Conference moira::naturism

    Where is H  & E available?  I haven't been able to find it for six 
    months now; I've never been able to find the quarterly issues at all.
    
    B.

    
    Hmmmmm, it's always been around the corner at the local smoke shop.
    They put it in with the girly magazines (bad place for it). Perhaps
    the shop decided not to carry the magazine anymore, who knows ?
    Check around, you should be able to find it elsewhere.  If you can't,
    you can have it sent directly to you through mail order subscription.
    
    Regds,
    Darrell
    

    H & E is available in the whole countries of E.E.C (EUROPE)
    Then a new issue must be distributed the 15 april : 
     large format #1.

    And you can get some video tapes now:
    
    - Educating JULIE
    - Naked as nature intended
    - Once we were naked
    - Naked USA vol 1 part
    - "      "   "  2 part
    - Winter in HOLLAND
    - Let youself  be free
    
    
    let me knoe if you need more info.
    
    Sunny day
    
    JACK    

I'm curious since I've only seen H & E excerpts twice, never a sample copy. 
Both excerpts lead me to believe this magazine belongs with the girly magazines,
maybe even labelled as pornography.  I may be wrong, for certainly it's been
discussed here as if it promotes the pure ideas of naturism alone.

CwtS's recent issue has some photos which are obviously posed by Penthouse-style
models.  Posed pretty-bodies don't strike me as Naturist ideals.  The table of
contents mentioned in .3 (and alluded to in the Beach Photography topic) further
lead me to believe that even its lip-service to naturism is strongly tied to
appealing to heterosexual men.

I don't criticise blatant pornography but I need to be disabused of the notion
this magazine is two-faced.  I am aware there exists a debate about its
"validity": I'd like to bring the debate into the notesfile, but calmly please!

\bob

    
    The connection with "girly" magazines is probably coincidental -
    H&E has run for many years, and when I was a kid it was the only
    mag that carried un-retouched female nude studies. It was avidly
    read by the boys in my class, I can assure you. However it carries
    much news of naturist activities and clubs, regular reviews on the
    European scene (touristy stuff about resorts mainly) and occasionally
    stuff from further abroad.
    
    They have changed their rules about photographs over the years,
    - it used to be that all the pictures had to be 'club sponsored'.
    Nowadays about half the pictures are posed pictures of models
    illustrating the articles. By and large these models are amateurs
    - H&E will reject pictures of models who have appeared in the 'regular'
    girly-mags. They also have regular features of pictures taken in
    club surroundings, and these include plenty of variety - people
    of all ages from toddlers to geriatrics, you might say. They are
    the only British mag on open newstand sale that will carry pictures
    of naked children. These however must be very clearly of the family
    'happy snaps' variety, and the parents must provide written proof
    of approval (one of the parents is very often the photographer unless
    both parents also appear in the shot).
    
    My only concern about H&E is that their 'small ads' section carries
    some ads (eg for models, 'personals' etc )that look  very like similar 
    ads in men's magazines, and I wonder if they are vetted at all.
    
    Some British naturist clubs still use H&E as their regular newsletter.
    
    /. Ian .\

    The American naturist groups have a pretty hard line against H&E.
    I think that the problem is a different outlook on naturism itself.
    The Europeans seem more open about nudism and don't look at pictures
    of naked people with a critical eye the way the Americans do.
    
    There are mostly "natural" pictures in H&E.  I haven't gotten H&E in
    about six months but I've never really seen anything objectionable.
    The latest CWS includes pictures from H&E that include very well built
    and good looking women in poses that most women wouldn't do in public.
    Yes, they have great all-over tans so they're probably nudists, but
    they really didn't HAVE to pose them like that.
    
    The magazine is kinda amusing.  There ARE interesting things to read
    in the magazine, though some of the articles lack a bit of
    intelligence.
    
    All-in-all, it's not that bad and there is useful information in the
    magazine.  It's just a matter of a different attitude towards nudism
    and a different culture.  Of course, I'm sure they also want to
    increase readership among non-nudists which would explain the looser
    format.
    
