the Naktiv site has had a number of inappropriate images posted which have ignited a discussion on what is appropriate content, and whether people should be able to post erections for people who want to see them, as well as to people who don't. While the discussion is enlightening, the content is fierce, for we are fighting for our right here to create a site which refuses to be hi-jacked by a vociferous and large, portion of the community.
These issues touch on conform and obey, political correctness, fear of saying something somebody might take offense to, censorship, and more. It's a good discussion, and it's important we have it. It's also important to get it clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in THIS place. the Naktiv site has been called "Crack for Nudists", and we aim to keep it legal, keep it fun and safe, AND to keep it open-minded!
Let me reaffirm that this site will NOT be turned into a gay dogging site, NOR will it be turned into a politically correct scared to mention the word "gay" in any context other than in awe, NOR will it be turned into a site where gay people are not welcome, NOR will it be turned into a tame naturist site where only photos which Faceache would approve of will be posted.
the Naktiv site will be here as an alternative place for people to express themselves naked online, (in text or via imagery), regardless of how much schoolyard bullying and peer pressure is applied to conform and obey to one man's opinion. Despite these efforts, the Naktiv site is here to stay.
This is the Naktiv site, it's a different place and we have a http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/
Read it!
To me there is nothing wrong with full frontal nudity pictures on a nudist site.
However pictures of erections and/or crotch shots have no place on this site or any other legitimate nudist site.
If someone feels the need to post them then they should find an appropriate porn site.
There is a big difference between nudity and porn.
I have an issue with full frontal nudity when there is no purpose behind it. I'm ok with full nudity when it's someone involved in a natural everyday activity. I've seen photos of people gardening, cleaning, washing up, cooking, vacumning, building stuff etc.
Art and expression are valid purposes, which is why we have Art related groups here, and Anthony's drawings and paintings are acceptable, for instance.
Nakedness is not purely the prerogative of the "real nudist" community.
I do think you know what I mean Richard. Man standing in shower??? 😀
I was moderator of a group on Facebook *spits* and soon realised that treading the middle 'safeground' isn't always that 'safe'. What it usually means is that you get shot with shit from all directions!
That's about right 😀
I may have not expressed myself clearly, what I am opposed to is images which are solely of genitalia, or those where they are the main centre of the photo or image. I have see photo's in other places where men proudly display an erect penis and pose to attract attention to it.(maybe they don't directly refer to it in their choice of words). The same can be said of females who pose in open legs images and are posed in such a way as to make their vagina the main focal point. Yes we all have genitals which are usually seen as part of an overall image, a complete person, not just the main feature. I am very sure that the persons using this and other naturism groups, are aware of unacceptable use of photo's. The choice of words can be a problem area too, so maybe it's wise to be tactful when submitting photo's and/or text to any public access place.
This is what happened to me earlier, Patrick. I expressed myself somewhat clumsily, (because I mentioned the "g" word in a non-popular way), and the shit hit the fan. I don't think you have that kind of problem here, so just a little clarity fixes everything 😉
Good job
Because my genitals are part of my body and I am not ashamed of them I have no problem with them being visible in pictures of me. However as there is more to me as a person that just my genitals I don’t want them to be the focal point of my pictures.
Think of them as supporting cast, not the main attraction.
I have a carving knife and I am not ashamed of that. If someone sees me cooking they can see the knife that I am not ashamed of, if someone sees me walking, they can see my genitals I am not ashamed of. That is not the point at all, it is how you present the knife or genitals, how they are depicted or the intention assumed or apparent in presenting a photo of the knife or genitals, that is what may cause a problem.
No knives around my genitals! I keep picturing so many things that could go wrong.
I totally agree. I'm neither proud or ashamed of any part of my body.
I must, in this instance, agree with George and Richard on this one. There are acceptable images which will include the genitalia, however they must be deemed to be appropriate and not the "focus" of the image. The guidelines are quite explicit. 😀
Was that an attempt at a pun…?
Um….no! Did you see a pun? 🙂
Richard and Susan, it seems both of you are trying to be punny. lol
Explicitly punny 😉
Explicit? Oh dear! 😀
Once again I have to agree with Moe's comment. We do need to keep away from genitalia images, that is not naturism, it is a perversion we can do without.
