Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Private Parts

I have a sort of 'thought of the day' to share regarding what we think of private parts. As a nudist, I'm used to the common idea that a nude human body isn't sexual unless used as such, or more realistically until someone opens their legs. I've become used to censoring certain images that may be labelled as naturist photos, but depict women with spread legs or show a clear view of the labia because these are undeniably sexual photos...or so I thought until recently.

Look at this picture:

She's spreading her legs, her labia is exposed, thus this must not be appropriate as a naturist photo. But really, she's just practicing ballet, which is a beautiful thing in itself, but to perform nude exposes the human body for the magnificent machine that it is. Ballet shows what the human body is capable of and the flexibility and muscles required. This photo is beautiful, so what about that exposed genitalia? Well that's where I conclude that it's not vulgar at all, and I suggest we rethink our naturist views of the human body.

What about this photo:

She's spreading her legs, yet she's in nature and has a wonderful smile on her face suggesting her comfort with her body and her happiness from enjoying nature naturally. Of course that's not what the photo was taken for, but the whole point of naturism is to not let the evil of the world taint the human body and label it as unclean and strictly sexual. So why should such an amazing photo be cast off as porn because of her seating position?

And here's the photo that got me thinking in the first place:

This photo was originally plucked from what I used to label as a pornographic site masquerading as an ode to the female form. What their true intentions are may forever be a mystery, but the fact of the matter is that their photos really do portray wonderful beauty, and they shouldn't be labelled as pornographic just because genitals are clearly exposed. This photo shows a playful and happy woman on the beach enjoying herself. There's not a damn thing wrong with that.

My thought pattern is this: if naturists feel that the human body is natural and beautiful, then why are we still labelling certain parts of the body as unclean or sexual. I know that's not really what we're trying to do, it's not even what we say out loud, it's just a common idea among the naturist crowd to suggest that a clear view of a woman's genitals is sexual. I disagree and say that as true nudists and naturists we should respect, admire, and accept every body part for the natural and wonderful beauty they possess. Overweight, underweight, tall, short, round, pear, thin, etc. Everybody is beautiful no matter what we've been given, and every part of our body is wonderful and not sexual until we use it as such, regardless of how we choose to expose it.


  1. Great post. It's really a matter of context, perspective and intent. In photographs, we can't always know the perspective or intent of the subject or the photographer, or the context in which it was taken. All we know is how we view it and the context in which we place it.

    In the course of our daily lives we assume many positions without any conscious thought. Why should these same positions be interpreted any differently just because we're unclothed? In a nudist setting we don't really concern ourselves about whether or not our "private" parts are exposed. In our world, they're pretty much "public" parts.

  2. Some people find leather boots sexual. Others breasts and buttocks. Which is why some people find all pictures of naked people unacceptable, whereas others think differently. It all depends on (a) context (b) the viewer, which is why we will never all agree.

  3. The 3rd picture seems perfectly natural to me. The 2nd picture looks natural but makes me think it was made for porn. Maybe I'm just cynical. The 1st picture just looks terribly uncomfortable.