Meet Model Hannah Davis on the cover of the 2015 Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition. What do you think? Many are calling this cover photo “pornographic” and “too sexual.” This leads to an interesting question about which is more explicit: a man or woman wearing nothing at all or wearing very little?
After coming back from a week at Orient Beach in St. Maarten, I can honestly say I’ve been around hundreds of naked and partially clothed men and women. I’ll admit when my wife and I first started going to clothing optional beaches and resorts, I would have said that a naked body was more explicit than one covered by swim trunks or bikini. While it wasn’t a physical turn on to see my wife naked, it certainly was mentally. She looked then and still does today stunning with nothing on.
To me this is actually one of the many misconceptions about nude beaches and nudist resorts. Is the human body beautiful? Yes, it can be. Have I seen attractive women and men on a nude beach? Of course, but to be honest, the only times I’ve ever caught myself staring at someone is when they were wearing very little. As I saw at Orient Beach, the only time a couple attracted any attention from others was when they were clothed and often the barely there thongs and bikinis were far more explicit than a naked body.
I do understand that many women are more comfortable wearing a thong or small bikini. My wife included. When she was walking to the beach bar or bathroom, she wore a thong bikini that I bought for her specifically for this trip. Did she attract attention? I loved it but I have no idea if anyone else “noticed” her more in her thong than when she was naked.
This is a topic that is often discussed. So what do you think? This is just my opinion. Here are several comments/suggestions that have been sent to me. Great thoughts and observations:
From A Naturist’s Lens @ http://skycladtherapy.wordpress.com
I agree with you that nearly nude is far more sexual than nude, especially in the context that one is aware of cloth touching intimately, highlighting that intimacy. Nudity is less so for both the person who would wear next to nothing and the person who sees next to nothing framing the zones of sexuality. Thanks for bringing up the topic. 🙂
From jochanaan1 @ http://jochanaan.wordpress.com
Context and body language are everything. You don’t expect sex in a nudist gathering or even on a nude beach; but you expect at least sensuality in a “strip club” or certain other events. And when we see nudity or near-nudity where we don’t expect it, as on the street, in a workplace, or on church, we don’t know what to expect, so our cultural conditioning starts up and we think sexual thoughts–at least for a moment. But, as many of us have found, what was conditioned in can be conditioned out. 🙂
From naturalian @ http://naturalian.wordpress.com
To me, having on very small garments like thongs or micro bikinis is far more suggestive than being completely naked – it concentrates the eye on the parts that are (just) concealed! That’s why I hate clothed beaches, all those scaps of different cloured cloth detract from the naturalness of the beach!
From Bruce @ http://www.sffb.com
As TA Wyner once said, “When bathing suits get tinier, the eye naturally goes straight to what is still covered. When people are naked, nakedness becomes natural, and eyes go straight to eyes.” The SI cover photo is clearly NOT pornographic. There is nothing sexual happening. The vagina and clitoris are still covered. It’s nothing but a big tease for guys to entice them to buy the mag. Sexy? Yes. Porn? Hell no.
Great points. What do you think?