Calling it a perversion is doing exactly what Richard's trying to fight againt isn't it Patrick? It's a horribly judgmental term and seems to me to be trying to impose your values onto other peoples' behaviour. Overtly sexual behaviour and seeking 'hook-ups' aren't perverted surely, they're just not appropriate here.
In fairness to Patrick, if what he *meant* was "genitalia focused images", then most of us would probably agree.
This is always, I think, the danger with sweeping statements which are unclear, and it is especially prevalent in the naturist community where people are so quick to insist on PC observations of everything.
Posting online can be a bit like treading on egg-shells sometimes 😉
I absolutely did mean genitalia focused images, male or female. Please accept my apologies for not being clear on that.
No worries, we all do this all the time. We assume everyone knows what we mean. (as I did on a recent marginally related thread)
Definitely no apologies needed. We just say what we think, and sometimes we need to be a bit clearer to avoid misunderstandings -> me included.
I still wouldn't call "genitalia-focused images" a perversion Richard. They're inappropriate here but there are other places where they're seen as entirely normal. One man's (or woman's) perversion is another man's pleasure. I guess I'd rather we completely avoided perjorative language – it just tends to inflame what could otherwise be a rational discussion.
Yes, George, I think I'm happy to concede that point, on both counts.
NO, Patrick, wrong! Please re-read the http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/
This is NOT a naturist site. Genitalia (or any other body part) are perfectly natural.
What you DO with your body, the behaviour you exhibit, this defines your activities as perverted or not. Your body is not perverted by definition.
Ah. This must be my mistake. I thought the Naktiv site was a naturist site? It's why I joined. As it isn't, it seems clear to me that complaining about close up images of 'dick' is not appropriate since I thought this was a naturist site. My apologies. I have no issue with that kind of naked imagery on the internet in the right places and it was my mistake for thinking this was a naturist page. I'm going to leave my profile page up with links to my blog for those members who are particularly interested in naturism and the issues affecting it, but I will be declining to post from now on as I came here expecting something else. Sorry for the confusion.
Hi Genevieve, I think you have misunderstood.
Complaining about close up images of 'dick' is ENTIRELY appropriate. These will always be removed from here, when the images are of people just wanting to show their dicks off on the internet.
There may however, be many images, where a penis is a perfectly normal part of the image, as in a photo of a naked person engaged in an simple activity like hiking, for instance. Simple naked activity images are entirely suitable for this site, as is described in the http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/ and the http://www.naktiv.net/rules.
I hope this, (and those document links), clarifies the situation for you? Please feel free to request more explanation if necessary, or let us know if you think the documentation is inadequate.
Cheers.
I don't understand how anyone could complain about genitals being visible in naked images. It's naked right – are they looking for artistically placed fig leaves? Are people actually complaining about the glimpse of a man's penis in a photograph? I have no problem with that. But erections on men, any image that is deliberately close up (as has been my gripe on the day I joined this site) and any spread legged and overly glamorised image of a naked female is unnecessary but I come from a naturist standpoint which I know is slightly different to those into general nudity. I guess there is a very fine line between between what is naked appropriate for 'art' and naturism which is why I think this subject will be ongoing here for some time. Thanks for the clarification though.
I'm sure this subject will be ongoing here for some time. It's quite extraordinary actually that, as Shane pointed out the other day, that although there are many naked "activists" on the Naktiv site, (people who want to change society's perception of nudity/nudism/whatever), even we can't agree amongst ourselves as to what is exactly acceptable, and what is not.
Personally I find the discussion useful, even if repetitive, because different people will come to the same questions again and again. In exactly the same way as the tired old "what happens if i get an erection" questions on more traditional nudist sites. These questions will always be asked. It behoves us to answer them as best we can.
In terms of what is acceptable HERE, the precise definition is always going to vary from person to person, as to whether someone thinks we SHOULD include artistic works, or only "real naturist" photos, etc. We have naturists complaining about seeing penises in photos of naked people, which seems a bit strange to me, and I think that when you hear this kind of statement, education and clarification of what is simple nakedness, and what is sexual nudity, and so forth, is all the more important.
