Facebook is the only company6 of it's size that does not have a customer service department. I was recently banned from facebook for posting nudity or pornography. This time as I clicked through their prompts to see my "penalty" I couldn't go back to download the offending page.
Earlier this year, I did think in advance and printed off a page.
This is the type of photo that puts me in the "doghouse" with facebook.
If there is nudity here, than EVERY single photo on facebook showing a women's bare shoulder shows nudity or pornography.
Every single spa photo, etc that shows more skin that this photo does needs to be delted by facebook. Of course probably 1/2 their photos would be gone.
Facebook, get with the times. This photo is NOT pornographic nor does it show frontal nudity. It shows bare shoulders. It doesn't even show cleavage.
Tom Mulhall
Terra Cotta Inn Clothing Optional Resort and Spa
Palm Springs, CA
800-786-6938
Visit our site at http://sunnyfun.com
View our facebook page at http://bit.ly/TerraCottaInnFBPage
SEE WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING ABOUT TERRA COTTA INN:
AOL- 10 best nudist resorts in world.
CBSmarketplace.com- Most mainstream nudist resort in US. Perfect for couples trying topless or nude sunbathing for first time.
Los Angeles Times- Most popular small resort in Southern California.
AOL Travel- Best value nudist resort in the world.
Visit our site at http://sunnyfun.com for you best vacation ever. Call 800-786-6938.
Showing posts with label bare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bare. Show all posts
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Is Facebook too strict with nudity?

It seems Facebook has a vendetta for some reason against the human body. Even for simple things like bare backs on a woman.
Facebook banned breastfeeding photos. They've banned breast cancer photos. They've banned many of The Terra Cotta Inn photos and we did not even show frontal nudity. Then they've banned artwork from artists and art schools. I guess Facebook figures they haven't pissed off enough people yet, now it's time to ban photos of women who try to duplicate the famous Demi Moore Vanity Fair photo pregnancy photo.
Off course facebook says it's a violation of TOS, terms of service. They don't allow nudity or "post content that: is hateful." Yet, they allow groups titled I hate Israel and I hate America to exist. Those are OK, but dare show a piece of side boob? Never.
I know facebook is scared to death of cleavage, unless it is from hot babes. They would love to have everyone wear bathing suits from the late 1880's unless you're a Victoria Secret's models showing cleavage or bare backs. Then that's OK.
SF Gate carried this story:
"Does Mark Zuckerberg have a thing against maternal women? He lets the stripper shots slide after all.
Mother-to-be Angela Hurst hired a professional photographer to take pregnancy shots. The 34-year-old who lives in England wanted a portrait of herself in that striking naked pregnancy pose that Demi Moore made so famous when she appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair in August 1991.
She loved the images so much, according to the British Sun, that she used one as her profile picture on Facebook.
Three days later, Facebook yanked the photo because its terms of use bar nudity... It was meant to be a celebration of a pregnant body and Hurst was covering all of her "bits" just as Demi Moore did in her photo.
"I had a lot of messages from people, particularly women, saying how much they loved it," Hurst told the Sun. "It was something nice to remember my pregnancy by and was not sexual -- and if Demi Moore can do it, why can't I?"
When Facebook banned some photos of mothers breastfeeding their children because it deemed the images inappropriate for showing exposed breasts, mothers were outraged. Some 200,000 people joined a group called "Hey Facebook, breast feeding is not obscene!"
On the page's wall, members point out that Facebook allows many other types of photos in which women are revealing a lot of skin. Rebecca Love writes in: "How stupid are these people?? People can post pics of women with g-string bikini's barely covering nipples & other places, but a woman showing off her baby bump is obscene?"...
And then there are all those Brits who are pointing fingers at those prudish Americans...
For the full story Click here
What was interesting is the story first broke in the Sun newspaper in London. Facebook originally blocked the link to that story. I guess they have changed their attitude as they realized the stupid PR mistake they were causing.
And it would be so easy for facebook to solve this issue. Yahoo,flickr, google, tumblr, and I'm sure many more sites have 18+ pages. Facebook has our ages. Just create an 18+ zone. And Mark, I won't even sue you like your Harvard buddies did for giving you that idea. That one's on me.
Tom Mulhall
Terra Cotta Inn Clothing Optional Resort and Spa
Palm Springs, CA
http://sunnyfun.com
Join our facebook page at http://bit.ly/TerraCottaInnFBPage
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Excellent article about women's rights to bare their breasts in public


