Here’s the thing (rude language warning)

Recently, the "me and my penis" photos have come back under fire. And for the most part, the justification for banning said photos is good. However, the subject matter won't go away, because there are always going to be dicks who just have to be seen and THEY won't go away. So, they get reported and banned, reported and banned ad nauseum. Administrators whinge about doing the best they can, and members grouse. Okay, that was in jest, I realize how hard the admin group tries, and I do commend them on their efforts. The problem is Muffy. Again, (this road has been trod by many, myself included) the headless boobs and bush shots seem to get a pass. Flirtatious shots occasionally get a ruffled feathers or two, and this has been recently I might add, and while not a "come and get it boys" legs spread, or as we used to call them "split beaver shots", there is a line. Albeit rather prudish, but a line that gets drawn and moves quite often, as to what constitutes cute vs naughty, cute vs flirty, or just cute vs crass. What is the purpose of the shot? That's the real question. If a young lady is on all fours...? To be brutally frank, I don't give flying fuck how you present yourself, but like Grandpa in Lost Boys tell Michael and David when they move in, "There are rules if you're going to live in my house"and the same goes for being part of this community. You want to be lewd, go somewhere else. I may not care, but there are people who do. When a group proclaims a photo is rude, they have a right to bitch about it. They may be old fogies and prudes, but they have a right. You want to post a flirty photo, make it private for friends and not public , there are setting for that. Don't be a twit.

Now back My and My Penis, I agree, no head, no dick, unless it's a garden shot etc, come on, quit finding legit reasons for some photos over others! Everytime this discussion comes up, somebody has to start with the exceptions. We all know what we are talking about, primary focus. Guys are all proud of their willies, weiners, peckers, dicks, schlongs, johnsons, John Thomas, etcetera, but for fucksake, we don't have to show them off in a variety of angles, and degrees of erectitude.  As a guy, if I want to see one, I have mirrors and access to all manner of videos on the net. Basically, if you seen one, you seen them all except for the freaks of nature with micro or "you're not coming near me with that thing" ones.

So, summing up, if someone gripes about your photo, ask yourself what was the reason for posting it and second, why does it have to be available for everyone at Naktiv?

And as far as the use of vulgar, crass rude language in this post, I did warn you.

2+

5 thoughts on “Here’s the thing (rude language warning)”

  1. I never see a “close-up bush” here. Where did you see that problem?
    About close-up boobs – this is not a genitalia. But such sort of photo has little sense, if at all.
    About spreading legs:
    If woman poses the way that makes her labia majora visible, then someone immediately calls this photo “inappropriate”. Woman spreading her legs is rare case.
    But if men spreads his legs intentionally – it is considered “normal”.
    Is it due to some sexist prejudice in society? Someone says: “You make me thinking about sex, so cover yourself”. If he thinks about sex – it seems that he likes the picture, but he tries to look “modestly”.
    On this and other sites men are more often depicted with spread legs, than women.
    I saw photos of couples, where man does spread legs while woman does not, or she can even wear clothes.
    Or maybe in that cases a husband simply does not want his wife to be seen by strangers?

    0
  2. “I agree, no head, no dick,”

    I also object to pictures of nude bodies with penises or nipples and cunts hidden by carefully placed objects or photo manipulation. And, I object to seeing a parade of behinds without fronts. I want to see the whole person, especially on a nudist venue.

    0

Leave a Comment