RabbitandBunnie and Bruce are both absolutely correct when it comes to employment in the USA. It very well may be different elsewhere but in the USA employers have begun internet searches on employees' backgrounds. Some even require you to disclose all your login id and passwords for social media sites which they then monitor. Failure to disclose this info usually results in termination. It sounds like those in the UK and OZ aren't experiencing this ...yet. BTW have heard some companies are even using facial recognition software now as well. It would be nice if it weren't so,but this is the reality we now face.
RabbitandBunnie and Bruce are both absolutely correctwhen it comes to employment in the USA. It very well may bedifferent elsewhere but in the USA employers have begun internetsearches on employees' backgrounds. Some even require you todisclose all your login id and passwords for social media siteswhich they then monitor. Failure to disclose this info usuallyresults in termination. It sounds like those in the UK and OZaren't experiencing this ...yet. BTW have heard some companies areeven using facial recognition software now as well. It would benice if it weren't so,but this is the reality we nowface.
(LIKE)
outback_barb and MOW are wrong! This type of
discrimination is not BS.
May be in the wrong area for this, but I have noticed the blank profiles, blocked pictures, and non certified members on here. I make it my policy to not accept anyone with a blank profile, no pics, or any blockage on here. The other thing is the web cams on here, why have a web cam if your not going to use it to show your body, or the ones who only want to masturbate with others doing the same and also the ones that are fully clothed, there is nothing to see so why bother.. I just feel that there should be nothing sexual about it, and if so you should be band from the site. I don't feel that full frontals, or full rear shots should be banned at all unless there is something sexual about them. If they must then they should take it to Skype and not expose all the good nudist on here to the nonsense, or should I say the porn they are creating. just my thoughts...Mike
I can only guess people have poses of themselves in risque if not pornographic in those hidden pics.
It may also be that people will hide the full nude pics of themselves in case their profile is discovered by friend/coworker etc. Kind of a plausible deniability.
Stay Naked!
If I receive a Friends Request or an application for a Group of which I am the Administrator and the applicant has a blocked profile, I automatically deny the request. I want to know something about the person before accepting them. Maybe this is too harsh for some people but this is the way I feel.
If I receive a Friends Request or an application for a Group of which I am the Administrator and the applicant has a blocked profile, I automatically deny the request. I want to know something about the person before accepting them. Maybe this is too harsh for some people but this is the way I feel.
I don't blame you doing this at all.
Employers in the USA have policy manuals and employment agreements that generally indicate that; beyond employment laws, the employment agreement is not promised for any specific term and can be ended by either party without notice. They have policies that address employee behavior that can be seen as detrimental to a company's reputation. To say that Nudism is misunderstood is an understatement of epic proportions. If one is involved in client relations in any way, or if you have any supervisory role, then you better not let people know you're a nudist.
"You're about as wrong as wrong gets. It's painfully obvious not everyone on here are nudists, in fact most of the members on this site aren't nudists.
My wife and I have both lost jobs because we were nudists, both in the past five years. Nudism is a chosen lifestyle, thus does not fall under any discrimination laws." (quoted from RabbitnBunny)
The 2 quotes/comments above are EXACTLY right, for the good ol' USA. Private company? Not a protected class and they can do what they want for reasons stated above. You could sue, but good luck with that. Who would want to go thru that anyway? Public agency (city/state/Fed)? Maybe, *maybe* less likely to be fired (Fed , at least). But same deal, who would want to go through the trauma of fighting it? And even risk of possibly being classed as some type of sex offender. Even if nothing official done, you're career is dead for all practical purposes, due to the behind-the-scenes talk. You could be a transsexual, polygamist Wiccan neo-Nazi and have no problem keeping your job, or more likely, getting promoted (no offense to any of those folks out there that are any or all of the above. They are examples to make a point of the actual protected EEO categories. ) But be a NUDIST/NATURIST? Sorry, you are a perverted pariah!
I'm not looking to stir this pot up, so save your attacks, if you are inclined that way. I think it is just necessary to reinforce the previous statements of reality, because the truth gets lost sometimes in the endless silly fantasizing. It is the reality that many face, and the sound basis for no actual pictures of self (me included) being posted in cyberspace where it can be hacked in two seconds by the Russians. :)
While you may disagree with people restricting their photos, the fact remains that some people may be here only for sexual gratification, and it is perfectly understandable that someone wouldn't want their photos to be used in that context. I fully support those who restrict some photos to friends only. Blank profiles on the other hand shouldn't be.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!