Headless nudist

I put up a poll asking if people thought headless photos should be allowed. Yes , no, who gives a flying monkey's left earlobe. (The third option is almost at 30%) Yes, there is policy already about it, but so what? That doesn't negate the validity of the question. In fact, I find that answer is avoiding the discussion, which was the reason for the poll in the first place. Of course someone can always say, "if you don't like the rules, go elsewhere". And I'd agree with that idea in principle 7 out of 7 days a week. I'd still say, is the headless rule necessary? It's actually one of those rules that is kind of open for interpretation. As the discussion below the poll bears testament to, there are plenty of faceless photos, because of activities, like facing the ocean, climbing a cliff face, but that isn't a valid part of the discussion, I said headless. Which should then bring to mind, crotch shots. But, again there is wiggle room. What about a clothed body with a person holding a guitar?
Yes, I am getting nit picky, but it's because that rule is still open for debate, obviously because a lot of people did just that. Unless there is a legitimate objection, what is the big deal to the ocassional headless nude?
Well, I'd personally say, the rule knocks out anonymous nudes and exhibitionism. It also keeps revenge nude photos at a minimum, and postings that haven't got the subject's approval
at a minimum also.
Headless photos, crotch shots, objectionable photos, there are plenty of other sites that would love to have them, and that is why I'd rather be here.
So, headless nudes? I would say, no, except under certain situations.

Leave a Comment

New Report