Michael

Michael

Jodi
Jodi

July 2nd, 2004, 11:50 pm #1


I have been around this forum for a couple years and in the past, when we have seen a bombardment of postings that drifted to the more erotic side, things seemed to start getting funny!!!

As I am seeing and learning now, you are not one of these type of posters, you must simply have a lot of time on your hands and are furnishing a tremendous amount of information and corrospondence.

I am sorry for having any doubts.

Jodi

P.S. I have ran across a picture that is appropriate to our board but since it is not of me I have chosen not to post it.

If some of you think it is alright I may consider doing so.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 3rd, 2004, 12:08 am #2

Jodi, any picture that is consistent with breast freedom rights (brafree, topfree) is appropriate for BFF.

(I just don't think seductive lingerie falls into this category)
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 11th, 2004, 7:40 pm

July 3rd, 2004, 3:31 am #3

I have been around this forum for a couple years and in the past, when we have seen a bombardment of postings that drifted to the more erotic side, things seemed to start getting funny!!!

As I am seeing and learning now, you are not one of these type of posters, you must simply have a lot of time on your hands and are furnishing a tremendous amount of information and corrospondence.

I am sorry for having any doubts.

Jodi

P.S. I have ran across a picture that is appropriate to our board but since it is not of me I have chosen not to post it.

If some of you think it is alright I may consider doing so.
Dear Jodi,

Thank you for your comments, I know you basically to be a kind and thoughtful person.

I really have to bow to your experience on this one, as a relative new comer. Believe it or not I don't have the energy tonight to read all of your contributions over the last few years, or even all of the dialogue that deals with the issues you have raised.

However I would certainly like to see you expound further the notion, that posts that drift to the erotic start getting funny. I also take it from your string of !!!s, that you do not think that is such a bad thing. Fair enough.

Candidly, I am not convinced that dealing with the erotic is contrary to the mandate of this forum. It might not necessarily be the word (dealing with sexual pleasure) I might have chosen, in that I detect some negative feelings about it around here. Perhaps 'sexy' is not really different other than being more vernacular.

My viewpoint is that women are as entitled to appreciate and enjoy their sexuality whether bra-bound, bra-free or nude. It should have nothing to do with it. Naturists sometimes impose a new puritanism on us in their desparate desire to divorce nudity from sexuality. This is not very healthy since it tends to deny natural feelings. I detect some carry over from this into top freedom and bra freedom.

You will note in a recent response to Eiffel I state that I would hope that society has reached the point at which it has nothing to do with what you wear or do not wear, but how you behave that determines your acceptability.

Therefore, as I have said women should feel free to state how they feel, no matter how they are dressed, and not be made to feel ashamed of it. Being sexy can be funny just like anything else!

I don't know about time, perhaps priorities. This just so happens to be by far the most active group on the web dealing specifically with this issue.

I just happen to have done quite a lot of research on this topic for a number of other groups, and it is fairly easy to pull together. Frankly there is not a great deal that has been written about this subject, and what has, has been posted here numerous times.

Perhaps our greatest resource as a group is the personal experiences of our members. No apologies are necessary! However I am very open to questions or comments, as we all should be.

As far as posting your information, i would encourage you to do so. If it is useful, people will say so and use it, if not they won't but they can't tell till they have seen it. You know I will defend you if anyone is negative about it, other than constructively.

Couldn't be more 'off topic than TV intermodulation or haunted houses could it (grin).

Now Nat, 'seductive lingerie'! What, pray is that? Lingerie, literally linen undergarments worn by women, seems to occupy a good deal of people's attention here, one way or another. That is hardly surprising.

I have seen an awful lot of lingerie in my job, some of it very pretty, a lot of it pretty dull, and some of it hideous.

As I have already mentioned- is it the lingerie or the woman that is 'seductive'? While some people pay a lot for lingerie, my vote goes to the the latter category.

Cheers,

Michael



Reply
Like
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 3rd, 2004, 4:55 am #4

I think there is a very clear difference between functional UW and seductive lingerie.
And I don't think anyone would have trouble telling what comes from a prison laundry from what comes from Victoria's Secret.

And I really don't see why we are dealing with lingerie here at all in a forum where we content that even the basic bra is unnecessary. But we seem to be doing a lot of that lately.
Reply
Like
Share

Anudist
Anudist

July 3rd, 2004, 4:57 am #5

Jodi, any picture that is consistent with breast freedom rights (brafree, topfree) is appropriate for BFF.

(I just don't think seductive lingerie falls into this category)
If we are to be truly free:

We have to be willing to accept the views of others (no pun intended). Although we may not choose something for ourselves, who are we to take away someone elses freedom to express themselves however they see fit???

Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 3rd, 2004, 5:12 am #6

I didn't start BFF to be a place for horny men to get their jollies looking at pictures of women in lingerie.

