Naturist Pictures & Videos

[oyakanım]

The other day,we were talking about nudism and sex with my boyfriend. Yes,there is no relation between nudism and sex,we all aggree.. But,on the other hand, sex is also for nudists and part of a natural life. Neither it is something obscene or disgusting nor a morality matter . First of all,we all open minded nudists, have to aggree on that.

I actually was not aware until my boyfriend point out the matter. A special care taken not to show female genitals where male genitals freely exposed in naturist/nudist videos or pictures. When he said “female genitals” he did not mean such poses with wide spread legs in the man’s magazines or videos. What he meant was: objective of the video camera or camera should be the eyes of those especially non-nudist people who watch teese videos or pictures . They should feel themselves in the nudist resort while watching them . Only then they would see that there is no relation between nudism and sex . Otherwise all non nudist people will think that there is a relation between sex and nudity if a special care taken not to show female genitals.

After all ,as nudists,we have nothing to hide ,haven’t we ?

[steve-o]

Hi oyakanım,
Thanks for your question.
Sorry, maybe I missed the point, but I do not agree that in modern pictures special care is taken to avoid showing female genitals.

Where do you see this? What pictures do not show female genitals?

[Yuppers]

I see the difference between nude photos and porn is in the type of pose and photo angle. Spreading your leg while looking like you're about to climax is definately porn, while standing or sitting on a rock for example, is just a photo of a naked person.

[steve-o]

Hmm, yes, that is understood and that is specifically what she was not referring to.

When he said “female genitals” he did not mean such poses with wide spread legs in the man’s magazines or videos.


But I am still puzzled at her actual point.

[FreeinNJ]

I too will say I am missing the point

[TreyS]

The following is my understanding of oyakanım's post:

1. She is of the impression that the creators of naturist videos and pictures take special care not to show the vulva while showing the penis.

2. To the extent that the penis is more willingly shown than the vulva, she would see that as contradicting the belief among naturists that none of the parts of the human body are indecent.

[oyakanım]

Well I can see that we couldn't express ourselves clearly. My boyfriend did not mean to show vulva of the females as shown on the men magazines. What he said was a special care taken not to show female genital areas while they are sunbahting on the sand,walking around or sitting with their leg spread. This is not end of the world of course but we couldn't undarstand what was the idea behind this attitude.

[GORDON2BARE]

There is usually a fine line where photographing the female form nude as artistic, soft porn, hard porn, or exhibitionist.

[pagevalleynude]

The following is my understanding of oyakanım's post:

1. She is of the impression that the creators of naturist videos and pictures take special care not to show the vulva while showing the penis.

2. To the extent that the penis is more willingly shown than the vulva, she would see that as contradicting the belief among naturists that none of the parts of the human body are indecent.

Well, I understand this statement.:laugh: Now if the original poster/postee (??) can type proper English, maybe the rest of us can follow along...:p
And once again, somebody has a problem with my sense of humor. Now my reputation sits at zero. Lay off me, folks.

[Kouak]

Well I can see that we couldn't express ourselves clearly. My boyfriend did not mean to show vulva of the females as shown on the men magazines. What he said was a special care taken not to show female genital areas while they are sunbahting on the sand,walking around or sitting with their leg spread. This is not end of the world of course but we couldn't undarstand what was the idea behind this attitude.

I understand what you mean. It seems that no one cares if show a picture of a guy sitting with his legs spread. Here are 2 examples:

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/album.php?albumid=480&pictureid=3891

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/album.php?albumid=10&pictureid=3994

If you show a woman sitting like that, eyebrows are raised. Here is a picture showing a woman, but its quality is not great.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/album.php?albumid=521&pictureid=4493

Maybe women are just more reserved than men.

[Naturist Mark]

Maybe women are just more reserved than men.

Or maybe women don't have dangly parts that make a 'narrow stance' uncomfortable?

Seriously, simple anatomy makes male genitals much more exposed than female. No need to jump to any conclusions absent greater evidence.

