In naturism size doesn’t matter

This might sound weird but I think it’s true.

A man can be big and strong and impressive, but in the nude that doesn’t matter. The only thing that seems to matter (for those who don’t understand naturism) are the bits of a person that can be seen that are usually hidden.

Indeed, these bits are genitals and female breasts. Naturists know that people come in all shapes and sizes. Being naked, there’s hardly a way around that unless you’re visually handicapped, and even then a person is probably aware of that. (If you have other experiences, please share, I’m genuinely curious.)

These are the ‘problem parts’ for the non-understanding ones. For the people who lived in the repressed environment of clothialism, so to speak.

For me this is another indication that the whole clothing-obsessed world is wrong. The clothialists get further and further away from nature and all things natural, including their own bodies. I have heard stories about people who are so ‘body conscious’ that they don’t even dare to be nude in their own home, when they’re alone and no one can see them.

Isn’t that sad?

People who shower in their underwear. How awful to even consider that.

And for exactly those same repressed people, the size of a penis, a behind or some breasts matters. As if that defines a person. Certifiably bonkers, I tell you. That is now how naturists define people. Because, in naturism, size doesn’t matter. I know big people and tiny people, and they’re beautiful people. I know “beautiful” people who are downright ugly on the inside.

Size doesn’t matter.

People are people.

Do you agree?

The question in genital. (a.k.a. Picture this.)

You have probably come across this kind of picture: low camera stand-point, ‘model’ sitting straight for the camera, legs spread, full frontal view of the genitals and, oh, right, the rest of the model is there too.

Lynx browser

Seen it? Yes? I thought so. No? Where have you lived all these years, or are you browsing the web using Lynx?

This is almost the kind of picture I am referring to. Sorry people who are hoping for a full frontal shot of my penis, it’s not in the cards for you today.

Maybe it’s just me, but images that show naturists and nudists who feel the need to spread their legs and show their genital area take things a bit too far. Many of such shots can be done without creating pictures that can be adopted for the porn industry.

There is not always a need (if at all) to show ‘the goods’ just to prove you’re entirely naked. As in the image up there. If people want to kid themselves into thinking I was secretly wearing boxer shorts (urgh!) and I carefully hid them, so be it. They are not the audience I have my blog for anyway.

Right. This is my take on things. What is yours? Do you think that the emphasis on genitals, even when it’s perhaps not intentional, is necessary to show nudity?

Simply selecting a different position of the camera will already do a great job on taking the emphasis to the entire body, not just the genital area.

As usual I am curious about your ideas, experiences and visions.

Have a great, nude day, everyone!