Since this blog was posted, the rules have CHANGED. Please check the <a href="/rules">NEW RULES HERE</a>. Many thanks.

Well, I'm very confused about how rules are interpreted as to what pictures is deemed 'unsuitable' here . the rules are as follows
1. Overtly sexual and/or suggestive behaviour, imagery, links, content.

2. Spread leg shots, genital close-ups, erections, masturbation, etc.

3. Exhibitionistic posturing with no other redeeming features.

4. Dating/swinging/dogging contact postings or excessively sexual remarks.

5. Fake profiles/photos.

6. Advertising of shoes or other drivel.

7. Any physical and/or mental, literary or graphic, abuse.

8. Undue harassment of any form.

9. Any illegal material.

Rules 1 and 3 are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I have removed one picture because I was told the pose said "f**k me" I defended the picture and was told other moderators agreed.
In my mind and I'm sure if the picture could be posted many, many others would disagree.

Gotta love dictatorship

60 thoughts on “Pictures/mods”

    • The problem is very often trying to decide what is the "intent" behind the photo. Sometimes people have very decisive ideas about this, and they may not agree with yours, or mine.

      Like it or not, the moderators have a job to do here, as on every worthwhile site, where the idiots do not have free rein. Meanwhile we can ALWAYS discuss whether content is appropriate or not.

      If you're ever unsure, the best thing is to set the permissions to "friends only", and ask a moderator to take a look.

  1. John, some of the best photos are candid. A photo I took and was posted here, (without and objection) was of Michelle relaxing on a beach with her legs open and vagina clearly visable. She was dozing, enjoying the sun I showed her the photo and she agreed with me that it was a good picture.

  2. Lets face it ALL pics are posed,if the subject knows the camera is there! and we are all voyeuristic to an extent.
    we enjoy being naked,seeing others naked! One persons art is anothers porn!Some people are big,some are small so are there,COCKS,PRICKS AND FANNY'S!!! I capitalise these words'because these words I find more offensive then then an actual picture! Same as swear words,when used inapropiately,then sometimes they fit into what emotion were trying to describe! I was in a relationship once where my partner was a real lady when we were out together,but swore like a whore in bed! I'm trying to say that there is a time and a place for everthing! Like Graeme say's 'it's not rocket science' the site of an open vagina would turn me on, and I would not be able to control the urges inside! that then makes the picture sexual! Some pics I have taken show the beginnings of arousal,so I would not post them publicly! there are lines to be drawn and not to be crossed!..Some people can't see that! so 'Hats off to the moderaters' I would not like to do it!and we do need them there!.What we don't need is openly smutty top shelf pictures nor suggestive words to go along with them! if that level was to appear then like Anthony I would leave! not that I'm a prude,I do enjoy photos with over suggestive sexual content,but they belong in private and shared with some one close! not the world!
    If we all had common sence,we would not need to be moderated. If we were all law abiding citizens,we would not need the police!If we were not a war making race,why have an Army……the list could go on forever. I don't see this debate ever being resolved….A friend of mine gets turned on by womens feet,really really drives him wild,how would we even start to police that one! just enjoy being naked peeps! and if for ever what reason something makes you uncomfortable, then speak out! I'm sure we can all put our hands up and say YEAH' I fucked up there,I should not have done that! There's no such thing as a perfect person!

  3. The problem is, there are inconsistencies when decisions about taste & decency are made. Last week I got a warning for trying to post a photo taken by my husband in which I was relaxing in a pool semi-submerged while my torso rested on a flotation ring, I freely admit that my vulva was visible, but it was distorted by the water, I was not striking any sort of sexually suggestive pose, there was nothing remotely smutty about the photo and certainly nothing you wouldn't see on any naturist beach! So why was it pulled?
    Furthermore, a quick scan through the photo albums revealed 4 photos in the first ten pages in which vulva is visible, in one the inner labia is visible (none of which I find offensive), so why did I get the warning? Penises are the male genitalia, they are permuted here, so why is the sight of female genitalia frowned upon (inconsistently!!)?

    • Julia, we TRY to be as consistent as possible. Really.

