Why Not that other site?

I have deleted distracting language that I hoped to use as an example of why our recruiting efforts fail. It was misleading and I apologize. The issue is not naturist vs nudist but the discussion about the division.

I also erred on using an American idiom that was completely misunderstood and taken literally. It is gone.
Food for Thought
What are we missing? We are looking for ways to expand the public knowledge of a clothing free lifestyle and for ways to attract younger people yet the discussions often center about what defines a true nudist or naturist.

The general public doesn't care about that.

Then we wonder why the younger generation isn’t joining.
We claim that the body is natural not shameful. All the various parts are natural not shameful. We the unclothed then show pictures of fit men and women with their genitals visible but then sometimes hidden. Having restricted the showing of genitals, ourselves, we condemn a worldwide, popular, on-line social platform reaching millions of people, complaining that this particular website does not allow total nudity but has some of the body hidden. That site just like this site banned genitals. I call it hypocritical horror.

Then we wonder why the younger generation isn’t joining this drama laden bunch of old purists.

I am still on Facebook. It is international and goes to countries that ban nudity completely. They cannot show photos that the Naktiv site shows but they can show nudists living and playing. My page is mostly limited to family for identification security but I do have friends, old and new. I post censored photos. Genitals are not visible but people know they are there. The photos show me having fun, living nude, naked and unclothed but you can’t see those shamed parts. There are several nudist groups on the site yet I post my photos in my home page.
I uploaded (or downloaded???) the photos to the Naktiv site for your benefit.They are mostly duplicates of what is onsite already.

30 thoughts on “Why Not that other site?”

  1. You do what you can when you can and where you can. If Facebook is insanely popular, you create a presence there. If Facebook doesn't let you show certain bits, so what? It isn't your policy, it is theirs. Naturism/nudism or whatever you chose to call it isn't about looking for penises and breasts. If the people are obviously nude and enjoying life and either artfully posed or pixilated, they are still obviously nude and enjoying life.

    Facebook isn't anti-naturist, they are pro-profit. They know their audience. Banning certain bits increases their market share far more than allowing those bits would. If large numbers of people didn't find those bits uncomfortable for them or their children to view, Facebook wouldn't care.

    Everybody knows what nipples and genitalia look like, so while Facebook's rules may be stupid, Facebook does have the right to create stupid rules. Everyone knows what Facebook's rules are re. nudity, so no need to explain anything. You take the message to the audience and make it fit the venue. You don't force the audience to hunt down the message so you can remain purists.

    • I think that if anyone was just 'interested' in naturists and they were concerned about what their friends might think of that 'interest', they would prefer to look anywhere but Facebook. They would seek a place that has all the information they want (or access to it) & contact with other naturists. I doubt if they would publicise their interest initially on FB.
      From my own viewpoint, I stand by what I have previously said, I will not use Facebook again!

  2. Yes T.L.Lim. You got it entirely correct. That was my point and I appreciate your explanation. You made one point that I will address later.
    Patrick: I have no right to criticize your right to join or disavow any group you choose. That is a given. If I didn't have so much family on it, ninety-five percent 3000 miles away, I might leave it.

    Yes I mentioned naturists and nudists. I did so because I very often read words similar to <welcome to this naturist site> or <this photo is or is not a naturist photo>.

    In other words they are welcome only if they are naturists or act like a naturist acts.
    This type of admonishment is written frequently. I feel it is an attempt to scare away people who are neither Nats nor Nuds but simply interested in unclothed living.
    It is either that or simply bad manners and not good for the Naktiv site.

    Returning to Facebook, they have rules. the Naktiv site has rules. We discuss them often. People are expected to honor the rules or suffer the consequences. The same on f-b. As T.L.Lim says

    "Many of us who have bad experiences with Facebook will of course rave and rant against Facebook."
    I have read of many people having been chilled or banned there because they posted forbidden photos in private places. They are not allowed. period

    Post photos on Facebook and spread the word that nude fun is healthy and good for you.