On the whole, I think the http://www.naktiv.net/rules/ are not too complicated to follow, but I'm always prepared to modify them if they are too easy to misunderstand. Input/feedback is always welcome.
the Naktiv site/Naturist question is one which crops up repeatedly. This is one of the things which I am addressing as I go through the guidelines/rules in the now and near future. I clearly need to harder to clarify what the Naktiv site is, and to make it easier to understand the http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/ when people come to the site.
Richard, did you mean to say this is NOT a naturist site or rather this IS a naturist site? Maybe this is where the confusion is for Genevieve34 🙂
I have no problems with gay, straight or any other type of sexuality especially since I am a bisexual male. With that being said, I do not want to look at any gentalia focused or sexual shots, male or female, if I want to see that I can go watch some porn. I also do not want to look at pictures or videos of guys with an erect penis either. I like keeping it clean so we can show the world that we are naturist/nudist, not people looking to get our jollies off. I say keep deleting the inappropriate sexual and genitalia pictures. Thanks for all the effort you all go through to provide this safe haven for us. EDIT: Spread legs do not always mean a picture is sexual ie a picture of a woman squating down to pick a flower or something is fine but to have a woman posing provacatively with her legs spread making the vagina the main focus is inappropriate.
Absolutely, we will continue to delete "INAPPROPRIATE sexual and genitalia" images, of whatever preference.
I understand your point Richard and can live with that in the belief that you'd take a similar hard line if we were to see men on here posting similar images and comments aimed at women (or, unlikely as it seems, women flaunting their genitals at the camera aimed at men).
I dislike homophobia just as I dislike all forms of discrimination, but if this is a place for us all to feel comfortable in our own skins, we have to be able to accept other peoples' views without taking offence, so long as they're not being expressed in an offensive way (I think that makes sense?).
Yes, George, precisely. Moderators here have already taken a hard line with men who have intended their genitalia to be gawped at by women, and also with women who have spread their legs for the guys. There is no way in which I believe that "gays are the problem", although I do think they have a special corner of the nudist "market", but this is a digression.
It takes all sorts, (hetero, gay and bi who are all alike in many ways where containing their/our sexual urges are concerned), and many people seem to be incapable of understanding the simple and largely intuitive http://www.naktiv.net/rules in place here.
Whatever they are, (my point is that no rules are perfect for everybody), we try to apply them as consistently as we can.
And due to the fact that they are dealt with swiftly, the members wouldn't even see or know about it. Caught between a rock and a hard place
Following the "discussion" which ensued after I removed several erection photos, (referred to above), which were posted on a profile where the user had stated clearly he was looking for "older guys", I made the remark that this was not a place for gays to show off their stiffies to one another. (or words to that effect.)
Some people TOOK offense at that statement and we have had at least one member (no pun intended) leave because of it. On his leaving the site was accused of being homophobic and intolerant. I take this accusation personally, (but am NOT deeply offended), and I replied although the thread and my reply was erased, so I want to repost the same message here for posterity and for clarity.
I probably am homophobic, and I think I have reasonable reason for being so. This is not a PC site, as the http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/ makes abundantly clear. I feel the hue and cry over whether I am permitted to express my provably correct opinion, (that the majority of erections posted on this site, before being moderated out, are gay-to-gay oriented), is over dramatically presented as an outrage against the poor and hard done by gay community. There is nothing to be outraged about, the statement stands as a true factual statement on a demonstrably non-PC site, and everyone understands this by reading the http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/ before registering.
I was also accused of being intolerant. While this is certainly possible, (I am only human), I do take pointed exception to this charge. Tolerance is putting up with something you DO NOT LIKE. On this site, I might not like, but I TOLERATE gay posts, gay and LBGT groups and gay content. On this site, I might not like all sorts of posts and opinions, but I TOLERATE them as everyone has a right to their point of view and to post appropriate material here. The important point here is one of freedom of choice.
Walking off in a huffy, huff, huff, when someone says something you disapprove of, is demonstrably INTOLERANT, and smacks of peer pressure bullying, using one's presence (or absence) as emotional blackmail, along the lines of: unless you do as they say, they will leave.
I repeat: being TOLERANT does not mean kowtowing to emotional blackmail, being TOLERANT does mean putting up with something you DO NOT LIKE, like an adult.