Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nudity and Modesty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tanazz
    replied
    I've seen a guy tanning the inner sanctum of his backside and his sack at a resort. He was off by himself. I didn't consider this exhibitionism.

    ​​​​​ He was at a nude venue, tanning the only part of his body that wasn't yet tan. Where, and how else could he spread his cheeks with his butt in the air? He didn't have an erection, and wasn't masterbating, so I don't believe he was sexualiizing it.


    Where else is there a better place to get an all over tan?
    I've done the same thing, but I'm fortunate that I can do it by my private pool. Not many people have that luxury.

    I spread my legs wide, I cross them with the giblets sticking up and any other way I want to sit or lounge while nude I do it for comfort, usually to relieve pressure from old injuries. Stop being so sensitive and be thankful we're healthy enough and have a place we can enjoy each others naked company. We all have the same parts and we've all seen them many times on many different people. Don't worry, be happy.

    He definitely wasn't modest, but after getting naked in public, who is?

    Leave a comment:


  • EltonJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait View Post
    Returning to the idea that modesty is about not drawing attention to oneself, I'll list some things I have seen at a nudist venue that did not seem modest.

    1. Wearing high heels.
    2. Wearing elaborate jewelry, especially genital jewelry.
    3. Having elaborate tattoos, especially on the buttocks.

    I hope I haven't offended anybody with the above list.
    I'm not offended, though I was looking into penis jewelry once. I feel a nude person is much more modest, and some people who are not while nude tend to be exhibitionists. I don't feel nudists are not modest anymore. I don't find it shocking to be nude anymore. Modesty is in the heart and the mind. It depends on your intent. What are your intentions? If it's to draw attention to yourself, then it's possible you're not being modest (strangely enough, I find women in bikinis to be more modest than women in one-pieces).

    Leave a comment:


  • Mosquito_Bait
    replied
    Regarding the manner in which a person lounges on a sunbed, if a certain position is considered acceptable while wearing a swimsuit, it should also be considered acceptable while nude. A lot of this depends on the intent of the person lounging. Does the person want to draw attention, or do they simply want to be comfortable? Even if a woman makes a conscious effort to keep her legs together, it is inevitable she will expose her labia while putting on her shoes or arranging her towel.

    This issue seems a bit sexist since there is no expectation that a man would attempt to hide his penis while in a nudist environment, so why should a woman be concerned about exposing her labia?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mosquito_Bait
    replied
    Returning to the idea that modesty is about not drawing attention to oneself, I'll list some things I have seen at a nudist venue that did not seem modest.

    1. Wearing high heels.
    2. Wearing elaborate jewelry, especially genital jewelry.
    3. Having elaborate tattoos, especially on the buttocks.

    I hope I haven't offended anybody with the above list.

    Leave a comment:


  • NudonyII
    replied
    Originally posted by Noodfellaz View Post
    for the sake of conversation, even if it is immodest, is it wrong?
    Phew that's a tough one to peel through. I'll take a brief stab at it.

    Some would say that what it "can" make it wrong is how people view it and the judgement they might pass on it. If a sizable or majority of people view it was "wrong", then it becomes so. Take erections for example: a majority of people would judge someone walking around at the resort - proudly sporting a full erection - as "wrong." And this majority would dictate whether this individual is confronted about it.
    If the majority does not view it as wrong, then it becomes normalized and accepted; even if a few believe it to be "wrong." If a woman sits open-legged and a couple of "old school" ladies complain about it being "too immodest"; if the majority of people do not "view it" as unacceptable, then the ladies' voiced opinion will be dismissed.

    I think it's about how the community as a whole "judges it" - and not isolated voices - that will determine the "wrongness" of it.
    Last edited by NudonyII; 04-28-2022, 07:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nudeyooper
    replied
    Lounging with legs spread is only considered immodest if you are sexualizing nudity. That's something that we tend to say is not done by nudists. Consider that no matter how a man stands or positions his legs when sitting or lounging, he will be exposing the part of himself that in photos and films tend to be fuzzed, blocked, or have something placed between him and the camera. Why should a woman have to act differently?

    Leave a comment:


  • Noodfellaz
    replied
    for the sake of conversation, even if it is immodest, is it wrong? Personally I don't think it's wrong at all, but it is immodest. There's a gray area where it crosses into exhibitionism which may be inappropriate and very much immodest, but not necessarily wrong

    Leave a comment:


  • NudonyII
    replied
    Originally posted by Noodfellaz View Post

    I would tend to agree with your friend
    My wife and I just had a conversation about it today at our nudist venue. She doesn't "lounge around with her legs open" herself; as she feels it is immodest. But we were far away from other people; so on a lark, and out of curiosity, she decided to try it for herself. After a while she did say that it was actually quite relaxing and enjoyable. So she actually embraced it and stayed open legged for a good while as we simply lounged by the lake.

    She would herself never do this right in front of other people. But at my resort, there are women who do. When I'm hanging out in the pool, and I look up at people lounging around, I frequently see various degrees of open-leggedness. When the "intent" behind it is relaxation or "full body" tanning; is it really immodest? If it does happen to bring some attention - and it is unsolicited; is it "lack of modesty", or is it the "viewer" who is actually "out of line" by being too "attentive"?

    If the intent is to "provoke" or "stand out"; then I would say it is immodest. But if it is simply while being "comfortably naked"; I personally don't think it is immodest.

    Leave a comment:


  • EltonJ
    replied
    Yes, this is agreeable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noodfellaz
    replied
    Originally posted by NudonyII View Post

    A friend of mine - who was rather "old school" - had a much more pointed definition of "nudist modesty." She felt that pretty much anything that "brought attention" to the genitals (for example positioning oneself open-leggedly - especially if shaved) was immodest.

    I of course disagree with that definition; but I think this sort of "genital-focused" viewpoint on nudist modesty is not entirely uncommon.
    I would tend to agree with your friend

    Leave a comment:


  • NudonyII
    replied
    Originally posted by Mosquito_Bait View Post
    If you define modesty as acting in a manner that doesn't bring attention, then the modest thing to do is to dress and behave in a manner similar to others nearby. In that case, modesty requires being nude when at a nudist park or on a nude beach.
    A friend of mine - who was rather "old school" - had a much more pointed definition of "nudist modesty." She felt that pretty much anything that "brought attention" to the genitals (for example positioning oneself open-leggedly - especially if shaved) was immodest.

    I of course disagree with that definition; but I think this sort of "genital-focused" viewpoint on nudist modesty is not entirely uncommon.

    Leave a comment:


  • nudeM
    replied
    Mens and womens swimwear come basically two different types. One type is your everyday swimwear, suitable for use at any beach/pool setting. The other type is the "revealing' type, the ones that draw attention, that could be borderline exhibition. It could include skimpy and mild see-through.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    It depends on the type of swimsuit, Elton. There are women's suits that do better to cover rather than attract attention like bikinis. There are also speedos for men that attract more attention than things like board shorts. The thing with women is that they simply have more parts of their bodies that are immodest to show. This makes wearing clothes that do not hide, or even accentuate those parts of the body, more attracting of attention.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • EltonJ
    replied
    Do you think women's swimsuits are designed to attract attention, and men's swimsuits are designed not to?

    Leave a comment:


  • nudeyooper
    replied
    Originally posted by EltonJ View Post

    That's correct.
    That's just where I was trying to go with this. I well remember the 1950's when game show prizes could include fur coats. That was status back then. If one would be worn today it would more likely bring scorn rather than envy or admiration. At either time the wearer would be aiming to attract attention.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X