    • Although I don't like Facebook for its firm anti-naturist stance, I have to be realistic about it. My censored nude photos on Facebook are far more effective than all the uncensored openly natural nude pics on all the other naturist-friendly sites. All my textile friends and my entire church will never visit the Naktiv site or any naturist website. Posting on these sites are great because we tell more naturists about what's going on in NEWT, etc but it doesn't have that "evangelistic" impact because do you think the people in collars in my church will ever visit a naturist website? Even some of my friends who I thought were naturist-friendly and to whom I gave links to my blogs appear to be more interested in engaging in childish teasing when they visit my blog. But non-naturists generally do not visit a naturist site. But they do go to Facebook regularly.

  3. Sorry! I used the very common American term “good parts". I thought it would translate. It did not.

    It implies the common nudist comment "all of the body is good". I thought it was ironic and satirical. Of course all parts are good. The American public ironically call the banned portion of the body “THE GOOD PARTS” because those are the interesting parts that are banned from public view there-by making them “DIRTY” and more desirable to see as the “GOOD PARTS”. It is not a moral or judgmental statement. It is an idiom.

    There was no discussion of nudist Vs naturist! None.

    Please forget the words good parts and think I used the more cumbersome “Female breasts and genitals of both sexes".

    Now please address "the point".

    How does not posting help?
    The point being that "censored photos" not showing “Female breasts and genitals of both sexes will reach more people with the good, clean fun experience of clothes-freedom than not posting censored photos because "they won't let me post what I want to post, “Female breasts and genitals of both sexes. whah whah whine."
    You are all running away from my question!!!!!!!!!! Excuses followed by misdirection.
    No one is addressing the point of the blog.
    Yes. As the owner of the Naktiv site has pointed out over and over You have to obey the rules!

    • Nobody is running away from your question. But let's get your question right. There is always a huge linguistic divide between the US and the rest of the world so I hope you will indulge me if I spend some time clarifying the issues. This is how I read what you are saying and if I am incorrect, please let me know: you are saying that since Facebook doesn't allow nude photos unless the genitals are censored, surely posting censored photos would be good because they will reach many more people who don't normally go to nudity-friendly sites. Am I correct here?

      If that is what you are saying, then of course you are right. Many of us who have bad experiences with Facebook will of course rave and rant against Facebook and in the process, we may fail to address your point but you are correct. Posting censored photos on Facebook is a great outreach. That was how I managed to inform my entire church that I was a naturist. I posted nude photos of me and a group of naturists having decent fun in the nude beside the Pacific Ocean but I used photoshop to censor the breasts and genitals. But I made it clear that the censoring was done to comply with Facebook rules and I did not at all endorse the ludicrous belief that the human body was evil and obscene. That was how EVERYONE knew I was a naturist. I referred friends who appeared naturist-friendly and who might be open to naturism to the Naktiv site and to my other blogs which are of course uncensored.

      So you are right about how we can use anti-nudity sites like Facebook to spread naturism.

    • Greg; I decided to leave Facebook for the reasons I have stated and although I fully understand your thoughts and opinions about this course of action I stand by my decision. I do understand what my friends say on here and will defend their rights to do so, but my opinions are just that, mine.
      Secondly let me quote you, ". Naturists differ from nudists in that Naturists try to live as one with nature. Nudists just take their clothes off". So you did bring that into the discussion, though you say you didn't.
      Whatever your opinions Greg I will also defend your rights to express them, but we all need to be clear on what we feel about naturism and how we get that across to the rest of the human population.

  4. I do agree that there are no "good parts" and "dirty parts" on a human body! Everything is exactly as is intented to be and nothing more or less. I propose for all of us who think that nudism is as natural as breathing, to share our naked photos here or elsewhere, where it is permitted like tumblr, wordpress, flickr and twitter. This is a way for the younger generation to join nudism if they like to do so!

