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.

[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.)

[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.

[NudonyII]

I think everyone here has a point. Yes, women are structurally different from men, and don't have to adjust for external genitals. In pic 1 and 2, this difference is exemplified.

But, I do also think there is an enduring taboo when it comes to the female genitalia. I remember once being immersed in conversation with a lady at the resort. It only occurred to me halfway through the conversation that because of her particular sitting stance, her labia was clearly visible. The moment my eyes averted to that area, albeit for a split second, she immediately adjusted her posture. Undoubtebly, it was because of some cultural indoctrination that she felt that particular area on her anatomy was "innapropriately displayed" at that particular moment. Some women have no trouble letting go of that shackle, but unfortunately they are often misrepresented as exhibitionists - and as a result, may be censored..

[David77]

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

Mother nature made women's legs farther apart than men's legs, so that the women have room to give birth to babies. Since women's legs are naturally further apart, it is necessary for her hips to be wider than men's hips, to accomodate the wider leg placement (descending from the hip bone).

[feritim]

We all have been naturist resorts and there we have seen many females sunbathing with their legs spread and their vulva clearly visible.This is considered normal at the naturist resort. You can't see the same in the naturist videos or pictures. Special care taken not to show female genitals.
I am sure that naturist resorts are not the place for the "men magazines photographers". We all agree on that. But if someone makes a naturist video or takes naturist pictures,shouldn't pay special attention not to show female genitals. Otherwise these videos or pictures misleads the non-naturist people about the naturism and naturist resorts.

[GORDON2BARE]

they do get carried away at Nudes-A-Poppin' at the Ponderosa Sun Club

[David77]

they do get carried away at Nudes-A-Poppin' at the Ponderosa Sun Club

This is because "Nudes-A-Poppin" is a sex show which includes pornography "stars". It is on the grounds of a resort, and this resort is certainly not approved by the American Association for Nude Recreation.

[NudonyII]

There certainly is a difference between an ajar posture for comfort and tanning, and a provocative spread-eagled position (which seems to be commonplace at NAP). The problem is that making a distinction seems challenging for some people.

[kxi206]

Perhaps its simply because a penis is more visible and visible from a further distance.

[GORDON2BARE]

This is because "Nudes-A-Poppin" is a sex show which includes pornography "stars". It is on the grounds of a resort, and this resort is certainly not approved by the American Association for Nude Recreation.

You're right. Was this the same resort featured on a TV program years ago "Real People" that had a restaurant that was opened to the general public???

[NudonyII]

I think that if a woman is to feel comfortable in a Naturist setting, she has to feel that if her labia or vaginal opening are viewed, no sexual intent is implied or to be inferred.

OR...if a woman is to feel comfortable in a Naturist setting, she has to feel indifferent to how her labia or vaginal opening are viewed. I know, it's easier said than done. Bt I've related before a day at the resort with my wife and daughter. I had left them to go shower, and upon my return I found my wife applying suntan lotion to her daughter, in a leaning position with a leg propped up on the lounge chair. A little later, I jokingly remarked that in the process of applying lotion, she had "presented" perhaps more than she intended. She simply remarked that she was being practical, and that if anyone had been bothered by what they saw, considering the clothefree nature of our activities, the issue wasn't hers to deal with; it was theirs. That was a simple statement, yet quite a powerful one, IMHO. I think also that it was Melissa, who stated that after a while of watching how she sat, came to find that very concept ridiculous and stopped caring about "who saw what."

There are pictures out there of nudist women being comfortable, in whatever posture they are in at the time. If they cause some to raise eyebrows, the issue is not with the person being photographed, but rather the way they are being perceived.

[David77]

You're right. Was this the same resort featured on a TV program years ago "Real People" that had a restaurant that was opened to the general public???

No, but I first saw segments of Cunninghams religious nude services on the program called "Taboo".

Here is the Taboo program video ( produced by National Geographic);

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/taboo/all/Videos#tab-Videos/02963_04

[tikihut10]

i agree the two ar entirley different

[MrJeff]

I think all those 4 examples are ok to me, none look like porn. Just naked people. For me a porn picture would be more suggestive than those.

