Moderating TN Photos - an insight
I have set up this thread as a result of a very thoughtful and respectful message I have received from a TN member. I am quoting the message below - the member has asked not to be identified for reasons which will be obvious, but please post any responses you feel you can make to the points he raises on this discussion thread.
It was with great interest that I read your posts in the group Women Only Nudist Discussion. It is interesting to get a woman's viewpoint on some of these issues. I am writing directly to you because I do not want to intrude on the woman's only site. One of the issues you discussed was how men and women appear differently in photos if they are standing or lying down. You have basically hit on a dilemma that I experience frequently. I am one of the photo moderators for TN and I am one of those who approve of or delete certain photos. Yes, men can be shown from almost any angle and there is no problem. About the only reason that I reject a man's photo is if he has an erection. Women's photos, on the other hand can be difficult to decide weather to save or reject. If a woman is in a natural position either sitting or lying down, I approve the pic even though her private parts are fully exposed. Some times you see the labia, the inner labia, the clitoral hood and I believe on some women, the clitoris. Even though some people may be aroused by such photos, I approve these pics because this is the natural woman. She is not doing anything that would make the pic unacceptable. God made her that way so who am I to disapprove? On the other hand if a woman is sitting in an un-natural, spread eagle position, I reject the photo because I believe it was meant more for arousal than just being a nudist. The woman may be doing it more for a joke more than anything else, but it gets tossed. Action photos of women such as yoga of dancing may show a lot of her anatomy but these are usually approved also. Now you know some of the criteria that I use for approving or deleting photos but I am not the only one doing this so I can't speak for others. If you, or any of your other lady friends, have any suggestions to help me in this endeavor, I would appreciate hearing them.
His reason for wishing to remain anonymous is understandable but he is able to see the posts and will be very interested to read any replies you care to make.
Pamela
I have no complaints about the women's photos, although I suppose the issue there is the photos that are rejected. I see a lot of men's photos that are meant to bring the penis very front and center and that seems a little distracting.
I am so glad I ran into this post. It really shines a big bright light on the abject IGNORANCE frequently displayed by the moderators of this site. I realize the rant I'm about to go on will probably get me permanentely banned but I don't care. These things need to be said and I know I can't be the only one who thinks this way. The reason this person (and I use that word loosely) wants to remain anonymous is probably because he realizes that his thoughts are not only stupid but also bigoted and wishes to avoid ridicule. Well get ready cause I got a handful for ya. First of all he freely admits that the ONLY way a photo of a man get rejected is due to an erection. This has always puzzled me on a nudist site. In the post he references god and how he (allegedly) made us. Well, I've got news for ya. I happen to be a younger gentleman and just because my penis is erect doesn't make it sexual. Yes, an erect penis is necessary for copulation but a wind shift or change in barometric pressure often has the same effect on me. He also mentions that seeing the different parts of the vagina might envoke arousal but he approves them anyway and then brings up god. Aren't you nobile? I think this guy is actually afraid of arousal. Let me tell you something buddy, a nice titty shot can do the same thing. Being aroused, sex, all these things are completely natural and I for one refuse to be embarrassed or ashamed because of it. Getting laid is the first thing this guy should probably go do. I won't go into the myriad of reasons why that probably can't happen. Lastly I am thoroughly offended by his language reguarding the natural and "unnatural" way a woman sits. I know I have at least one photo in my profile where I'm spread eagle and genitals fully exposed and no one has a problem. What just because my junk takes up a little more space, that's considered natural? SO OFFENSIVE! You should be ashamed. I'm ashamed for you. In closing I would just like to say I know I've been hard on this individual but his entire attitude represents everything that is WRONG about a site that is supposed to be open, progressive full of freethinkers with open minds. What a joke. I'm beginning to think all the moderators are ignorant homosexuals. Not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual, it's the ignorance I'm having trouble with. Am I alone?
The moderator's incite is interesting and informative. He certainly does not deserve any criticism. I appreciate it is hard to tell whether a woman's pose is natural or with sexual intend, whereas an erection is very obvious. As a Grower I had found some of my photos censored with the member just a bit enlarged, even though it was hanging down. An erection can, and does, occur naturally without sexual stimulation. Does it need to be photographed? I have had some unfortunate reactions when being photographed by a lady. The, perfectly good, photos cannot be used here. I'm actually happy with that. Those who want to show erections can use the TrueSwingers sister site.
There is at least one other reason photos are censored. That is if the genitals are visible whilst the face is covered or absent. It is a very strict rule both here and on TS, and a rule I agree with. I actually edited out my genitals from this recently uploaded photo so it would not be removed.
The original photo is below. Spot the difference
Some recent uploads awaiting approval. The photos are not posed and in all cases the views are completely natural - no angling to change the viewpoint, just what anyone might see walking past. I am just a nude woman being relaxed and uninhibited. To me that is nudity - all my body is nude and and I have no concerns about any part of my anatomy being seen. I would not wish to feel constricted to "modest" poses to avoid the possibility of causing offence to people who ought to know better - nudity is a completely naked body.
Looking forward to receiving comments!
Pamela
I agree Pamela, no parts of the anatomy should be off limits the only question is whether the picture is intended to stimulate sexual arousal and while I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that it's something this site appears to want to restrict. Of course the difficulty is that even perfectly innocent pictures may cause sexual arousal and hence the line is blurry.
A agree to Pamela, no part of the body should be hidden. But (dare I say it) doesn't that include the head/face? Normally when we click on an icon in one of these threads a full picture comes up. When I clicked on yours above it didn't work. Have you been hit by the censors?
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!