    Ben
    

    I see that you understood the EUROPEAN mind about naturist,BEN,
    but only you!
    
    That some body thinks that the pictures in H & E are girlies.
    This is his mind(not open = not EUROPEAN),in his culture 
    and in his country who make him a different look.
    
    Then I can see that I am not a regular model and this not 
    with my pictures published in H & E that I win my life.
    This is maybe why I work for DEC.
    
    Sunny day.
    JACK
    

    
    Jack, I'm not sure, but if .7 is aimed at me I must say that I deeply
    resent it.
    
    In English (which I take not to be your native tongue) the term
    "girly magazine" is used to describe those magazines, such as Playboy,
    that are aimed at a male market, and largely feature posed pictures
    of adult female nudes. I don't call them "men's magazines" in general
    because there are many more magazines on the market aimed at men.
    
    I don't consider any adult women to be girls or "girlies", as I
    hope my contributions to WOMANNOTES would indicate. I don't consider
    any of the adult models of H&E to be girlies. However I do consider
    some of them to be professional models (ie they get paid).
    
    However as a European, my mind is as European as yours, and I
    understand my own mind perfectly well thank you very much. 
    
    I decline to generalise. 
    
    I am on dangerous enough ground talking about "British" attitudes,
    without claiming to understand the minds of people from other cultures
    totally alien to my own. (Is there such a thing as a "European"
    other than as a description of an employee of the EC civil service).
    
    I will clarify the opinion of several other British naturalists,
    who were and are extremely nervous of the fact that today H&E accepts
    posed pictures, of models who potentially have been paid. 
                             
    /. Ian .\

 
    RE: .7

    I don't know about your generalization about American naturists.
    
    I gave a copy of H&E to one of the other noters here who also thinks
    that there's nothing wrong with H&E.  As a matter of fact, I think
    she thinks that H&E is quote amusing.
    
    I think the primary reason for the American difference (see CWS issues)
    in opinion of H&E has to do with the fight for naturists' rights in
    the states.  Most naturists want the public to get a healthy view
    of naturism so that there will be more public acceptance of naturism.
    H&E takes a very liberal view of naturism because the Europeans have
    been accepting naturism for a long time now.  I suspect that the
    mood of American naturists will change as more people accept the fact
    that naturism *IS* okay.

    Of course, it does kinda negate the whole idea of naturism if
    paid models have to be used.  The American publications, CWS and the
    ASA Bulletin, try to show naturists "naturally"..as they enjoy
    nudism.  They don't "pose" and they seem happier in their activities
    than if they were posed.  It's much easier to relate to the people
    who appear in CWS or the Bulletin.

        
    Ben

     PS: .8, I think we just have a language problem between .7 and .8.
	 I don't think anything bad was intended by .7.  

    Excuse me for butting in .... but..
    
    	This conversation has been interesting.  I tend to lean with
    the idea that although H&E tries to make itself out to be a 
    "naturist" magazine, the articles and pictures (as wholesome as
    they may be) do have to some extent, sexual connataions.  I believe
    that without them, certainly readership and sales would drastically
    decline, as the majority of people (at least in N. America) are
    still mind-warped about nudity (the old nudity=sex issue), at least
    mind-warped to us nudists/naturists, and thus the magazine attracts
    not only naturists, but all kinds of people with various sexual
    interests.  (Couldn't figure out any other way to phrase that last
    sentence.).
    
    Regds,
    Darrell

    I over-reacted. My apologies. Bad manners are not forgivable merely
    because of haste.
    
    I don't know why I should be so aggressive about it, after all most
    Britons talk as if we weren't part of Europe (eg we talk about
    "going to Europe" for a vacation). Culturally and historically Britain
    has close ties with America, whereas for most of the last 1500 years
    we have been at war with one or more of Spain, France, Germany or
    the Netherlands... We share a language and legal system with America,
    and little but proximity and the dynastic scheming of our Royal
    Family with the rest of Europe.
                              
