Micro photos and the NOOK

Does a "micro" photo have a sexual agenda, all the time? Is there perhaps a message or art or psychological statement that is valuable to be found in a micro shot?

For example, the readers here know that I post full body shots for the most part. And when I don't, it is because there is a mood or message that is being communicated. With my photography this results in bodyless "head and upper body images that focus on light, on emotion, etc. No one has an issue with any of these images.

When I have full body images that are full frontal, the focal point is not the genitals. The complete scene is part of the story. Yet, if I were to take a pose that was simply about proudly announcing that I have a penis, regardless of the fact that my full body showing, would the photo be acceptable? Many, many photos here have no message other than, "Hey look! I have a penis. Look!"

Now, in 2010 my wife took a photo of me. I was in a state of depression (go figure that a psychotherapist has issues) and that had impacted on our relationship (no, we're not divorced or separated). For some reason she placed a bandage on my penis. An image was taken with the intent of portraying the wounded masculine. She is a creative person, a real woman of the earth (think Gaia). Now, that image is powerful. Yet, because of the policies here and the sensibilities that only see black and white, that photo can't be shown here.

A second photo that is in my collection dates from almost forty years ago (yup, been at this photo thing a long time), a photo that was for an exposition at a university along with several other photos in the Fine Arts gallery (the rest being of architectural or nature scenes in black and white). It featured my wife's breast in black and white. It was all about texture, shadows and light with no suggestion of sex to be found. There was no head or the rest of her body either in the image. That photo can't be shown here.

I realise that there are photos that likely don't belong here, but I am not so sure that those photos don't belong because of their being "micro" photos. Censorship is problematical because the lens through which we each, individually, view and understand a photo, is personal and subjective and tainted with our personal prejudices, hangups, complexes, and unconscious associations with images. It is those lenses which turn us into fundamentalists, a dangerous and unhealthy way to be if one is truly trying to be non-judgemental and unconditionally a whole human being.

2+

26 thoughts on “Micro photos and the NOOK”

  1. As usual, Robert hits the spot with an interesting blog topic. It’s also clear to see from the responses and comment replies that it’s an emotive issue. Some people are concerned whether they should post an image with visible genitalia, others can’t do anything but focus on their genitalia. Some people want to encourage more female users and content, others just want to push them away by posting endless “me and my penis” photos. Some people are posting interesting images, like the recent semi-underwater selfie, whether male or female should not matter.

    No site is perfect, look at Faceache. There’s no point in pointing fingers, any site is only as useful and interesting as it’s membership and what WE post. This means you, and me, this means all of us.

    1+
  2. I find that photo’s which are specifically highlighting genitalia (male & female) are probably giving an impression that ‘sexual activity’ is a basic and essential part of being naked. When a photo seems to be saying “look right at my vagina / penis, do you like it?” then I feel repulsed, to me it’s saying ” I’m just showing you what I have.”
    They are not naturists, they are naked people seeking praise from voyeurs.

    0
  3. No. I hate selfies as much as I hate dick shots. A boob with texture or a wounded penis is more acceptable than an inane dick shot or an inane selfie. I think people should put a little thought behind the photo. The photo should express something. Even a photo that says, "I love coffee" is better than a photo that says "I arrogantly think too much of myself".

    1+
    • If it's of a full person, are you sure they're not just saying "Hey, look at me, I am nude"?
      Of course they have a penis if they are male (except perhaps trans).

      Sometimes, especially for newbies, the feeling of nudity is so exuberant that people like to share, in photos, their new found freedom.

      0
  4. I mostly agree with Vassilis. The only thing I want to add is, if this site allowed an artistic image of a penis, then many people will want to post useless, non-artistic images of their penis. However, no one would want to post a useless, non-artistic image of their hand. I've visited a few sites that claimed to be nudist sites but had thousands of dick shots. I never go back to those sites because they are useless.

    0
  5. For me a hand or a penis on a photo are both body parts. If it is bad to show a hand, then it is bad to show a penis too. What matters is the intention behind the scenes. If there is not a backstory then as useless is to show a hand, also useless is to show a penis or a vagina. It says nothing! For me there is no such thing as private or bad body parts!

    0
    • There is no such thing as bad body parts. No part of the body is offensive, but people don't take close-ups of their hands, elbows, nose or whatever and call it art. Close-ups of genitals are not art either.

      0
      • In France, I saw an art installation at a modern art museum that consisted of several bent-wood pieces projecting from a wall, some intersecting with each other. It looked vaguely familiar. Then I read the title card – "The Lines of my Palm". So yes, some people do consider close-ups of their hands to be art!

        0
      • I have seen many photos of close-ups of body parts: hands, feet, nose ear, mouth or teeth, etc. It takes some talent to render such photos artistically or interestingly, and so to be appreciated, but it has been done.
        Sometimes the focus is actually of something the body part is wearing, holding or using in some way.

        0
  6. It's all very subjective. Some photos focusing only on certain body parts are clearly artistic; others are clearly pornographic; and yet others lie in that grey area between the two. The problem is that each person defines those areas differently, so at some point it comes down to the moderator(s) having to decide. If you disagree with their decision, you have the choice to ignore the photo and decision, to discuss it, to leave the site, or to apply to become a moderator yourself. No set of rules can fit all circumstances.

    0
  7. It is hard to know where the intent behind a photo is simply to exhibit the penis. It could as easily be an expression of freedom, or of a pride in the human body that is sadly lacking in our society, or an indication that the subject has nothing to hide. I see a photo posted in this spirit as extremely positive. IF the purpose of this and similar sites is to normalise nudity, we should be as comfortable with nude photos focused on the individual as on clothed photos in a similar context. And if someone simply wants to draw attention to their penis, I would say that's their prerogative (unless, of course, we think there is something inherently wrong with the penis..).

    0
      • No, you should not have posted that picture. That photo is NSFW. For many it stands for not suitable for work, but for me it stands for Not Suitable For Wife. Any picture I post or that I want to see in a naturist (or any) context has to meet the requirement that my wife does not turn her face away. For me my wife stands for common sense and she is a perfect measure if I tend to overact in my naturist adventures. Yes, one can go blabla over whole human body, or my penis is a bodypart equal to a finger, etc. etc. But as naturists we have to build bridges if we want our nudist lifestyle to blend into society. Shouting from a naked island how a pure and truly naturist one is, will not help to bridge the gap to the textile mainland. Let it be a warning that these islands tend to be underpopulated and with a very poor women to men ratio. As, and I am sorry to say, with the Naktiv site.

        0
  8. Mindless censorship and rigid adherence to simplistic rules would render this site even more reactionary than Facebook. Those naturists that believe their naturism is more 'holy' than the naturism of other's should not be able to dictate their brand of naturism to the general group. I would rather catch the glimpse of an occasional pussy or penis than see only photos where everyone has their legs carefully crossed not to offend the reactionary few.

    0

Leave a Comment