Sun and Health magazine and New from Nudist Day

Submitted by JoMulholland on Fri, 06/04/2007 - 23:55

I clicked on the News from Nudist Day link and read:

"Sun and Health uses the same name as a nudist magazine that ceased publishing more than three years ago. According to Scriven, the owner of the defunct magazine de-registered the business name in 2005.
Sun and Healtth
“We are not aware of any legal issues surrounding publication of our magazine and we are certainly not illegitimate”, she told Nudist Day. “It was a shame to see the old name die after more than 20 years”, she added. If one visits the site of the old Australian Sun and Health, you’ll encounter angry comments about the new magazine and its publishers. The author of the criticism, however, isn’t reachable for comment."

It's good to see the new magazine being given publicity. It is of course, a situation which needs to be reported tactfully. However, I am wondering why it is not possible to acknowledge that Sarah was half the editorial team which produced the 'Sun & Health' magazine, for so many years.

It is understandable that she would like to see the goodwill built up over the years, by the previous and initial editors and Sarah and Rod, being taken advantage of and not be allowed to dissipate.

I do not blame the publisher of Nudist Day for either not knowing or preferring not to mention that Sarah is keeping the name Sun and Health alive to build on the efforts that she and Rod have made in the past.

It is good to have that magazine being published in similar style to the previous version.

AttachmentSize
bareblog.jpg21.77 KB
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I recently bought a copy of

Submitted by Roxanne (not verified) on Sat, 13/08/2011 - 09:10.

I recently bought a copy of Australian Sun and Health and, strangely enough, was disappointed.

Why? Well, the reasons are several. First of all, the naturists featured seemed to be excessively politically correct - so politically correct, in fact, that they took great pains to distance themselves from sex. This strategy, I feel, is both disingenuous and unrealistic. It's the same political strategy used by the gay community to gain mainstream acceptance (and yet may come back to haunt the gays, through it's ironic encouragement of prudery). It suggests naturists are uncomfortable with sex. The truth is sex will always be part of nudity and nudity will always be part of sex and to insist on the artifical separation of the two is actually disempowering.

Secondly, naturism appears racist. Was sad to read the many anti-burka comments. I feel Muslim women should have the right to dress according to their taste and religion. They shouldn't have to cover up, but if they want to cover up, that's fine by me. I have no problems with women's bodies. I just feel Muslim women should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they want to wear veils.

Lastly, naturism is misandrist or anti-male. There are always going to be more men than females interested in nudity, since men are more sexual and more uninhibited in general (blame testosterone, culture, upbringing, ownership of a penis, or Christian tradition - take your pick). Thus it's silly to expect equal numbers of men and women at resorts and excluding single males of any age does reek of gender discrimination and I hope excluded males do seek and win generous legal/financial compensation from the resorts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

advertising

posts on econudes.org are owned by the original poster.
econudes.org is an alternative news network initiative.
drupal design and maintenance by Clemens Vermeulen.
Hosting by altnews. Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.