    Incidentally to return to the subject, I have a little anecdote
    to contribute about the models in H&E. But first a little background.
    At one time H&E carefully used only "true naturist photography"
    and then in the '60s and '70s Britain passed a series of laws against
    pornography and especially child pornography, that led to them changing
    their policy in this respect. Since then many articles are illustrated
    only with pictures of women over 18 or men over 21, and in order
    to get the proof, they tend to use procedures common with professional
    models. Prior to that (as reference to any older back issues will
    show) the photographs reflected a truer cross section of naturist
    life. 
    
    Anyway, in the early 70s a friend of mine sold them 4 pictures -
    three of his girlfriend and one of the two of them together on a
    beach. They published but the fee he got was quite small. He asked
    me if that was what he should expect, and after I explained that
    the fee varied according to the market, he and his girlfriend asked
    me to use my photographic company to try and sell some more of the
    pictures from the original session - they signed a contract with
    me assigning me the copyright in return for �0.01 per picture valuable
    consideration for the copyright and 80% of subsequent royalties
    for the photographer and 85% of model fees for the young lady. (This
    is a standard contract). I managed to place three of the pictures
    in the calendar market and sell a batch of 19, 17 of which were
    subsequently published, with "Mayfair" magazine. "Mayfair" published
    the shots with a totally fictitious 'bio' of the model, and a piece
    of pure fiction purporting to be an interview. However the
    photographers fee was �750 and the models fee �500 for the magazine
    set, so they made a nice profit on the deal. 
    
    Putting the magazine on a shelf with girly magazines doesn't make
    it a girly magazine (though it speaks volumes for the mind-set of
    the vendors), and selling pictures from a modelling session to both
    H&E and a 'girly magazine' doesn't make the young lady a 'girly'
    (though it did pay for her wedding!)
    
    /. Ian .\
    

I'm glad I stirred some discussion, and very enlightening too.  Thank you all,
and let's not stop.  I do want to apologize for exposing my negative
presumptions at the same time I was trying to ask a legitimate question.
(Warning: blatant generalization follows...) Americans do have a hard time
separating nudity from sex, and hence my question.  

It seems there is an argument that H&E simply works within its externally
imposed limits (what the law allows and what buyers will buy).  Seemingly what
one gets from it (eroticism or information) depends on the reader.  I gather the
magazine carries enough of both to straddle the line every now and then.

In the naturist video, "Educating Julie", H&E was used by the main character
in the story to get introduced to naturism and to find naturist resorts.
The magazine was featured rather prominently.

B.

I used to take HE some time ago ; then I joined CCBN and their mag BN has most
of the events I'd be interested in so I don't take HE anymore. 

*But* I do agree with those correspondents who feel a degree of unease with HE.
I found many of the photos rather 'staged' , regardless of whether or not the
subjects were paid models. It is possible of course that they were all bona
fide naturists but that editorial selection emphasised the more glamorous pix.
But that wouldn't explain why certain individuals and couples seemed to be in
with more than average regularity.

Going off at a tangent for a moment I must also say that I felt uneasy about
feeling uneasy. That is as a nudist I feel comitted to the concept that Nude
implies nothing more than Nude; and pictures of nude people are no different to
pictures of clothed people and this must ,for me, extend to staged glamorous or
even provocative pictures. To paraphrase Ken Keysey you're either on the bus or
off the bus - and I'm *on* the bus. 

( This has other implications of course. Like for instance Page3 glamshots have
to be IN and girly mags have to be IN (or at least not OUT simply because of
nudity). But since  I've rarely bought so much as a newspaper for the last 13
yrs these conclusions don't actually have any direct impact on me.)

Which leaves me with the problem of how to reconcile the unease I felt with
some HE pix and the antipathy I feel to Page3 and girlymags while
simultaneously rejecting any explanation involving nudity.

My way out : Like popular advertising, this is image making which offers
unrealistic expectations or ,for most people, unachievable goals. Its currency
is the highly simplified and stylized stereotype. And its this I reject,
regardless of whether the subject is nude on a beach or buying cornflakes in
the supermarket.

