Crossing a line.
When rules are set, someone will always challenge them.
It is fair to say that there are many different interpretations of what naturism is and what it isn’t. I accept that my definition is just one of a multitude, but after many years in the naturist community, I can arguably say that my interpretation is shared by many, perhaps the majority of people who consider themselves naturists.
Many of you will know that I am active on several naturist platforms and some of you will have seen some of my contributions to those sites.
One site, Nude Revolution, is one of my go-to places for naturist content. It is behind a paywall, which keeps the content largely in line with my ideals about naturism, nudity and sex, a line that is often blurred on free-access sites.
A post recently went up on Nude Revolution reminding people of the guidelines around posting images, specifically semi-erect close-ups or “show-off” pictures of genitals. It seems that more of these “aroused” images were being posted under the banner of naturism.
Such pictures, while common on many free sites where naturists are just one group of people trying to find their community, are far less common on dedicated naturist sites that sit behind a paywall.
As these dedicated sites become more popular and accept more and more people into their walled haven, more people are willing to push the boundaries. In these paywalled communities, naturists are quicker to call out the images as inappropriate for the specific platform.
I accept that everyone’s definition of naturism is different and that many have a clear line between simple nudity and sexual content. In contrast, others consider sex and arousal as a natural part of the human condition.
I am not here to argue the merits of either stance or to say that those with a more liberal view are wrong. They are not. Sex and arousal are part of the human condition. The intimacy and pleasure that people get from their versions of sexuality and within the confines of their relationships is absolutely something to celebrate and cherish. A loving and fulfilled sex life is something that everyone should have access to and is part of what completes us as human beings.
I salute anyone who finds happiness and sexual satisfaction no matter their gender identity, persuasion or kink. Only you know what makes you happy and if you find your happiness, then I take my hat off to you.
As far as sharing that aspect of one's life, I am less convinced that it needs to be displayed on naturist social media, and I am certain that it doesn’t belong to the definition of naturism that I, and many others, subscribe to.
Naturist sites, especially those behind a paywall, tend to be very clear about the exceptions and the boundaries of contributions to their platform. Most of these sites have been created specifically to focus on non-sexual nudity and to keep out the more sexualised content, something that millions of naturists prefer not to see in their community.
I accept that not all naturists are opposed to such content, and I often see comments encouraging people to push boundaries, but there are other sites that cater to the more extreme content.
For the significant group of people who prefer non-sexualised images of nudity, the people who have gone to the trouble, and cost, to create or join these naturist social media sites, their definition of naturism is one of non-sexual content.
It seems that there are many people out there who have seen naturism as a possible gateway to getting into picture-sharing and making connections online to satisfy their particular sexual needs.
Some from other niche communities seem unaware of the non-sexual element of social nudity and think that they have found a community that will let them engage in their fantasies without judgement.
Naturists often consider themselves some of the most non-judgemental people that there are, but cross a line and sexualise their nudism and you will find out just how judgemental they can be.
As a moderator for the Naturism feed on Bluesky (the one with the Naturist symbol), hardly a day goes by when someone is not added to my growing list of accounts that do not fit my definition of social nudism.
You may think that I am being harsh, but my feed, my rules. Accounts showing guys aroused and intimate with some guy in a leather pup mask or a furry costume, with the words “what I would get up to at a nudist camp” do not fit the definition of social nudity that I subscribe to. Judging by the post on Nude Revolution asking people to be more in line with their posting guidelines, I would suggest that I am not alone in my attitude.
I read somewhere that boundaries don't keep others out, they only fence you in. I have reached a stage in my life where I am happy to be fenced in with others who share my attitudes about non-sexual social nudity.
"When someone oversteps your boundaries, they're letting you know that what you want doesn't matter."
Phil Good - musician
Thank you for reading. Have a comfortable day.
Sex and arousal ARE a natural part of the human condition. The real question is: What does the blog's readership want? What do they expect?
That is why paywalled nudist publications don't have erections or closeup dick shots. You wouldn't pay the money to join a specifically nonsexual site if you wanted those sorts of things. If one did show up, a moderator would probably quickly nix it.
Nudist sites that are free but still have a membership depend entirely on the moderators to keep the riff-raff out. In this case, the site may or may not retain a strictly nudist nature. It drifts according to what the viewership wants and what the moderators care about. They may be more inclined to let the "borderline" stuff in because they live and die by views and interactions.
And there are fake "nudist" sites that cater to the exhibitionist/voyeur crowd.
None of these have the slightest impact on the general textile community. They don't go there.
If you participate in free range nudity, there are sometimes erections; some intentional, some unintentional. Some guys don't understand nudist etiquette, some figure it doesn't apply then and there, and some are just there to flaunt it. I see guys sporting wood at the Bare to Breakers, opening night at Nude Art LA, and sometimes remote hot springs. I am neither threatened nor offended. Neither are most of the textiles present.
What irritates me in general are are the "See me? I'm naked!" shots that aren't sexually explicit but leave me wondering why they posted the photo. Often shot in a bedroom or bathroom in the mirror. Just sitting on a bed or a sofa. Or done with a selfie stick and carefully angled to get the genitals in a corner.
Where's the story? Why should I be interested? You don't need to "prove you're one of us" that way. I'll take your word for it. Use nude photos to tell a story or as an expression of artistry, not just so we know you were naked, at some point. But that's an aesthetic objection, not a moral one.
Absolutely correct! A group of people who gather to socialise together without clothing (call it a club, if you like) should be seen as no more sexualised than any other special interest club - a motorcycle club, a tennis club, a book club, etc. The difficulty that naturist or other clothes-free groups have to deal with is the mindset that associates a naked person with sex - that as soon as a person sees another naked human, that image is used as a sexual turn-on. I would go so far as to suggest that it is the tradition of wearing clothes to "hide one's modesty" that is largely responsible for the absence of clothing making the naked human form into a sexual object. As one who has been brought up from childhood in an environment where being naked is commonplace, and the wearing of clothes is a matter of choice and comfort and not compulsory, I've been fortunate to have received a sexuality that isn't automatically triggered by simply seeing a naked person. I believe the same applies to those indigenous tribal groups that have not been affected by western culture - they happily go about their daily lives naked as their normal state. Clothing causes the "forbidden fruit" effect of fantasizing over what is hidden. Then the sudden absence of clothes allows that fantasy to manifest.