drastically overestimating the reach of Tinder. Some quick searching suggests that in 2020, 15% of adults between 18 and 29 used Tinder in some capacity. Meanwhile, Tinder's users are 80% male. Finally, less than a third of those users actually open the app more than once a week. Putting this all together, the number of female Tinder power-users might be about 2% of this particular age group, which is far too few to draw conclusions about the behavior of the average population.

That's a sad response—"I actually have to work at finding a partner, so I'll just not bother".

In 10-20 years, I imagine the majority of people running for office are gonna have their nudes leaked.

Remember, there are people today who genuinely think rape victims got what they deserve for being sluts. I don't know how you can look at that situation and think "surely those same horrible people won't use this as an excuse to otherise someone". There are people within my own country who say "it was a mistake for the supreme court to allow gay people to marry" and the politicians who say such things are broadly popular. Where is this magical world where people aren't busibodies?

Because it's already happening.

Things that were career ending scandals for politicians two decades ago are only a couple of days worth of news now.

Maybe it doesn't float your goat but many people are interested in it and sext with their partner. Who might become an ex which is when the trouble starts. Which brings us to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn

But really, leaks can happen through a bunch of ways. An old hard drive thrown away, a stupid password on some online storage...

But I'm not surprised people do it, to be honest. Porn is big these days and people get enticed to make their own.

I don't think this is a good thing. If you're not seeing any "normal" naked bodies, and are only ever exposed to idealized movie/porn bodies, aren't you more likely to get all kinds of body issues?

I agree and it’s a vicious circle ; the reason this happens in the first place is because people are already self-conscious about their bodies in ways that previous generations weren’t (of course this is specific to time & place and there were other issues back in the day!). Getting to see the variety of naked bodies that exist IRL would surely help, but that’s exactly what one would be avoiding.

How do you know someone else is taking too long unless you also have been in the communal shower too long?

At my local gym, there were 12 communal showers, but it was common for a class to be scheduled with an end time at 6:00 or 6:30 on the dot, so in addition to the steady traffic from the pool, weight room, or the ergs, you'd have a sudden exodus of 20 or 30 guys (or 50 in January) all waiting in line for showers so we could get to work on time. Then (in spite of signs prohibiting phone use in the locker rooms) people started using their phones for messaging/emails, usually conspicuously held within the locker or otherwise aimed so that they couldn't be used for photos...then they converted the showers to 8 private cubicles.

Even with 8 instead of 12, it was no big deal if people were taking 3 minutes to rinse off the sweat. Whether you left at 6:33, 6:36, or 6:39 was not a problem. But if 10 or 20% of people were treating the shower like a sauna, luxuriating in the steam until their fingers and toes got wrinkly, throughput went down the drain along with those gallons and gallons of hot water... you might have to wait until 7:00 to take a shower after your 6:30 spin class.

Putting a lightswitch which had a 10-minute timer outside the cubicle, plus a sign urging users to conserve water and take showers shorter than 5 minutes, was a big improvement. However, lots of people would do everything they could to minimize perceived awkward nakedness in the communal showers, getting clean in record time, but feel no such pressure in a cubicle.

False dichotomy. How about only seeing "normal" naked bodies within the bounds of marriage, and banning porn?

Tbh, I do not see why nudism is attractive. Just does not appeal to me. However on a couple of occasion I did go skinny dipping, but more out of the necessity of not having planned for the swim, rather than out of some life philosophy that my penis must be in view of others.

A few friends and I went to go see Taake at a little venue in Greenpoint, NYC years back. We wanted to be in the pit so we moved towards the front and it was clogged with what some call "poser hipsters." They just stood there texting, playing on social media or filming the whole time wasting venue space. It was infuriated as these idiots just stood there staring and tapping at their phones while a band was playing. So we decided to make life miserable because it was the pit after all. So we started up the pit and explicitly threw each other into the human tripods for laughs. After we knocked those phone zombies around a few times they got the hint and moved towards the back. And you could even see some were miffed and gave us dirty looks but hey, this is a metal show so FUCK OFF AND DIE! We had a blast and there was just one pic taken of a friend who managed to grab a selfie with Hoest.

As society has become significantly less prudish about showing skin, the countercultural impact of total nudity has gone from total reversal, to being just a bit further down the free spectrum, and that gives the whole act in general less of a reason. It's a big deal, but not nearly as revolutionary, and so I would imagine most people would shrug and say "why?"

