Images of naked people. Yuk right? They have their dangly bits hanging out, piercings, tattoos. How about the old flabby ones. Who wants to see all that? Can't they just stay at home and keep it all covered up!
Picture standards have been an ongoing polarizing issue on the Naktiv site right from the very get go. What is sexual and what is not? If men or women post spread leg shots does this imply sexual induendo?
My attitude to images has changed a lot. I used to feel uneasy about many images because they didn't reflect what I personally felt naturism was about. Herein lies the crux of the problem. We all apply our personal standards to everyone else. When people agree with each others standards they get along. When they don't agree, tensions may arise.
This summer I spent a lot of time at the legal nude bathing area not far from home. I'd always previously been put off by the reputation it has and the activities that are said to go on there. It was an interesting experience.
The first thing of note was the diversity of people using the area. It is considered by most in town a gay hangout. Certainly there is no question regarding the amount of cruising that obviously goes on there. On the whole I never witnessed anything untoward, but in terms of a "controlled" nudist venue, I'm inclined to think tolerance levels differ greatly.
What probably struck me the most was the tolerance of behavior. On some days there were mixed couples there who were somewhat amorous, but no more so than anything I'd seen on a public clothed beach. Did being naked make a difference? No. I realized it didn't.
On other days there were the occasional gay couple being as amorous as the hetero couple. Did that make a difference because it was two naked men rather than a mixed couple?
I bet in isolation it would have made a massive difference and one can start to understand where the rumors and reputation starts to come about. Within relative context two naked guys hugging and being close to each other is no different to a mixed couple on a clothed beach. It's my view of the world that makes the difference whether or not I deem that acceptable.
So how does this all relate to pictures? I think Graeme made a good point about Clive's picture that drew some mixed comments. If it were the same image with trousers you wouldn't bat an eyelid and that's a common pose.
The thing with naked pictures is you see everything. You can't pick and choose what is appropriate and what isn't, because it's like saying we don't mind elbows so long as they aren't the focus of the pictures. Breasts are okay so long as you can't see the nipples. Bare cleavage is ok so long as is male. Pictures are okay so long as they're decent. What is decent?
Obviously on FB, graphic violence is decent, but nudity is indecent.
Whether people are clothed or not they can strike a provocative pose. What may look perfectly fine with clothes on may appear quite inappropriate naked. Realistically it's what you're looking at and how you're looking at it that makes the difference.
If you accept that nudity is ok, you also have to accept that you'll see things that don't appeal to you. I wouldn't take my kids to the bathing area mentioned because I don't feel inclined to explain why a guy has a metal ring hanging from the end of his penis. Likewise, I don't feel inclined to explain the goings on there.
Within a family environment you start to understand some of the standards that are set. At the end of the day, problems arise if you don't keep a broad mind. You don't have to like what you see, but the moment you start applying your likes and dislikes to others, you're on a slippery slope to outright censorship.