The way I see it, a profile pic is a greeting, something like a visual hello. It tells the viewer who you are. A genitalia-centric image tells the viewer that the most important thing for a viewer to see is your genitals. Probably not a good thing to do in a social media site intended for the general public.
Exactly my friend. My wife and I have seen your genitals and you ours but that's has nothing to do with our friendship and following each other, it's all about context and content. That said we values the nudity as a support vehicle as to how we live our lives.
It's a funny coincidence that you brought up this discussion today. Yesterday, I was listening to a Naked Age podcast and Petra Scheller was talking about how she ended up being in so many Going Natural publications because she was willing to share her photo and be public about her naturism. Then I started to think back to when I became a naturist in middle school and for lack of naturist friends sought out online communities where I could connect. I remember being in the chatrooms on "Netnude" and constantly coming across the "male-sitting-with-legs-wide-open-in-front-of-computer" profile pic. Honestly, it caused me a lot of turmoil as a young naturist. "Are these the people I'm trying to hang out with?" "Is this what the rest of the world will think of me if they find out I'm a naturist?"
Later in life, when I started bringing my wife to naturist resorts, we occasionally came across the live version of this. The men who would glare at her or if she was feeling uncomfortable and still wearing a suit (at a clothing optional place) who would shout "no bikinis on the beach." Now, I can understand those who might argue, these are not the same thing. But I think in both cases, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of naturism. Or maybe it's confounding naturism with exhibitionism.
Regardless, Jillian I appreciate that you started the discussion and that you tried to have the conversation with the man with the picture. I think I would have just blocked him from the start, but maybe it wouldn't have gotten the point across.
Unfortunately, online social media hardly ever treat naturist nudity differently from porn. Some like Facebook/Instagram don't allow it at all if any "naughty bits" (even female nipples) are in a photo. But traditional "art" (painting/sculpture) is usually OK. Twitter and Bluesky both disallow nudity in profile pics, but usually allow it in posts. Bluesky allows users to accept or refuse nudity in posts based on viewer preference. However, Bluesky will put a "label" on posts with any sort of nudity so people who don't want it won't see it. But such content decisions are usually made by "algorithms" - which may not be very good at telling "good" from "bad". It's a real shame that humans are even worse at making the distinction.
I'm only interested in seeing the head-and-shoulders in a profile picture. I think that should be a basic requirement. I would rather have genuine friends who are Christians, first and foremost, and then fathers, mothers, nudists, etc.
Agreed! Thank you for posting this. Coming from a man, I believe tasteful although nude pictures can be on your profile picture where you don’t have to display everything. It’s understood the person is nude if they claim to be a naturist. Be well!
I joined recently BS thanks to a previous post from you (Thanks!). It has been good to see many fellow nudists joined. After a couple of days I have been noticing that many other people, who tag themselves as nudists/naturists, but in reality they are just exhibitionists. I have no issues with the male or female bodies at all but what I believe it counts is intention. In XTwitter I had close to 9K followers but I’m sure that most of them were not true nudists/naturists.
Jill, I wasn’t aware of this focus of Bluesky but may give it deeper dive now that I am aware.
Naturism, naked, nude; all the same state of being in nature unclothed. I think the reasons people enjoy being naked are intensely personal and as varied as each individual personality. We all have our own reasons and get our own “things” from thinking about and being naked.
As long as each one of us is polite, respectful, thoughtful and don’t break any laws or rules, I believe we should all be able to exhibit our own personal concepts of naturism to any degree, in any we are comfortable. We will ultimately either attract or repel the number and type of people we are comfortable and happy with.
We all have the right and should try to commune as openly as possible with someone we feel an interest and attraction to. But this is just my thought,
When the internet first got going “nudity” was too often used as a synonym for porn, and it’s taken a lot of work to carve out a nudist/naturist identity on the web (ongoing work, I might add). In the same vein there are many males who think the “nudity” tag is an excuse to post dick pics. Reddit is certainly full of them and it sounds as though the same people have set out to colonise BlueSky. Pre-internet they’d have been lurking in parks, leaping out in front of unsuspecting passers-by and flashing their wares to get their jollies - now they can do it with an anonymous selfie. Sad little people.
