Erections are to nudist as nudity is to textiles.An erection is a normal reaction of a body. But I don't think we should make photos of it and show them around here. That is something on the border between nudism and pornography. Those photos prevent many people to join nudism.
Textiles see nudity as being sex -- pure and simple. Nudists see erections as being sex -- pure and simple.
Both groups are wrong. And there's nothing wrong with sex.
Further, any part of the body (hair, face, hands, feet, knees) that is deemed inappropriate for public viewing becomes objectified and sexualized. Nudists unnecessarily and inappropriately objectify and sexualize erections.
Deal with inappropriate behavior and ignore the physical phenomenon. Even if an erection is, in fact, sexually induced, no one is harmed by it and no one is harmed by seeing it.
An erection is a normal reaction of a body. But I don't think we should make photos of it and show them around here. That is something on the border between nudism and pornography. Those photos prevent many people to join nudism.
It depends on what the photo is showing. Any picture of a naked human being is objectification in our media culture and most non nudists see all the pictures as pornographic. I definitely think that cutting the body into close ups on organs or areas is pornographic but if you're suggesting that the pictures with one hard one soft means that the former is pornographic but the latter is not then I don't understand how that is determined.
Do you consider a close up of a face to be pornographic?It depends on what the photo is showing. Any picture of a naked human being is objectification in our media culture and most non nudists see all the pictures as pornographic. I definitely think that cutting the body into close ups on organs or areas is pornographic but if you're suggesting that the pictures with one hard one soft means that the former is pornographic but the latter is not then I don't understand how that is determined.
Did you know that some societies do consider the face to be sexual and that a close up of a face is (within the context of such a society) pornographic. The face is no more, or less, sexual than genitals. In fact, in societies that consider faces or feet to be sexual, genitals are not considered sexual at all.
In societies in which total nudity is the norm, no area of the body is considered sexual and pornography is entirely unheard of. This should be the case with nudist/naturist societies. However, in most cases, this is not true. We live within societies that objectify and sexualize genitals and carry those false attitudes and beliefs with us (albeit, to a lesser degree).
Prior to my first visit to my local nude beach I had been very 'excitedly nervous' and when the day came, the thrill and excitement of being openly nude in public got the better of me and I was instantly erect. I probably stayed that way for about the first half hour I was there, until finally settling down. It was an amazing day though and I have to admit even now, getting a beach erection is an amazing feeling :-).
I'm loving seeing all the wonderful erections on here! It's always nice to see one 'pop up' :-)!
Erections should be celebrated, not shamed.Prior to my first visit to my local nude beach I had been very 'excitedly nervous' and when the day came, the thrill and excitement of being openly nude in public got the better of me and I was instantly erect. I probably stayed that way for about the first half hour I was there, until finally settling down. It was an amazing day though and I have to admit even now, getting a beach erection is an amazing feeling :-). I'm loving seeing all the wonderful erections on here! It's always nice to see one 'pop up' :-)!
There is nothing more manly/masculine than a completely nude man with a totally erect cock.
And that's really the problem. Maleness and masculinity tend to be shamed in our society. Male is bad.
Nota Bene. I answer questions based on what circulates in the culture in question. Photography is really tricky because there's the question of whether all pictures of people aren't in a certain manner, pornographic. The word implies a very intense dissection and objectification of bodies and the erotic exaggeration of features and clothing that is commercialized and fetishized. This is also advertisement. The argument for what the image is doing is old and it goes from iconoclasm to iconomania: from the breaker of images to the mad obsession with images. We pretend to be the former in mainstream society but we are the latter overwhelmingly. I have a preference for full body and not parts.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!