Friday, December 2, 2016

The One Finger Challenge



Saw this on reddit and thought it looked like a lot of fun. It's a variant on your classic naked bathroom selfie, but the idea is to cover up your "naughty bits" using only one finger, taking advantage of the mirror image to cover both top and bottom (the logistics are a bit trickier for men, so I had to get creative). The fact that you're only using a finger places it in the realm of "non-nude, but pretty damn close" - which is what makes it so exciting. Go ahead - give it a try! (And remember my tips for better bathroom selfies -_^).

Monday, November 28, 2016

Happy Cyber Monday!

I always want to do something special for Cyber Monday, because I think it's hilarious that society has actually adopted a holiday for "cybering" (I know, that's not what they meant, but it's impossible to ignore the double entendre). But then, what can I do? I don't even actually like cybering that much. At least, not in the traditional sense of a real-time text messaging encounter. I've always been drawn more to images than words. But I do images the other 364 days of the year, so it's not exactly special. I think it'd be fun to offer the rare opportunity to my fans (whoever is out there) to cyber with me, if nothing else, then in the form of some kind of live cam show. But I don't really have any direct lines of communication open for that sort of thing (and I actually kind of prefer it that way). So instead, here's a video I prepared that might be something like how it would look if I did a live cam show. Have a sexy Cyber Monday!

video

And if you like that, you can find more on my profile @ XTube!

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Inevitability of Nude Selfies



I'd like to share this article with you because it demonstrates the propagation of a perspective I've held for years now, and I've been hoping for a long time that people's beliefs would eventually shift in this direction. The horrors of sexting are not typically generated by those involved in the more or less private sharing of harmless "sexy" pics (including relative internet anonymity), but by those who would pass judgment on those who engage in this very common, human behavior - the bullies and the demagogues, always ready to sling insults, and looking to make an example of some poor soul who dares to transgress the moral code of God and society. Never the perverts - the voyeurs and the exhibitionists who delight in taking and sharing these photos with each other, although they bear the brunt of the stigma because they are the engine that drives this "despicable" activity. When, in reality, sexting is merely the inevitable analog of an ages-old practice between young (and old, too) people, who are programmed to flirt and frolic, and are now doing so on a digital landscape. It's not going away. And I don't see why it should. That people take and send and share nude and sexy pics of each other is a wonderful thing. They should do more of it. And they should be commended for it, as I have always said. Those that would shame and bully and stigmatize them - sometimes to the heartbreaking extent of suicide - they are the real poison of our society.

“What seems more difficult for youth, as for adults, is to imagine the possibility that girls are legitimately entitled to digitally mediate sexuality or express sexual desire, for example, through taking, sending or posting images of their bodies via phones privately, or on social network sites more publicly,” she said.

I was pleased to find this quote in a related article, since I had recently been milling about the topic of moral conservatism - the kind rampant in under-progressed countries where women are treated like chattel. And I came to the conclusion that the foundation for this kind of patriarchal worldview is the oppression and subjugation of female sexuality. It ties in to the troubling Madonna-whore complex, whereby a man wants his woman to be a sexual object, but only for him. Thus, any public expression of sexuality, or any expression of sexuality outside of accepted bounds is shamed and shut down. (Usually, in this context, the father owns his daughter's virginity until the day it is sold at a premium to her husband-to-be - with severe penalties in place for so-called "damaged goods"; which is an exceptional way to police women's sexuality).

As I see it, female empowerment can only come through owning and expressing (not repressing) women's sexuality - on women's terms. Ironically, a significant subset of feminists are in bed with the very same religious conservatives they should be at odds with. They slut-shame as much as the patriarchal men do - maybe even more so, since they (mostly) don't harbor a secret, un-politically correct sexual desire for women that they can't quite reconcile with their wish to own the woman's sex, at the behest of the rest of the population. These self-styled "feminists" have nothing to gain from women's sexual empowerment, and potentially everything to lose from an increase in competition on a rubric they might very well not be able to compete on. Yeah, that's a low blow. I admit it. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Gymnophilia

A person who is himself not a nudist might wonder, if it's not for sexual reasons - as nudists typically profess - why do nudists enjoy being naked? If the nudity really is a non-issue, then why do people bother, sometimes going far out of there way to engage in nude recreation? If a nude activity is exactly like its clothed counterpart, except that everybody just happens to be naked, then why are those people naked?

