Slightly sexual or sufficiently borderline

the Naktiv site is for non-sexual (possibly naked) imagery and discussion.

Having noticed a photo of two guys kissing I was very tempted to delete immediately under the "no sex" rule. Then I wondered, whether if it was two girls kissing I would be so quick to head for the delete button, and thought "perhaps". Then I wondered whether if it was a man and woman gently kissing at sunset, whether I would head for the delete button too, and I decided probably not, possibly it would depend on how amorous the embrace was. I felt my reaction was tainted with an unwarranted prejudice as shades of intention and interpretation come to mind. Just because something makes me feel uncomfortable is not sufficient justification for my stamping on it, no matter how great the temptation.

At which point I came to the conclusion that I would leave the photo alone, for the moment, as being essentially harmless and a pleasant expression of affection, and see how other people react to the image. I'm not interested in votes of support from the gay community here, I'm interested in hearing whether people feel it's an overtly sexual image, or an entirely acceptable image, given that this is an explicitly non-sexual site.

Just by the way, I'd like to make one thing quite clear on this topic, you can push me, if you like, and start posting photos of guys fondling each other, and see how quickly I react to that, because you'll be off this site faster than shit off a shovel. So let's not bother with going there, thanks 🙂

That aside, I'd be interested in sensible feedback on the topic though. So, comments are most definitely welcome.

0

94 thoughts on “Slightly sexual or sufficiently borderline”

  1. The connotation of certain pictures can easily be over-analysed; Richard, as "public editor" of this site, has his hands full. I think the way to look at this issue isn't about offending someone as much as it's about keeping the site safe from predators. Porn would attract all manner of unwelcome comments, advances etc. from those who would come to cruise the pics and get their jollies. If I don't care for a certain picture, I'll bypass it and move on, just as I'm sure some do with the ones I post. But if the postings were to become overtly sexual, I would probably just stay away. Good job, Richard!

    0
  2. I saw Creig's picture as being overtly sexual more because of the head position than anything else. Both images contain a same sex couple, but the context of the kiss is vastly different. Simon's image depicts a loving embrace with a "peck" type kiss. Creig's image shows a "snog", a more sexual kiss, and the close up of the kiss focusses on that.

    0
  3. As it should be Leigh. I believe the point being made here is it cannot be sexual/erotic. A son kissing his father/a daughter kissing her mother/brother to brother/sister to sister etc etc is natural. It is the setting and the intent of the photo that can cause the issues. Simon and his partner kissing on the beach is two people, very much in love. In no way can that be construed as sexual

    0
  4. "the Naktiv site is for non-sexual (possibly naked) imagery and discussion. "

    Bearing that in mind I watched the former King of Belgium and his son kiss on TV tonight. You wouldn't censor that, would you?

    0
  5. What people seem to fear most is the depiction of arousal, not mere intimacy or displays of affection. That fear may arise from a determination to hide the reality of sex from children, or from a feeling (belief?) that sex is undesirable and to be deprecated (despite its absolute necessity for our continued existence).

    Another fear (relevant to this photo) can follow from the typical male's discomfort at suspecting that he too might find another male attractive and recoiling so strongly from the very idea as to appear homophobic.

    As with all fears, these two should be faced squarely whenever experienced, the personal truth teased out for the individual, and the feeling of fear dissipated.

    0
    • Your last sentence is a very good summary of the problem, and also a guide for action. The fears, you are speaking about are not genetic, but culturally induced by the society we are living in. We, and the rest of our society have to understand, that nothing in nature is "normal", and that without this natural diversity, we would still run across the world as monocellular beings, if at all.

      0
      • I have to take issue with your comment that the fears "are not genetic". If genetic theory is correct, then nearly every decision we make is essentially based on whether or not all the people who made a different decision did not succeed to procreate, for whatever apparent reason at the time. I'd say a fear of homosexuality is exceedingly likely to be genetic, and for fairly obvious reasons too.