If a profile picture contained a nude woman with legs spread, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. So, in fairness, I shouldn’t have a problem with a male doing the same.
So no matter where you meet someone new you should always cover your genitals? If you are looking in a nudist area you are going to see genitals, especially on a male.
Jillian is not objecting to the genitals, it's the focus on them. I gather that what she's trying to argue is that the one picture this individual chose to present to the world was an intentional centering of his genetalia, which IMO reveals a misunderstanding of naturism.
I have been active on Bluesky for a while (since before it became popular!) and have found the naturist community there very positive and interactive. The recent influx of high numbers of refugees from Twittter has not been without its challenges, not least an increase in folk who label themselves as 'naturist' yet whose feeds are highly exhibitionist in nature. I have been quite vocal about the distinction between naturism/nudism and sexualised behaviour, and believe it is important to be very clear about this if we are to make inroads into wider society, whereby non-sexual nudity can become more socially acceptable. As I have said, simply posting photos of one's penis (which many male nudists seem to enjoy doing) does not make one a 'naturist', and to use the tag for an account which is mainly given over to such displays does naturism a disservice. Which is not intended to be a puritanical, negative approach - I am not a prude, and sexuality is a very valid and positive part of human existence - but rather a pragmatic recognition that simply being naked is not in and of itself a sexual act, and it is perfectly possible to be naked in public without crossing any boundaries of propriety and decency.
With this in mind, profile pictures certainly set the tone for one's feed, and I agree it is helpful for genuine naturists to set a positive, non-threatening example of what will be found in their posts, without being overly confrontational - to hint at the nudity that may be found on a closer browse, rather than being blatantly in your face.
I was on BlueSky. I had a wide assortment of followers. I would say all embrace nudity, but not all are nudists. I left that platform because members can’t lock their account, thus anyone can see member’s profile page and anyone can add.
The way I see it, a profile pic is a greeting, something like a visual hello. It tells the viewer who you are. A genitalia-centric image tells the viewer that the most important thing for a viewer to see is your genitals. Probably not a good thing to do in a social media site intended for the general public.
Exactly my friend. My wife and I have seen your genitals and you ours but that's has nothing to do with our friendship and following each other, it's all about context and content. That said we values the nudity as a support vehicle as to how we live our lives.
T & K
It's a funny coincidence that you brought up this discussion today. Yesterday, I was listening to a Naked Age podcast and Petra Scheller was talking about how she ended up being in so many Going Natural publications because she was willing to share her photo and be public about her naturism. Then I started to think back to when I became a naturist in middle school and for lack of naturist friends sought out online communities where I could connect. I remember being in the chatrooms on "Netnude" and constantly coming across the "male-sitting-with-legs-wide-open-in-front-of-computer" profile pic. Honestly, it caused me a lot of turmoil as a young naturist. "Are these the people I'm trying to hang out with?" "Is this what the rest of the world will think of me if they find out I'm a naturist?"
Later in life, when I started bringing my wife to naturist resorts, we occasionally came across the live version of this. The men who would glare at her or if she was feeling uncomfortable and still wearing a suit (at a clothing optional place) who would shout "no bikinis on the beach." Now, I can understand those who might argue, these are not the same thing. But I think in both cases, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of naturism. Or maybe it's confounding naturism with exhibitionism.
Regardless, Jillian I appreciate that you started the discussion and that you tried to have the conversation with the man with the picture. I think I would have just blocked him from the start, but maybe it wouldn't have gotten the point across.
Unfortunately, online social media hardly ever treat naturist nudity differently from porn. Some like Facebook/Instagram don't allow it at all if any "naughty bits" (even female nipples) are in a photo. But traditional "art" (painting/sculpture) is usually OK. Twitter and Bluesky both disallow nudity in profile pics, but usually allow it in posts. Bluesky allows users to accept or refuse nudity in posts based on viewer preference. However, Bluesky will put a "label" on posts with any sort of nudity so people who don't want it won't see it. But such content decisions are usually made by "algorithms" - which may not be very good at telling "good" from "bad". It's a real shame that humans are even worse at making the distinction.