---

Also, it doesn't really help that nudity is these days associated with the crowd of its heyday, who are now well into being senior citizens, and that just makes the whole thing even less cool.

I will say, that in 2022 I don’t think it’s necessarily shyness. We are now generally much more aware of the harms of UV damage to skin than we were in the 60s and 70s, and so there is actually a trend away from tanning and towards covering up. Which is probably for the best since skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US.

Japan and Korea, and probably in the future China, are big players in cosmetics and fashion these days, and those countries never had a big nudist culture and generally dislike tanning and nudity even more so. And their products are gaining ever greater market share in the West.

Our cultures are mixing together in this globalized world, and other stuff like K-pop is already big business in Europe.

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but I do think it's a non trivial number. Maybe it's a vicious cycle and more exposure of normal sizes would help normalize expectations/views.

It's the cameras. They're everywhere now.

in particular was a story about how in the past there was girls gone wild etc but that's now starting to fade away as young people are aware one dumb moment can live on forever thanks to social media

Couldn't disagree more. Years ago if you dropped your trunks at a beach and there were ~10 people around who didn't know you there there were virtually no potential consequences except a little embarrassment from a few total strangers (who you'd likely never see again) seeing you naked from a distance. With cameras your nudity is captured in HD from a distance and potentially distributed to the entire world, in perpetuity.

>but that's now starting to fade away as young people are aware one dumb moment can live on forever thanks to social media

Even if its true that shameful and/or embarrassing moments captured on film are less of a social stigma among young people (because they are so common now), that doesn't mean there isn't a massive difference today due to the ubiquitous presence of cameras. In my opinion this ever-present recording has significantly changed society and the way people behave - and not for the better.

Ubiquitous cameras are also slowly starting to allow the public to hold police and other public authorities accountable for actions they were previously totally unaccountable for.

Maybe. Some young (or not) person does something dumb one time maybe after getting a bit too intoxicated (and maybe even somewhat out of context) and a recording is available for an indefinite period of time at the top of Google searches of their name doesn't seem obviously always a good outcome.

There's arguably something to be said for having a common name. Or at least not having an unusual name that you nonetheless share with the wrong person.

At the same time, the worst of society doesn't seem all that cool to me but it could just be unusual times.

Today it’s shared on the internet, not only seen by dozens of the photographers friends, but linked via face recognition to you even though you live the other side of the world and was on holiday.

The problem isn’t the camera, it’s the internet.

Which for many people is a real concern.

Do you guys think that the correlation between "interesting work or good pay" and "would not hire a employee who frequents a nude beach" is positive or negative?

(Probably best to mention the country where you work, when you give your answer.)

What might be more useful to ask is 'in my area/social strata/available employer options, would they hesitate to hire me if my nude photos at a nude beach show up when someone does a typical google search for my name.'.

Replace nude beach with 'revenge porn', 'embarrassing rant at taco bell', or whatever.

Relating to the nude beach thread, don't forget that can happen due to things outside of their control (rando comment on a picture someone else took, creeper writing some 'ship fiction, god knows what).

There is a ton of noise out there of course, so odds are even something really embarrassing won't be found unless it makes the social media spotlight of the day, but most sane folks are going to think twice before doing something because of it. Which is enough for a chilling effect.

A great many employers (including ones that many people here consider interesting work and good pay) would hesitate to hire someone with that kind of baggage for public facing jobs. Some of them even for internal jobs.

Tech tends to be pretty unusual here, in that there isn't a lot of public facing jobs period, and they tend to be so in demand (recently) that employers can't be very picky. If you're high profile though, it can still be a problem, because they'd need to ask 'am I ok having this person represent me publicly, when x thing shows up in a Google search'. You might see that in leadership positions, for instance.

A findable Twitter post that seems believable enough from someone claiming you sexually harassed them, for instance, could be enough to round-file you for a leadership position at a FAANG.

Most of the population doesn't have a lot of good job prospects accessible to them - they might have only 1-2 decent employers for their type of work in their area, and have a house and kids - and in some geographic regions, such things that are considered boring in Tech can not only make you homeless/unable to support your family, but get you outright murdered or thrown in jail for life.

> Replace nude beach with 'revenge porn', 'embarrassing rant at taco bell', or whatever.

These three things are in no way comparable.