In the late 1800's in teh US, the sight of a woman's bare ankle was scandalous. Then in the roaring '20's flapper girls showing off bare calves were considered "loose." By the 1940's women could finally wear skirts coming below the knees and 2 piece (not bikini) bathing suits were coming into style. In 1946, French engineer Louis Reard is given credit for "inventing" the modern bikini. And of course in Europe, topless bikinis are very popular on all beaches, especially Spanish beaches where topless sunbathing is legal.
Yet, if you look at the above photo, you will see it is of a mosaic from the 4th century AD of Italian women in bikinis.
And going back further Queen Nefertiti of Egypt and many fellow Egyptians enjoyed public nudity.
"Nudity in Early Egypt
A fascinating tale of early sun worship and nudity was unearthed in 1887 at Tell-el-Amarna, a small Egyptian village on the banks of the Nile some 200 miles south of Cairo. There, an Arab woman accidentally stumbled upon the baked-clay tablet archives of Pharaoh Akhen-Aton (1385-1353 B.C.). It was learned through the subsequent translation of these tablets that the brilliant young pharaoh and his exquisitely beautiful queen, Nefertiti, considered the sun, Aton, to be the true wellspring of life and thus justified the practice of nudism for spiritual and physical advancement." from http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm
It seems "modern" American society has forgotten how to enjoy life clothes free.
Today in the US, women can still be arrested for being topless at most beaches and doing activities men can do shirtless. But, don't forget, men could be arrested for being shirtless at beaches until the 1930's, because it was thought women would not be able to handle the sight of a man's bare nipple.
A college student from MA wrote a very good article about women needing to get the right to bare their breasts anywhere it is acceptable for a man to do so.
Here it is:
"If you’ve ever been out walking on a hot summer day, you know that sometimes clothes can make you unbearably sweaty and uncomfortable. If you’re a man, you can try to cope with this problem by taking your shirt off, and no one will complain. If you’re a woman and you do the same, you’re likely to get arrested.
In most parts of the U.S., it is illegal for women to go topless in public. Women may legally do so only in six states, and specific cities and beaches. If a woman goes topless in public anywhere else in America, it is considered indecent exposure. In Massachusetts, the maximum penalty for indecent exposure is up to six months in jail and a $200 fine...
The strongest argument for keeping women’s tops on is that women must be protected from men. According to this argument, men simply are not able to control themselves at the sight of a woman’s bare breasts and would sexually harass, assault, or even rape them. However, women are expected to cover their hair in certain cultures and religious groups. These groups believe that if a woman’s hair— a supposedly sexual part of her body – was to be seen, men would not be able to control their desires. Regardless of religious belief, though, women typically leave their hair uncovered in the U.S., since we don’t consider it to be a sexual entity. Even if a woman does have beautiful hair, men are easily able to control themselves. There is nothing inherently sexual about a woman’s hair, and similarly, there is nothing inherently sexual about a woman’s breasts. Both ideas, in fact, are mere societal constructs.
Other people will say that they aren’t comfortable with being forced to see women’s breasts in public. After all, not everybody has attractive breasts, and who wants to see ugly women go topless? Nonetheless, not everybody has a body that is widely considered attractive, and yet we are “forced” to see them every day – sometimes in shorts or a bathing suit. Finding someone, male or female, unattractive is not a viable reason for forcing them to cover up, or for arresting them if they refuse to do so...
Another pervasive argument against women’s toplessness is that children must be protected from the sight of breasts. However, breastfed children grow up seeing their mothers’ breasts, and it doesn’t seem to affect them adversely. Moreover, European children who go to public beaches see women’s breasts, and it doesn’t traumatize them...
Far from preventing sexual assaults, the law against women’s toplessness is part of a way of thinking that is harmful to both men and women. If we take steps to change the law, our society’s attitudes will adjust and such a change in attitude will protect women far more effectively than a t-shirt ever could.
For the full interesting article: Click Here
It's still so sad that Mary Clare, if she wanted to walk outside would have to wear at least a tube top instead of being able to be topless. Hopefully, this situation will change for future generations.
Tom Mulhall
Terra Cotta Inn clothing optional resort and spa
Located in Sunny Palm Springs, California
Our resort site at: http://sunnyfun.com
Visit our Resort Facebook page at: http://bit.ly/TerraCottaInnFBPage
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sponoring clothing optional dinners is considered a unique business venture

A business site just had an article on unique ways to earn money in these difficult times such as renting fancy purses, renting relatives, and even sponsoring nude dinners.
From the site:
"10 Craziest Ways People Are Making Money
It can pay to think outside the box when it comes to making money. Especially when you find out there’s actually a niche for your crazy idea. Here are the ten craziest ways people are making money, Wall Street wizardry excluded:
...10) Clothing optional dinners The restaurant business must really be hurting when shops start resorting to specialty gimmicks such as Casino Nights and Prix Fixe at Five. But this service “strips” away all of the artifice and lays ”bare” the essence of dining…in the nude. Check please!"
Of course if you vacation at our resort, The Terra Cotta Inn clothing optional resort and spa, you don't have to wear clothing all vacation long.
Give us a calla t 800-786-6938. Visit our site at http://sunnyfun.com
Hope to see you in sunny Palm Springs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)