[captainjames]

I think as time progresses society will become more progressive and the semi-double standard will go away. It's just something that has to be dealt with right now. Change doesn't happen overnight.

[Fresh Air]

I agree with a cultural aspect, especially reinforced if men are going to stare down there. However, not sure if anyone discussed this yet, there are also anatomical differences that would predispose a woman to sit differently than a man.
1) Womans hips are naturally wider, which changes the ratio/angle (called a Q angle) at the knee/hip. This difference would cause women to have a tendency to have their knees draw together in certain seated positions.
2) In some seated positions, men do not sit in the most comfortable and anatomical position, because that would be uncomfortable on the testicles, so they 'force' their legs apart (ie. it is the man who is sitting 'abnormally' not the woman...not that we can't be sexually-ego-centric to think that we are the standard to which the other sex is to be measured. hehe.), and that 'forcing' is not how the legs would necessarily 'naturally' fall.
3) The natural higher body fat (gluteal, thigh, breast, etc) and the slight differences in musculature due to the Q-angle give most females a higher upper thigh to lower thigh diameter, compared to males. This can give the illusion of legs being closer together, even if the bones anatomically are not.

Anyhow, the photo set of 2, where the couples are seated side by side show that Q-angle difference and thigh diameter differences quite well. The black and white photo is a good demonstration of the Q-angle and testicular relief (ie. unnaturally forced open angle in men).

Hope that is of interest. I put some related photos below. It's just something additional to ponder, so it doesn't ALL get tagged onto 'culture and sexuality'.

http://www.schleese.com/images/Pelvis%2011.jpg

http://www.lifestylexperts.com/artman2/uploads/1/leg.jpg

http://www.gla.ac.uk/ibls/US/fab/images/anatomy/qanglet.gif

http://www.briohealthclub.com/uploaded_images/qangle-790135.jpg

Now, for those who have had a class in anatomy and can easily picture the pelvis and femur in correct anatomical position from surface anatomy. The following picture, previously posted, is probably the best example in this post of the anatomical differences that cause the topic being discussed. The resting angles of the bones, especially comparing the right leg of the subjects are not very different at all, aside from the expected Q-angle. The male is actually seated in a less natural (ie. less comfortable) position as he is externally rotating and everting his left leg. Her sitting position, on the other hand, is completely natural, comfortable, and anatomical.

http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1771&d=1258903728

[Fresh Air]

More examples of Q-angle/Testicular differences in the way men and women naturally sit.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1824/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1824R-19152.jpg

http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/exp/mcafee/rhm-couple-laptop.jpg

http://www.huntforproperty.ie/images/mortgage_horizons/happy_couple.jpg

http://www.realestateloanslosangeles.com/images/couple-couch-ottoman.jpg

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/BLD/BLD022/multi-ethnic-couple-sitting_~BLD040376.jpg

http://s3.images.com/huge.36.184786.JPG

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PF_New%5C142007/PF_2323611.jpg

http://www.yanidel.com/Pictures/modern%20french%20beret%20HR.jpg

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1612/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1612R-15869.jpg

http://images.inmagine.com/img/corbis/crb209/crb209013.jpg

....I'm not completely sold on the cultural/sexual aspect being a primary factor. It is secondary, IMO.

[Fresh Air]

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/FSP/FSP587/young-couple-lying_~723042.jpg

http://fotosa.ru/stock_photo/Westend61_RF/p_1700777.jpg

[NCman]

I think the picture needs to be taken in as a whole, not just the woman or man, but the context. If a man sits spread with an erection, he is an exhibitionist and it could be porn. If a woman sits spread as in the example picture, it is a natural position she would use even if clothes. Just because you see her vulva, doesn't make it porn.

[steve-o]

Fresh Air has some interesting comments about the Q angle and anatomical differences influencing how men and women sit. The examples he posted illustrate those well, but the other factor of "female modesty" as dictated by our culture would be hard to exclude. From early ages, young ladies are tought to "keep their legs together", and when posing for photos, especially in advertising, it would be particularly required. I don't think that the motive of anatomical comfort entered into all those photos. It is not particularly "painful" for women to sit as a man does, as women are "engineered" to be quite flexible for such functions as childbirth and other activities.