Back in at a tangent after several orbits. My view is that HE *was* guilty of
this unfortunate stereotyping - though not all the time. Maybe it was just an
easy fallback when material was a bit thin.

P.S. re: above I'm still trying to work out my attitude to N Tebbitt's claim
that Page3 nudes were no different to nudes in the National Gallery.

jim


    

    
    Perhaps the reference to 'Page 3 Girls' holds a hint of the truth
    about H&E. For the sake of those in foreign parts who haven't a
    clue what we Brits are talking about, the British daily press are
    roughlyu divided between the 'quality press' like The Times, and
    the tabloid press (named from the page size) like The Sun, The Daily
    Mirror and The Star. The Sun features a topless pin-up picture every
    day on page 3 (though mercifully they didn't yesterday in view of
    the massive coverage of the Hillsborough stadium disaster), and
    the others feature such picturs also, though not usually on page
    3. Since the Sun started it, the term 'Page 3 Girl' is used for
    this sort of glamour shot in a newspaper. It is admittedly there
    purely to boost newstand sales.
    
    And that I think is the point. I believe (I may be cynical, but
    I believe I'm right), that as well as operating within a framework
    of the law, H&E also chooses to feature a few pictures in the 'page
    3 girl' mould, purely to make the magazine more attractive to the
    wider, 'alt', buying public. 
    
    /. Ian .\

Ben gave me a copy of H&E when I was in the East last January.  Bob and I read 
it over, looked at the pictures and realized the pictures usually didn't go 
with the text it was next to.

The text had a more laid back attitude, almost to the point of being making
fun of people that like to nude.  At least we took it that way.  There were
some questions in H&E about nudity and the answers were so ridiculous, they
didn't really get to any point or answer the question at hand.

And we also felt the photos did show more "perfect" women bodies then CwS.  I
thought that was in poor taste, but then that may be what the picture taker
had to work with.  And like it's been said before, we American women are alot
more aware (or playing guilt trips) with our bodies and if we don't see some-
thing "flawed" about another woman, we get jealous.  Makes me work harder 
towards having a more svelte bod, really. ;-)

Judy

    In view of some of the comments about not wanting to be photographed
    elsewhere in the conference, I wonder how many people would be willing
    to sign a release form to allow pictures of themselves to appear
    in a naturist magazine, especially if they had less than
    state-of-the-art bodies?
    
    As for answers being 'ridiculous', is that an absolute, or are they
    merely out of synch with Coloradoan thinking? I don't mean to be
    aggressive, but this is a British magazine, not an American one,
    and in Britain (and I believe elsewhere in Europe) it is used by
    many clubs as a newsletter, so presumably there is a body of opinion
    this side of the pond that believes it to be a reflection of their
    views and philosophy.
    
    Perhaps you could quote a few of these typically ridiculous answers?
    
    /. Ian .\

>>    As for answers being 'ridiculous', is that an absolute, or are they
>>    merely out of synch with Coloradoan thinking? 

Ridiculous meaning absurd, foolish, or silly.  I just think they have a more 
laid back attitude about nudity than Americans (not just Coloradoans), which 
I envy!

>>    Perhaps you could quote a few of these typically ridiculous answers?
    
I will as soon as I get my hands on it.  Unfortunately I don't carry the copy 
of H&E with me to work. ;-)  

Judy

    
    �I will as soon as I get my hands on it.  Unfortunately I don't carry the copy 
    �of H&E with me to work. ;-)  
     
    Very wise...
    
    I remember one Q&A page that struck me as having a few sarcastic
    answers. They were quoting typical questions they'd picked up from
    somewhere or other (asked by "curious textiles") and giving rather
    sarcastic answers (I seem to recall the tone as being something
    like "this is so obvious, but here is an answer" - the whole thing
    looked like a bad parody of a "Dear Abby" column to me.)
    