If that's what they want there are plenty of porn sites on the net that will serve them well.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 11th, 2004, 7:40 pm

July 3rd, 2004, 12:58 pm #7

I think there is a very clear difference between functional UW and seductive lingerie.
And I don't think anyone would have trouble telling what comes from a prison laundry from what comes from Victoria's Secret.

And I really don't see why we are dealing with lingerie here at all in a forum where we content that even the basic bra is unnecessary. But we seem to be doing a lot of that lately.
And I am afraid I would have to disagree with that, Nat - see my definition in previous post. However I am sure the topic is of interest since you keep raising it.

Obviously I would concede that undergarments (lingerie) are no longer made exclusively from linen (lin)!

Let's start with the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Women's underwear. 2. Archaic Linen articles, especially garments.
ETYMOLOGY: French, from Old French, from linge, linen, from Latin lneus, made of linen, from lnum, flax. See lno- in Appendix I.

A word borrowed from French in order to give women’s underwear a more elegant name. (Columbia Guide to English Usage)

Linen goods collectively; linen underwear, esp. of women; the
clothing of linen and cotton with its lace, etc., worn by a
women. (Websters)

women's underwear and nightclothes. See Also: nightclothes, nightdress, nightgown, nightie, night-robe, nightwear, underclothes, underclothing, underwear, undies (WordNet)

"Undergarments, also called underwear, are clothes worn next to the skin, usually under other clothes. Wearing and changing underwear permits outer garments to be worn repeatedly without needing to be cleaned.

In addition to keeping outer garments from soiling, undergarments are worn for a variety of reasons: warmth, comfort and hygiene being the most common. Undergarments are often used for modesty or erotic display; sometimes both of these motivations are simultaneously present.

Undergarments can also have religious significance, as in the special garment worn by followers of the LDS Church (Mormons).

Wearing just underwear in public is considered an intermediate form between being socially acceptably dressed and being nude. Of course this does not apply for shirts and shorts that are suitable as underwear but also as outer clothes." (Wordtotally)

In essence anything worn under an outergarment, including chemises, camisoles, bas and other tops, corsets, underpants etc.

Anyone got a better definition? As far as I know the people who use this site are not full time nudists and do wear undergarments (lingerie). Some of them even wear bras from time to time.

Ergo, lingerie is of interest. See Michaela's latest photographs for example. Where did you get your outfit Michaela?

I don't actually remember either Prisons or Victoria'a Secrets being mentioned, however it is clearly of interest to this group that the latter got pulled of the air post Ms Jackson, since it reflects social attitudes.

Anyone else got any views on this?

Michael









Reply
Like
Share

niemand
niemand

July 3rd, 2004, 1:12 pm #8

If we are to be truly free:

We have to be willing to accept the views of others (no pun intended). Although we may not choose something for ourselves, who are we to take away someone elses freedom to express themselves however they see fit???
Freedom is a very over guarded, misused,abused and misunderstood concept. One can choose to harp on their right to freedom to do pretty much what ever they want as long as they can argue their point well enough. Just because a freedom exists doesn't necessarily mean it needs be exercised everywhere in that it may not be appropriate
In the 1970’s a neo Nazi group had won the right to march through a predominately Jewish community in Skokie Ill. Although they indeed backed out, they had won the legal right to do so.
An individual who enjoys a beer now and then, could go sit in an AA meeting with that beer…he has the freedom to do it. Would it be right ….?
“I” think each has the right to exercise their freedoms as long as they do not impinge on the well being,health or welfare of others, and that is unfortunately a very grey line that is drawn in a different place for each of us.
Reply
Share

niemand
niemand

July 3rd, 2004, 1:37 pm #9

If we are to be truly free:

We have to be willing to accept the views of others (no pun intended). Although we may not choose something for ourselves, who are we to take away someone elses freedom to express themselves however they see fit???
In all honesty anudist, there are freedoms here now being trampled.
The freedom of those who have been coming to this forum for an extended time, enjoying the freedom of free speech as a group, sharing, discussing and the like.
The freedom to say "no" to something that the group(or at least the more active ones in majority) find offensive for what ever reason they choose, reject it in mass and yet be barraged with the topic all the more relentlessly. Almost like being beaten into ideological submission.
And so where has the freedom gone and who is able to exercise it. and who is exercising it?
Reply
Share

Anudist
Anudist

July 3rd, 2004, 2:45 pm #10

I didn't start BFF to be a place for horny men to get their jollies looking at pictures of women in lingerie.

If that's what they want there are plenty of porn sites on the net that will serve them well.
I meant that if a woman wants to be seen in sexy lingerie, why shouldn't she have the right to be seen in sexy lingerie.

I am NOT in favor of photos here either.
Reply
Share