An embarrassing public rant is direct evidence of you being rude, unhinged, and/or prone to substance abuse. It is legitimate evidence against your character, even if it was a one-time event many years removed.

Revenge porn is not your fault and should not affect your professional reputation. However, I can see how it can paint an unflattering or unpleasant picture of you. Maybe you're being the submissive in a S/M relationship, which pretty much by definition will make you appear passive and low-status. Or vice-versa, maybe you're very dominating during sex and it might make others afraid to deal with you even if you're the nicest dude ever in the office.

Going to a nude beach says nothing bad about your character, assuming you are just sunbathing or swimming and not acting like a douche. And neither does it paint an unflattering picture of you, assuming your private parts are not utterly out of the ordinary.

Do you think a manager from Saudi Arabia, India, Japan, or China would agree with your assessment? Or who grew up in the Bible Belt in the US?

Especially if the candidate happened to be female? Culturally, odds aren’t great.

In fact, in some of these cultures, I could see the nude beach as being the biggest offense since it was the most clearly voluntary. Everyone has a bad day and gets angry sometimes after all (Taco Bell rant), or can be attacked by an angry Ex (revenge porn).

Not condoning, providing understanding for those who haven’t seen that kind of judgement happen from someone before.

Unless they’re entertainingly dumb, in which case they’ll bring screenshots. Which has happened.

Most companies don’t want drama with, around, or from employees. They want people who get what they need done, done.

Something comes up that looks like drama? Round file.

And good luck contesting it if they do this - courts generally give quite wide discretion to hiring decisions like this. It would need to be explicitly based on a protected class, which is quite narrow, AND they’d have to have documented it as such - which they’d have to be complete idiots to do.

Oh, and you’d have to know about, and find the documentation.

I mean one thing is taking nude selfies and then posting them on my IG or whatever and the other is random stranger snapping pictures from far away. How would the latter turn up when someone is looking for me? Face recognition? Possible, but I don’t think we’re there yet, or?

In my experience it's usually the small to medium companies that don't care about stuff like if it's actually legal or not, and it's not like it's hard to do - [https://pimeyes.com/en] is one of a great many.

That said, if a hiring manager looks it up, and passes instead of hires and doesn't tell anyone why, it's not like that would show up in a database or procedure somewhere.

Before cameras and internet, that would have been a fun local event and long forgotten. Now the pictures are everywhere.

A much better article on how going topless has changed over the last 50 years in Denmark is [1].

[1] https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/nye-toploes...

My father is from an Eastern European country so I traveled there as a kid. The cultures were very different. You saw bare breasts at pools, in tv commercials, etc. Few people owned cars, no one wore deodorant, all of the food was local style, ie people didn't even eat pasta. It was truly like stepping into a different world.

Now with the internet it is basically like the US with a different language. Being nude is frowned upon in the US and it is now frowned upon there. No one is going topless to the pool anymore and you can find pasta everywhere.

If it's normal and there's no social stigma, then who cares. But now if there is increasing stigma, at least in that the images could be used against you in the future, then that seems more like the problem.

Warning, this is analysis from not an anthropologist/sociologist: Maybe the prevalance of porn and screens to view them on has also made for creepier men/men who are now more used to viewing women as objects. I remember reading an article many years ago about how teenage girls are acting more like porn stars because they believe that's what attracts guys...

As someone who grew up as a teen without a phone, I can say that mental pictures can be enjoyed (even without ogling), and it was very common.

I agree that the second paragraph is likely. Although if the girls are acting more like pornstars, wouldn't that make nudity less of an issue (or more normalized) even with a sexualizing audience?

My personal theory borne out by the age gap is the influence of American/Anglo culture on young generations. Contrary to popular opinion which seems to be convinced that the youth has no limits I think my generation (people in their 20s/30s) is incredibly sexless, prude and neurotic about just about anything, taking most social cues from the English speaking internet.

My family is half ex East-German and West German and that split on nudity / FKK (free body culture) is extremely pronounced as well. I don't think the "camera surveillance" theory holds up because given what else people do on camera for clicks and attention indicates that there's more shame going around. Particular the youth does not seem to care if they're caught on camera doing just about anything.

De facto gay nude beaches have become much more popular among younger gay men (I’d posit that they’ve always been popular with older gay men.)

There’s a pretty likely cause of this - I think gay men are completely desensitized to showing their bodies and being seen thanks to platforms like Grindr, OnlyFans, and the rise of the “alt Twitter.” It’s also easier to discover these places through social media where word of mouth was likely how they continued in the past.

