This is an open reminder to people that the Naktiv site is NOT a traditional naturist site, although we have many naturist members. The Naktiv site IS a safe place where we can discuss issues relating to nudity, (and mostly anything else), and a place where it’s ok to post naked imagery which might INCLUDE naturist shots and World Naked Bike Ride (WNBR) photos and Art and documentary images.
This is NOT a place for inane cock-shots, or look at me standing naked with a stiffy in my bathroom photos, or I have two dickheads images. Get a grip, choose some INTERESTING material and post that instead. Do try to think naked and active, or naked and protest related, or nudity and theatre content, or nude art, or naturist event activities, or something topical.
Context is often important. A guy sitting on a deckchair with his legs wide apart and the camera sitting between his knees looking up at his cock is probably only interesting to gays, (if at all). If you are a guy trying to attract girls, you are going about it WRONG.
A couple, (of whatever inclination), sitting across a table from one another and gazing into each others eyes in the sunset, one gets a warm fuzzy feeling of the intimacy from the context. A photo of a naked protester cycling through the middle of the busy city streets of a capital city in an environmental protest, this is impressive public context and a lifestyle statement.
We have a mission statement which you might like to read. The internet is a powerful medium, which we can contribute positively to, if we choose. Think about what you post, and where, the message you are trying to send, and the appropriate context.
i am left wondering how Richard Foley knows that " A guy sitting on a deckchair with his legs wide apart and the camera sitting between his knees looking up at his cock is only interesting to gays"? Further, why would he even begin to think that all gays like, or think, the same thing? This is the worst type of stereotyping and I am extremelly disappointed to see it here on the Naktiv site.
Fair comment, Woody. Perhaps I worded that badly, and it's good to get the feedback. I'll try to be more egalitarian in future.
Richard, thank you.
I'm fairly certain that the average gay guy would not find the scenario of the theoretical cock shot you describe to be remotely interesting either, disappointed to see such blatant references to people's sexuality when it's clear that the content of the statement can't possibly be justified.
I think we all should read this from time to time (I'd say just a word on the gay thing but its not important).
I agree, of course, Richard Foley. Actually, I agree with the other Richard as well! 🙂
Well said. lets keep it interesting and challenging and beautiful too.
I believe that many of us here are seeking a truly "clothing optional" society. Recognizing that what we choose to adorn or not to adorn our bodies with each morning when stare into our closets, can have tremendous influence upon how we feel and how we see ourselves and how we interact with others in our world. Mark Twain who openly confessed disdain for clothes and their inherent discomfort recognized their extreme importance in the society of his time. and was a master at using them to manipulate his own public image. Thankfully society has changed for us since that time and we are all being moved along with that change. Our hope as people who take an interest in how clothes function or don't function both in our own lives and in society, is to help move that change along in a healthy direction to a world where people are accepted for who they are, not who they wear.
At the end of the day though we must recognize that we are all human and that within that humanness exists a seemingly natural need for most of us to express ourselves creatively in one way or another. Clothing is one of the many tools at our disposal to help satisfy part of that need. Thus our mode of attire including but not exclusively nudity that each of us chooses throughout the day is a positive to which I believe Allen refers above. Let us nudists not in our haste to open up society's norms and make things right, make things wrong for us all by exclusion. Such is the immense value of open discussion available to us on forums like ours here. Thanks for the friendly nudge Richard F.
I like the spirit of this blog entry. I like the re-affirmation of the Naktiv site as a safe place for thoughtful conversation and even debate, where one can be vulnerable without recrimination or humiliation. And I think it's important to have the emphasis that, accordingly, it's okay to be "naked on-line" – but it's not necessary.
I like the vision it affirms: that it really does not matter how much one is wearing or not wearing …
It occurs to me, suddenly that one of the difficulties we have in speaking positively about being naked is that "clothes free" implies the absence of a "positive", which is "clothing". I prefer to think that my being naked is its own "positive": the only thing that's absent is a sense of shame if I don't have myself adequately covered up according to social "norms".
It's the "norm" that I think this site seeks to change: so that what determines the "norm" is the weather and the activity, not social convention and what has conditioned social convention: religion, politics, custom, family values, what have you — all of which can be questioned and challenged and therefore changed.
This still is not said as well as I'd like it; but thanks, Richard, for the "nudge" to try to say it, and to say it better.
I think many will like and appreciate this comment. Thank you Richard.