    • This is precisely what I've been saying till I'm blue in the face. The Internet is filled with pornography and hardly any decent nudity. Because of this, it's natural for the world to be misled into thinking that any nudity must be pornographic. We the enlightened people who know that nudity itself is decent should look upon it as our duty to flood the internet with our own decent nude pics. That's what I've been doing on twitter, tumblr, wordpress, flickr, vk and vimeo. I do it on google plus too and so far it seems ok although I think google can be difficult but it's still not as bad as Facebook and Instagram which absolutely hate the human anatomy. Of course naturist sites such as this are excellent for posting our photos but here, it's preaching to the choir. What I find really terrible are people who call themselves naturists but who are extremely ashamed of posting their own photos and when they do, they hide their faces or genitals. I'm so glad the Naktiv site has a rule that forbids the hiding of the face if the genitals can be seen. It's this kind of ambivalent behaviour that allows the world to conclude that nudity must be embarrassing and indecent. Otherwise why are people who call themselves naturists so ashamed of their own nudity? Naturist websites that carefully censor their own photos by only posting photos of naturists from the back are also harming the naturist cause without realising it. Again, the Naktiv site is exemplary in that it doesn't do that. It shows a group of people hiking in the nude quite naturally. People aren't turning their backs to the camera the way many naturist sites depict. What I really want is for naturists to behave in a manner that is consistent with their own supposed philosophy – treat nudity as absolutely natural. If we take a lot of selfies when we're clothed and post them online why should we suddenly become hesitant about taking selfies and posting them online when we are nude? If we take photos of ourselves from the front when we're clothed, why should we turn our backs to the camera when we are nude? The world will never treat nudity as natural and normal if we who call ourselves naturists don't do that in the first place. I used to flush the internet with photos of me doing mundane things naked such as feeding my fish, reading a book, etc until I realised it was getting pretty boring. Hiking photos with beautiful scenery are of course the best. They show the world how natural nudity is and because of the background scenery, they also show how beautiful the naturist world is.

  5. I started posting naturist photos on Facebook and nothing happened. For a long while. That was because I made the photos visible only to a group I created which I called 'Naturists'. And then because I have been posting on tumblr, wordpress, flickr and twitter the usual naturist photos that I post here without any trouble, I decided one day to post my photos because I was really too tired to censor them all the time for Facebook. And I made them available to friends, not just naturists. Nothing happened and I was beginning to think Facebook was quite ok with naturist photos until it struck one day. I could not log into my account and there was a notice that told me I had to delete all the photos that were not censored. Facebook called them obscene or sexually explicit photos. I deleted all the photos and I could log into my account again. And then I logged out again, deciding that I'd have less to do with it. I do not think of the genitals as the 'good parts' as you call them. I think all anatomical parts are the same. God created them (or nature formed them, depending on your religious persuasion). And if God created the body, every part is the same and no part should be demonised. God said his creation was 'good' after his act of creation. Facebook demonises the genitals. Facebook calls obscene what God calls good. I'm still on Facebook to connect with friends and family but it does not allow me to post a large part of my life. That's my only complaint but I agree it's still quite indispensable to me.

  6. If I am unclear and I am often,what I am asking is how does Not posting acceptable photos on arguably the most popular social site aid the cause of body freedom?
    Stating that one refuses to post just because they can't show as much as they would like does not help our cause.
    Again I have posted photos acceptable to the Host that present non-sexual unclothed fun.

  7. The discussion about nudist or naturist seems to be an inevitable and perennial item on here. There really is no conclusion that fits everyone universally, so the remaining point to get across worldwide is getting social nudity accepted in ANY location.
    I truly believe that every person has the rights to be naked within their own home premises without question, then the rights beyond our homes is something we just have to persist in getting. Whatever method, whatever the trials & battles we are just asking for a return to basic natural living. Naked people are not offensive, the 'disturbed & corrupted' thoughts in the brains of some viewers certainly is offensive. So objectors should question their own ideals more, perverts who perform various sex acts naked only serve to corrupt those already tainted objectors.

Leave a Comment

New Report