From anecdotal experience, many gay males that share salacious photos of themselves on Twitter (at least where their intent of their account is not only sex/nudity, but to participate in the community of twitter) tend to share healthy and tasteful "thirst traps", semi-nudes, and sometimes nudity. It's rarely "porn" style content, and almost never problematic. And it's also some twitter gays with normal bodies too! That's good. We should celebrate that. That makes twitter the non-ephemeral nude beach.

I'm sure this is the fear, but the perceived risk surely outweighs the actual risk.

It's not like there would be zero repercussions for posting nude beach pics on mainstream social media, and anywhere else (niche, personal website, porn forums/sites) means almost nobody you ever know would ever see pics of you au naturel. Ever.

But, yes, I agree this is the fundamental (even if I think irrational) fear.

I have to imagine that we are not far from a popular public facial search engine. Send a picture from FB or LI and it will show you these pictures.

We have the technology, and it's a tool available to governments and large businesses already. It's not a leap to assume this will be a normal product that people use in the next 5 years.

So I take a picture and run it through this public facial search engine, then what am I hoping to find?

Super-embarrassing pictures that I can use to destroy my archnemesis? Become more obsessed with the object of my unrequited love? Would people pay for this product?

I guess I still wonder at the risk level even in this hypothetical. What are the chances that I successfully find a nude beach pic of someone that I am looking for, or for someone intentionally to find one of me? I still suspect that the probability is incredibly small.

I mean, I don't care if there are nude beaches or not. People can do what they want. I just don't see the risk.

Anyway, will there be no public outcry? Will these things not be shut down immediately by politicians who suddenly find they've been filmed at nude beaches and now all the world can see?

Idle curiosity. Stalking. Digging up dirt.

>Will these things not be shut down immediately

Putting technological genies back in bottles is very difficult especially when there are very legitimate uses. Automated photo tagging is already a thing in something like Lightroom and some photo sharing sites and it's quite useful.

I don't think it's likely anyone you're close to would see the pics, but it's not hard to imagine someone you kind of know from someplace like work seeing them.

The problem isn't the act, the problem is being able to be judged for that act, for eternity, by people who will choose to shame and judge you for it to their benefit. This can cause stress and trouble whether we want it to or not.

The problem is not other people's judgement, it's one's own inability to cope with the idea that others may be judging. It's called insecurity.

For what it's worth I go to nude beaches and nudist resorts/campgrounds as often as I can. It took me only a few times to get over it. No one cares but yourself, really.

So, for now, the law, in Spain, does not help people to feel safe being nude in any public space. I think that it is important that citizens can record and have proof of things that happen in public spaces, but this case seems to push that boundary.

That's a problem for then. The problem we have now can be helped by banning phones.

Refusing to make things better today just because it might not be enough against a hypothetical future technology seems more than a little bit defeatist.

We still can’t fix people with myopia and other eye disorders and you talk about not too distant future with cameras implanted in eyes? Seriously?

No complaints if my infrared LED suit blinds your vision.

Or to put it another way YAGNI. Let's work to solve the problems that actually exist today and deal with changing requirements as they come.

Japan is a bit different when it comes to baths. Traditionally many Japanese homes didn't have a bath, public baths remained popular far longer than they did in Europe. Having free hot (volcanic) water available also helps, which I guess is easier to exploit in a large onsen than it is at home. Also, they do have mixed onsen, but those are pretty rare (these days?).

My impression was that onsen had areas divided by gender, and mixed onsen weren't nude?

I've noticed at the gym etc that guys 10+ years younger than me are pretty sheepish about being nude. Even in the gym changing room they change behind a towel. I bare all and don't really care.

I've wondered if that experience in youth had equiped me well for later life where I don't really care...

I do notice the same trend in the locker rooms here - younger men do get naked but turn away while they change, and almost only at the locker. Older men are much more likely to walk around naked, with none of the turning away business.

So women are not showing up and the men who show up are old geezers...

So no young woman would want to be looked and stared at especially by the old geezers who are the majority.

It's the old "why we can't have nice things". Selfish Bad apples exploiting convention and ruining it for "good citizens"

It’s actually kind of the opposite: attractive women are less likely to be on nude beaches because they may get harassed by creepy men.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4138.Naked?from_search=t...

Bobs Burgers - s03e11