[NaturalSwede]

I think an interesting question has been posed, actually. The viewing of male genitalia (non-erect) is pretty much OK as long as it isn't an extreme close-up, no matter the man's posture, but the female genitalia cannot be particularly explicitly displayed, i.e. the labia or vaginal vault, as that seems to imply a sexual "invitation" in the eyes of some. This is probably a double standard. That's unfortunate but the moderators do monitor for that posturing in females, it would seem.

[Kouak]

Or maybe women don't have dangly parts that make a 'narrow stance' uncomfortable?

Are you saying that "dangly parts" make it hard for men to keep their legs together? Don't tell that to the military while they are standing at attention! :D

[steve-o]

Are you saying that "dangly parts" make it hard for men to keep their legs together? Don't tell that to the military while they are standing at attention!

Yep, I totally agree with that. Definitely uncomfortable for me.

(Members of the military do not sit at attention.)

[NaturalSwede]

I feel a real sense of liberation letting the sun and the breeze in there when the pants come off. Of course we men will spread our legs when we get to stretch out in Nature even if a picture is taken. However, it may be that women aren't "allowed that" if they're going to be in Naturist photography, because it might appear sexually suggestive to some.

[Naturist Mark]

Are you saying that "dangly parts" make it hard for men to keep their legs together?

Yes, that is what I am saying. Certainly it is not impossible, just uncomfortable. When men are not at military attention, they tend to assume postures of comfort, such as when sitting or resting - and seldom choose ones that involve crushing their testicles.

Women lack that particular dangly motivation to choose an open leg comfort position, thus might understandably be less likely to choose such even without assuming other motivations.

I'm not saying that there aren't social prohibitions affecting the choice of photos, just that the evidence is thin and there is no reason to jump to conclusions about supposed double standards when there are other likely explanations.

Now if you really want to delve into motivations that effect selection of photos, you might want to talk about the predominance of women in photos documenting an activity dominated by men, or the prevalence of attractive and physically fit subjects representing a group who are in most aspects very much a cross section of the larger general public in terms of attractiveness and fitness.

[puffledud]

As I was watching ClothesFree TV is afternoon I had this thought: Could it be that men have their legs further apart than women because of the angle that their femur makes with their pelvis. Perhaps a woman's femur is angled inward more than men and that is why their thighs are closer together than a man's thighs.

Dave

[puffledud]

Clarification.

When I say a woman's femur is angled inward more, I mean it points from their hip inward toward their mid-line. Whereas a man's femur is pointed from their hip more directly downward.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Dave

[Kouak]

Yes, that is what I am saying. Certainly it is not impossible, just uncomfortable. When men are not at military attention, they tend to assume postures of comfort, such as when sitting or resting - and seldom choose ones that involve crushing their testicles.

Women lack that particular dangly motivation to choose an open leg comfort position, thus might understandably be less likely to choose such even without assuming other motivations.

I'm not saying that there aren't social prohibitions affecting the choice of photos, just that the evidence is thin and there is no reason to jump to conclusions about supposed double standards when there are other likely explanations.

I do know that, when I was growing up, girls were taught to be ladies and keep their legs closed. Boys were not taught the same thing. This was not the result of dangling parts since the boys always wore briefs to keep the parts from dangling plus boy parts dangle very little. So us boys could have been taught to keep our legs closed but we weren't. However, teaching girls to close their legs could be a carry over from earlier times in our male dominated society.

We all recognize that our genitals can be shown with spread legs and hidden with closed legs. And in the missionary position, sex is done with the legs spread. Until recently, women were considered property of men. Men may have ordered women to keep their legs closed to hide their genitals and to show other men that "their" women were not available for sex. Women then taught this behaviour to their girls.

So yes, this could just be a case of guys spreading their legs because of their dangling parts and gals closing their legs because that is more comfortable for them. But alternative suggestions are worth considering too.