I'm only interested in seeing the head-and-shoulders in a profile picture. I think that should be a basic requirement. I would rather have genuine friends who are Christians, first and foremost, and then fathers, mothers, nudists, etc.
Agreed! Thank you for posting this. Coming from a man, I believe tasteful although nude pictures can be on your profile picture where you don’t have to display everything. It’s understood the person is nude if they claim to be a naturist. Be well!
I joined recently BS thanks to a previous post from you (Thanks!). It has been good to see many fellow nudists joined. After a couple of days I have been noticing that many other people, who tag themselves as nudists/naturists, but in reality they are just exhibitionists. I have no issues with the male or female bodies at all but what I believe it counts is intention. In XTwitter I had close to 9K followers but I’m sure that most of them were not true nudists/naturists.
Jill, I wasn’t aware of this focus of Bluesky but may give it deeper dive now that I am aware.
Naturism, naked, nude; all the same state of being in nature unclothed. I think the reasons people enjoy being naked are intensely personal and as varied as each individual personality. We all have our own reasons and get our own “things” from thinking about and being naked.
As long as each one of us is polite, respectful, thoughtful and don’t break any laws or rules, I believe we should all be able to exhibit our own personal concepts of naturism to any degree, in any we are comfortable. We will ultimately either attract or repel the number and type of people we are comfortable and happy with.
We all have the right and should try to commune as openly as possible with someone we feel an interest and attraction to. But this is just my thought,
Ron
I gather that nudity is specifically banned from profile pictures on BlueSky but is inconsistently policed.
Hmm. I didn't know that.
When the internet first got going “nudity” was too often used as a synonym for porn, and it’s taken a lot of work to carve out a nudist/naturist identity on the web (ongoing work, I might add). In the same vein there are many males who think the “nudity” tag is an excuse to post dick pics. Reddit is certainly full of them and it sounds as though the same people have set out to colonise BlueSky. Pre-internet they’d have been lurking in parks, leaping out in front of unsuspecting passers-by and flashing their wares to get their jollies - now they can do it with an anonymous selfie. Sad little people.
If a profile picture contained a nude woman with legs spread, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. So, in fairness, I shouldn’t have a problem with a male doing the same.
So no matter where you meet someone new you should always cover your genitals? If you are looking in a nudist area you are going to see genitals, especially on a male.
Jillian is not objecting to the genitals, it's the focus on them. I gather that what she's trying to argue is that the one picture this individual chose to present to the world was an intentional centering of his genetalia, which IMO reveals a misunderstanding of naturism.
I have been active on Bluesky for a while (since before it became popular!) and have found the naturist community there very positive and interactive. The recent influx of high numbers of refugees from Twittter has not been without its challenges, not least an increase in folk who label themselves as 'naturist' yet whose feeds are highly exhibitionist in nature. I have been quite vocal about the distinction between naturism/nudism and sexualised behaviour, and believe it is important to be very clear about this if we are to make inroads into wider society, whereby non-sexual nudity can become more socially acceptable. As I have said, simply posting photos of one's penis (which many male nudists seem to enjoy doing) does not make one a 'naturist', and to use the tag for an account which is mainly given over to such displays does naturism a disservice. Which is not intended to be a puritanical, negative approach - I am not a prude, and sexuality is a very valid and positive part of human existence - but rather a pragmatic recognition that simply being naked is not in and of itself a sexual act, and it is perfectly possible to be naked in public without crossing any boundaries of propriety and decency.
With this in mind, profile pictures certainly set the tone for one's feed, and I agree it is helpful for genuine naturists to set a positive, non-threatening example of what will be found in their posts, without being overly confrontational - to hint at the nudity that may be found on a closer browse, rather than being blatantly in your face.
So explicit!
I was on BlueSky. I had a wide assortment of followers. I would say all embrace nudity, but not all are nudists. I left that platform because members can’t lock their account, thus anyone can see member’s profile page and anyone can add.
id be happy to chat with you Jillian on there some time. have some questions and other thoughts..
Thanks for the thought. I had not yet put up a profile pic but your post encouraged me to do so.