Hmm, I think you have it backwards.
Nobody believes that it is painful for women to sit as a man does. They can. It's more difficult for us men to sit with our legs closed together like a woman does.

--steve

[Kouak]

..., but the other factor of "female modesty" as dictated by our culture would be hard to exclude. From early ages, young ladies are tought to "keep their legs together", and when posing for photos, especially in advertising, it would be particularly required. I don't think that the motive of anatomical comfort entered into all those photos.

On the male side, there can be a cultural aspect to men sitting with their legs crossed (http://www.realestateloanslosangeles.com/images/couple-couch-ottoman.jpg) too. Men want to be dominate. One way to do this is to "claim" more space. Those with more farmland or property are "better". While sitting, guys can do it by spreading their legs.

[Centauri4]

I think the replies by "lifelong" and "Nudonyll" (11/24 & 11/25) expressed some really great points on this entire issue! These were well written and are worth repeating to the younger naturists and nudists visiting this site.

My thought with the original question is how European and American attitudes towards nudity in general are, as has been well established, very different. I think there are a significant number of Americans who are now adopting more relaxed attitudes towards nudity, and this is due to the introduction of "fun" social events such as the Solstice parade, Burning Man, hot springs soaks and the World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR); events where instances of casual nudity are excepted and encouraged. This is social evolution in progress and clearly predicts the "at large" attitude towards non-sexual nudity.

Some people may be doing these events for sexually motivated reasons, but as long as they are civil keep that idea to themselves, who is going know! It is the brain that is sexual, not exclusively the genitalia and many forms of physical experiences can become fuel for the sexual imagination later.

I believe true naturist/nudist videos do not show ERECT penises and similarly engorged female genitalia to reduce the likelihood of criticism of the videos purpose or intentions. Many naturist videos are created to highlight scenic locations and pleasurable/physical activities up to and including everything short of sexually motivated behaviors, to steer well clear of being labeled as Porn, and these need to encompass what people are likely to ACTUALLY see when doing them. The videos are not, 'We were being sexual and looking sexual' but rather 'We were being physical and having fun' and there is just a really, really fine line between these things in human psychology.

Remember, sexually based behaviors are related to the very survival of the species, so if we think of them as being the behaviors which allow us to "beat" extinction then eating, drinking, finding shelter and developing medicine are all sexually motivated in a round-about way.

IMHO.

~

[mrj864]

Just a couple of days ago my friends and I were talking about there being less full frontal nudity in movies nowadays, and I said a small part of that is because most actresses, like most people, shave their pubic hair making their inner and outer vulvas more exposed and obvious. Which makes some people more uncomfortable than seeing a thick patch of pubic hair that almost completely covers the genitals. Not me though, obviously.


I’m not sure why, but people (nudist and not) seem to be more comfortable with seeing pictures of a penis than of a vagina (unless obscured by hair). I first became aware of this fact when I was about 16.


A girl I was friends with, who was my age, was at a nude beach with her family (her mom, dad and 14 year old brother) and a photographer for a nudist magazine asked to take pictures of her and her brother. Their parents gave their permission so they spent about half an hour posing for him lying down, standing, swimming, splashing in the water.


Afterwards she told all of us, her nudist friends, that she was going to be in a nudist magazine. And when the issue with her and her brother in it arrived she showed us and we saw that they used several pictures on a lot of pages. But one picture stood out and it was the one she hated was one of her and her brother laying on their backs on a beach blanket with their feet towards the camera legs slightly spread. Her brothers totally shaved penis and scrotum was completely visible but her totally smooth crotch was covered by a photoshoped patch of dark pubic hair hiding her exposed vagina. It was funny because she is a natural light blond so the hair didn’t even match, and it was the only picture that was edited so her crotch was completely smooth in all the other pictures that didn’t show her whole pink hole. So she was annoyed and her parents called the publishers and politely ask WTF? And they said that it is common practice to censure an image if too much female genitalia is shown and they do that but adding thick pubic hair. That was back in the late 90’s when less people shaved and pubic hair was more common on nude beaches and in nudist resorts. Nowadays most people men, women and teen boys and girls shave “down there” so nudist photographers just avoid showing too much of a females genitals.

