[flanker7]

I agree with Klondike and Pedro, in that we should differentiate between public nudity--in all it's forms--and private nudity caught via spy cameras. While I don't want to come across as judgmental, I've always been personally uncomfortable with invasive voyeur pictures. I personally think there's a big difference between women willingly making their naked bodies visible in public, versus having their privacy invaded, though as Klondike noted above, something like beach photos are in a bit of a gray area, since while it's a public space, photography is usually discouraged.

However, in differentiating between the two (exhibitionism/public vs voyeur/private), I always apply the TAPILL (Take A Picture It Lasts Longer) Rule. If it was OK for me to look with my own eyes, then it's OK for me to me to have a picture of it so I can look at it later on. So while beach/naturist photography isn't necessarily inherently exhibitionistic, for me it passes the TAPILL rule.

However, if the subject did not want to be seen at all, then I probably don't want to have a picture of it.

Again, I don't want to criticize anyone who likes pure voyeur photos. Obviously, the transgressive nature is part of the thrill. If that's what you're into, that's cool. However, I do think it makes sense to split them up because the two are so different in many important ways.