        The difference between my assessment of that, and yours MIGHT be that I don't think that genetic necessarily means "right". It's just the way it is, we are the way we are. We also have choices (probably also genetically driven) as to what we do with these feelings, and how we react to situations that might, or might not, make us uncomfortable (again, for whatever reason).

        The idea that sex is undesirable is also faintly amusing, given that this is why we're here. A well known quote, will serve as a reminder:

        "Life is a sexually transmitted (and terminal) disease."

        🙂

        0
  6. Well, my comment to your initial question: 1. I find it good, that you put the question on discussion here. 2. Forget the 2 men. If it would have been OK with a man and a woman, then, as a naturist, you should have some argumentation problem to justify the removing of identical same sex pics. 3. I think, it is possible to differentiate sexual actions from everything else, and this is exactly what we are expecting from the clothed people we meet in our naked outdoor activities. So, we should be consistent with ourselves.

    0
  7. OK, for the initial photo, there are three major points of compositional errors, and that damn clock feature on the camera!

    1: The photographer's shadow is visible.
    2: By kneeling down, the horizon position could have been brought to waistline level, or better still, by standing higher (a stool or something) the horizon could have been brought above the subjects altogether.
    3: And by far the most important really. There's a thing called the rule of thirds. Imagine the picture divided into three horizontally and vertically by two lines in each direction. The four points at which they intersect are natural attention points in the way humans view images. The picture was almost right, in that the full bodies needed to be in the shot, but they needed to be on the right hand vertical third line, with the heads at the point at which it crosses the upper horizontal third line. (I hope that makes sense). The third point used for focus gives a different atmosphere to a picture. Try it.

    Anyway, I hope this helps. If you need any more info, let me know.

    0
  8. Setting/context -> yes. As well as interpretation, but mostly "context" I think. I would have liked to see the same shot with more people in the shot too, (although you might not have one), as that would also place it in a different context. And I mean "as well as", not "instead of". Just FYI.

    It's all interesting stuff 🙂

    0
  9. I've seen more naturist/nudist kissing on the beach than those who are not, so saying that kissing cannot be posted on a naturist/nudist site doesn't make sense.
    Maybe the shower scene may be inappropriate, but change the scenery to a beach scene and now does it change the dynamics?

    0
  10. I have a friend that posted a picture of her and a mate passionately kissing in the shower and although yes I must admit that I thought it was a cool picture, I believe it was definately sexual in nature and would not have approved of it being posted in a naturist/nudist site.

    0
  11. I dont think it harms in any way whatsoever,I agree with what has been said, there should be no reason to think this is a sexual photo!! There is no sex involved and it is purely two partners kissing on a beach at a holiday destination,which I have done countless times with my partner,if said people love each other that much there should be no problems with this being posted…..that said,some may not like it

    0
  12. For sure, and Sicily was always the great melting pot of the mediteranean, with the Greeks, and the Arabs, and the Romans, and the Normans, etc, all scrapping over it. So a curious mixture of conservative island mentality with pragmatic multi-culturism. Indeed. And my grandfather married an English Rose, which just goes to prove, something or other.

    0
  13. In my opinion, I do not feel or believe there is anything wrong with gentle affection between two people in a picture. I do draw the line at groping, grasping or intentional showing of pictures that have the intent of driving passion. I also do not want to see pictures where the main focus is genitals. I am not here for sexual gratification, I am here because this is the place where I can share my love of the nudist/naturist lifestyle. Two people kissing gently? No issue. Two people embraced in an outright passionate kiss that is of a very sexual nature? I might be affronted.

    0
  14. It's a very grey area and ultimately needs to be adjudicated with sensitivity. I have placed a pencil drawing of a couple gently kissing, the woman sitting on the mans lap,did you have similar reservations with image? It is undoubtedly "slightly sexual"

    0
    • Indeed, Tony, you are correct. I did not have similar reservations, (with m/f image), hence my comments in the original posting about my reactions which I believe are probably inconsistent and therefore unwarranted, but nevertheless are worth discussing (I feel).

      0

Leave a Comment