[atalanta]

Must be a very unusual 14 year old boy who would shave his penis and scrotum before he needs to start shaving his face.

[Lord Drakkus]

Most of the boys I knew when I was 14 had already started shaving their faces. I was unusual in the fact that I didn't have to shave at that point, which is why I remember it so well. This was 15 years ago.

[mrj864]

I was about 12 when I started shaving.

[randomguy]

Yeah, I pretty much had a full beard by age 14.

[Hairgod]

I pretty much had a full beard by the time I was 50 :laugh:. I didn't need to shave my beard every day until I was in boot camp and it was mandatory.

[Jakeysaurus]

Haha, I think hair on men shows manliness. That's just my opinion..

[Naturist Mark]

Haha, I think hair on men shows manliness.

I think hair on men shows hairyness.

[Hairgod]

I agree with Mark.

I just happen to come from a line that the men are not hairy, just the women :laugh: I have more hair than either my brother or my dad. Just the luck of the draw. :p

[BinCo]

I think the picture needs to be taken in as a whole, not just the woman or man, but the context. If a man sits spread with an erection, he is an exhibitionist and it could be porn. If a woman sits spread as in the example picture, it is a natural position she would use even if clothes. Just because you see her vulva, doesn't make it porn.

If a man sits like that it could just be that he has an erection and it will go away. If the photographer takes a picture from his feet than that photographer is being purposeful in taking a picture of an erection. If he could wait for a short time, it will go away and then he can take his picture.

I think when it comes to full frontal nudity in films and pictures it as rare to see an erect penis on film as it is to see bare female genetalia. I think both will get you an NC-17 rating.

Judging by a quick Google pic search, it seems that non-porn nudist sites show just what ever is comfortable for the woman at the time. One of these is from a clothing optional resort, the others are from various beach sites so I think only one is posed for sure. The others I'm not sure of.

[nakedstudent]

I think the true pornographer is the person taking the pictures... It's obvious by the angles of many naturist pictures out there that photographers have absolutely no personal relationship with their subjects... They hide at a great distance away and wait for their own perfect timing... How can you tell if maybe the girl above and to the left isn't stretching? Or repositioning in a nap? The way her leg is angled, it is entirely possible she is preparing to stand up... 90 percent of the pictures out there are clearly the product of gawkers and not the product of actual nudists...

[wilkesbear]

i think some pic show jus how the nudist lifestyle is supposed to be portrayed, but some pics r outright nasty

[JohnnBuff]

Having read all the posts on this thread I enjoyed the discussion of female vs male anatomy and understand that some photographers edit pictures to make them more “respectable” to the nudist community and so as not to be considered porn. But photo shopped or not any picture can be considered porn I understand there are some pretty strange things people find erotic and would bet that there are some without nudity involved that are definitely porn. My thought is that the problem is not with the person posing or the photographer (unless they are shooting pictures specifically for that reason) but with the viewer. When looking at a picture if you see a nudist in a relaxed pose what is your first thought? If you see it as sexual then its porn to you whereas someone else might just take it as an interesting shot. Years ago I remember some congressman when asked to define what porn was said something to the effect that he would know it when he saw it. So if you get off looking at pictures of nudists in a non sexual setting then maybe you should really sit down and give some serious thought as to why you are here.

[mrxdun]

i am unable to undersatnd please clarify in details

[countryguync]

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.

I have noticed that most photos of nudist activity contain trim young females. There are smaller portions with healthy young men. An even smaller portion include children that are (again) mostly female. I have seen some photos taken at European nudist beaches which have a more diverse grouping of people in the photo. young/old, trim/overweight, adults/children. But American photos tend to be young adult female.:confused:

[swissnudi]

It s one more pointwhat i like on nudist resorts. i wanna be fre and dont have to think all the time: ups to i have to keep my legs closed.
it's great feeling the sun on my balls and i guess women love it also fell the warm sun on their inimate parts.