    /. Ian .\

The column appeared in Vol 88 No. 4 and is called "More Give Me More".  It 
started off like this:

	Naturally, in putting together a magazine, not just this one, it 
	is a good idea to try to get a balance of photos and articles to
	suit all the magazine's readers. Few complaints on the written 
	work reach my ears (perhaps everybody's scared of offending me?)
	but there seems to land on my desk an incessant drip of moans 
	about the photos:-

	`I have to wonder why you never feature naturists with dark skins --
	Chinese, Asian, African and so on. Don't they exist?'

	We do feature them! But, of course, we have to depend on the type
	of photographic material that gets submitted to us. So send some
	in, if they're good and you've got some...

	`I wish to draw your attention to the fact that of all the women 
	that grace the pages of your magazine, none sport the mohican,
	shaved head look that's common today...Does this mean that the 
	type is not into naturism? If they're not, why not?'

	Fashions vary from year to year and even from month to month, so 
	I guess photographers are anxious not to use models that may
	`date' quickly. Besides, we have to depend on the type of photo-
	graphic material that gets submitted...

	`Why don't you have more pictures of people doing acrobatics?'

	We have to depend (yawn) on the type of photo that (yawn) gets
	(yawn) submitted...

	`Why don't you show more pictures of erections? It might stop 
	people worrying so much about them.'

	They'd possibly start worrying more that theirs didn't match up
	to the pics! (Not only that, the shops won't stock us.) Besides,
	we have to depend on the type of photozzzzzzzzz...

	O.K. Boring! Let's get onto something a little more likely to hold
	your interest before we all drop off to sleep.  Besides, I need 
	something to keep me awake since I'm writing this at 1.30 a.m. (My
	turn for the night shift!)

	Talking of which:-

	[then it gets into a very sexually explicit conversation...so I won't
	go on...]

My question is H&E such a low budget magazine that they can't afford to have
a photographer or two to go to nude beaches or environments and get `real'
pictures?  I mean, I don't remember seeing one photo of a women with the 
hint of a `tummy' but some of the men had definite `guts', beer-bellys, or
whatever, in this issue.

Judy

    Hey, I forgot all about that column...yes, it's not the sort of 
    material that appears in American naturist magazines...
    
    They do have this one section near the back where they print
    casual pictures of people doing their thing at the beach or in
    their back yard.  Those are the most natural  pictures in the
    entire magazine.
    
    Some of the travel articles do a good job of showing nudists in
    the location enjoying themselves.  I have never seen the very
    provocative material that the CWS complains about.  The magazine
    usually also has a feature article about a particular nudist and what
    that person does while nuding. I've never seen a man featured in this
    section, but all the photos look like pictures at the beach and not
    posed pictures by professional models.
    
    I don't take it as seriously as I do the CWS magazine, but it does
    provide a different perspective on how other people view nudism.
    
    B.
    
    

    
    It isn't a matter of being 'cheap' in not having a staff photographer.
    Two issues actually come up here.
    
    Firstly if somebody came to your beach and said "I'm the staff
    photographer for H&E" would you be happy? Most pictures that appear
    are taken by friends/colleagues/fellow club members... and hence they
    are more natural because the subject is more relaxed.
    
    Secondly I'm afraid the law enters into this. Any picture taken
    by a staffer of a magazine, is by legal definition, intended for
    publication. And taking pictures for publication of a lewd or immoral
    nature is a fairly serious offense in Britain. Further taking pictures
    for publication showing a female child under 18 or a male child
    under 21 is also an offense.
    
    Note it is the act of taking the picture FOR PUBLICATION that is the 
    offense. It is not an offense to take private photographs, nor is it 
    an offense to later offer these for publication, nor to publish them 
    (provided they satisfy certain guidelines).
              
    They are relatively safe accepting pictures sent in unsolicited
    by the readers, but a staffer would likely be in jail, and the magazine
    closed forever, within a month. Incidentally for much the same reasons
    most of the girly magazines published in Britain don't employ staff
    photographers either (they do have photographic advisers and art
    directors though, and they do solicit input from known photographers,
    none of which H&E do).
    
    /. Ian .\