      Your vulva, per se, is not at issue. I think the picture to which you refer was pulled, in no small part, because of the extraneous clothing still being worn in the pool, combined with the spread-legs shot. We've had a lot of spread-legs shots here, many of which have been from guys too, where the intentions have been very clear indeed. Thankfully, at least the guys seem to have gotten the message recently.

      It can be difficult to wean out the intention behind posting a shot, and the moderators here are as human as the site users. We TRY to be consistent, but our differing opinions will always be a 'bone' of contention, while we have a much more liberal outlook here than many sites. However, it might be useful to realize that many of the moderators are traditional naturists and are not used to seeing such detail in their club magazines, yet.

      We are all here to educate one another, so please do not be deterred from posting, just as we will not be deterred from moderating suitable content. The TRY to be clear on this.

      • Hi Richard, thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply, the content of which I have noted!! But that doesn't alter the fact that someone somewhere HAS allowed far more explicit shots to be uploaded, which makes it all the more puzzling when you look at my photo! And the fact that I was wearing a black top is totally irrelevant! I know what you are saying, my legs were not "together", that's because I was floating & that position was comfortable, and as I said, the sight of my lady parts was distorted by the water. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed, the fact that others have got away with posting more revealing material is obviously down to luck!

    • I 100% agree, if the male genitila are acceptable, why not the female, with the proviso that there is no obvious sexual conertation. People can relax naturally with their legs wide open, or thrust their genitles at the camera. One is obviously not acceptable and the other is, no comparison.

    • Our most intimate body parts are usually not visible in nude photographs. If a man is uncircumcised, his glans are hidden by his foreskin. Vulvas and labia are often hidden in a triangle of pubic hair. However, no matter how intimate the body part may be, if it's exposed due to happenstance it should be acceptable. It's all part of the human body, which we profess to celebrate. There are many natural positions our bodies can be in that reveal vulvas and anuses that are innocent and should be given the benefit of the doubt.

  4. The ongoing discussion, a few months ago I posted one of my drawings which described the female genitilia, which (I think) was regarded as acceptable. Then there was the "secret agent" photo, which many women found uncomfortable and did make me squirm as the focal point was his penis.
    I feel that you are being a bit unfair Sandra in describing the moderators as dictators, the site could easily descend into an exhibitionist porn site, which would alienate me and I am sure many others.
    Do you think the pose of your photo said "fuck me"? If not then perhaps the picture should be posted as a contribution to this ongoing debate, it can quickly be removed.

  5. This is a large topic, covered by several of our pages under the ">INFO<" header item, but it's good to see this being opened up for further discussion.

    This site has a wider remit than Facebook, in that we want to encourage naked activities, photos, discussions, etc. and do not want to censor simple nudity. The site also has a much wider remit than most naturist sites, because we will permit far more borderline images and this is NOT a naturist site, as described in the rules. However, this is still not a sex site, and images of a singularly sexual nature will be removed.

    Now, there is definitely room here for interpretation, this is what makes us human. What I deem acceptable/offensive is not the same as what you/him/her/they deem acceptable/offensive. There is no way we will ever all agree on the same standards/opinions, because we are human. This is simply not possible unless we take the cretinous Facebook approach of simply banning all nudity.

    I hope we strike a reasonable balance here, where commonsense prevails and we can share images and content/discussion which other sites would censor, while still trying to maintain a safe and welcoming environment to encourage both male and female contributions. This is harder than you'd think, because the gay boys contingent just want to see lots of spread legs cock photos, young girls don't want to post on a site full of old men, old girls don't want to see any competition from younger and prettier fillies, the straight guys are put off by the number of boys offering themselves in the shower, and so on.


    Back to the point/photo in question. Both men and women have posted photos of themselves on all fours on the beach with their legs spread wide and their back arched and their bum in the air. I have a personal preference as to which is more acceptable than the other, but from a neutral perspective these are both clearly classic sexual poses and neither is acceptable here. One could argue for special exceptions to be made in the case of artistic value but for the average snapshot, where there is no danger of misinterpretation, these photos will simply be removed, as is made very clear by both rules 1 and 3.

    Discuss 🙂

Leave a Comment

New Report