The truth is, there are a lot of reasons people become interested and involved in nudism. Personally, I think it's often more comfortable being nude, and not having to get dressed eliminates the stress and anxiety that often comes along with figuring out what to wear in any given situation. And people who do engage in nudist recreation often come to enjoy it, because it's a friendly, laidback atmosphere with (usually) nice people. And, once you're mired in the lifestyle, it's easy to become a champion of its virtues, such as body acceptance, and the healthier alternative it provides to our society's toxic and unnatural taboo surrounding people's bodies. (Which is not to say that it doesn't have its drawbacks, too - like the lack of pockets, or the increased risk for skin cancer).


But, for sure, not everybody just "falls" into nudism. Some of its most fervent advocates are probably like me - driven to disrobe at any reasonable opportunity (and not a few unreasonable ones). I describe myself as an exhibitionist - and that's true - but it wouldn't be fair or accurate to explain away my interest in nudity by conflating it with a sexual fetish. Now, I adhere to a fluid worldview in which human sexuality and sensuality infuses much of what we do in life outside of the bedroom; and, like Jock Sturges, I'm not willing to deny - for the sake of political expediency - that there is any potential for nudism to contain a sensual element.

"It would be disingenuous of me to say there wasn't. There it is; so what?"

Indeed, that's part of its unspoken charm. But when I talk about a "sensual" element, it has nothing whatsoever to do with wife swapping and lawn orgies and what have you. That's overt sexuality. Perhaps I occupy a different mindset from those who, upon contemplating anything remotely sexual, require immediate satisfaction, and cannot enjoy the background buzz of eroticism that permeates much of human life, viewing it only as an insufferable tease, and not a pleasant reminder of the very reason we exist.


To be honest, I think there is something exciting about nudity (as I wrote about two years ago), and it's not strictly sexual, although there can certainly be an element of that involved. (I look forward to the day when we will no longer be compelled to bend over backwards in an attempt to disassociate any given activity from the potential for sexual interpretation in order to earn the badge of "legitimacy" - because lord knows if there's anything sexual about it, then the government and the public will feel justified in restricting, legislating against, and censoring it, because it's not safe for "moral, god-fearin' folk" - or, to better effect in this increasingly secular world, children).

It's about vulnerability and transgression - baring it all and exposing what's supposed to be covered up in places and situations where it's meant to stay hidden. This does not, as a frequent criticism of exhibitionism claims, generally involve the predicted expressions of horror and disgust on unsuspecting people's faces, but delight in the surprise of one daring to break such arbitrary and restrictive rules (as in the case of the innocuous practice of "streaking" which, in yesteryears, people were ironically not quite so draconian in their attitudes towards) may be included. In a sense, frolicking rather than prowling; with mischief in mind - not criminal intent.

Bottom line being that, while this is not true of all nudists - so don't assume that when they say there is "nothing to it", they are concealing a forbidden truth - there may well be an aspect to nudity (in whatever context: be it at home, alone, outdoors, or in a group) that makes it appealing in and of itself. And this fact does not presuppose (nor entirely preclude) the existence of a sexual element that would cause it to be deemed unfit for "polite" society. For even the most innocent cherub may delight in the joy of freedom from clothes - a joy that renders the experience not indistinguishable from its clothed counterpart. Not "normal, just naked", but "naked - more fun than normal!"

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Guns vs. Porn

There's a gun shop I drive past sometimes that notably hangs a flag outside its window displaying the national colors (red, white, and blue). And it got me to thinking, how come members of the gun culture are so proactive in stating their patriotism and constitutional right to engage in their lifestyle, when porn shops and their customers, on the other hand, are so filled with shame and secrecy, despite coming under just as much fire? Guns are not any more legitimate than pornography, which is no less protected by the Constitution (in theory, if not practice); although the two have been treated quite differently throughout history. But if pushed, I'd have to point out the fact that the former is a weapon designed to kill, while the latter revolves around the process by which life is created. Just saying, you know?


I've always been more concerned with the First Amendment than the second one. I know the second one is important - it's literally a life-or-death matter. But I'm a lover, not a fighter. What's more relevant to my life is my freedom to express myself. I've never understood the divide between liberals and conservatives, and this is an issue on which they agree, if for different reasons. (See the collusion between feminists and religious fundamentalists: conservatives want to take away your nudie mags because they're immoral; liberals want to take them away because they're "degrading" - what's the difference?). Tell me, do either of these sides actually support free speech? Liberals want to police the way we talk, so that we avoid offending anyone. File this under "good intentions" and hand it to the construction crew paving the highway to hell. Conservatives may be more likely to defend your right to be a bigoted asshole, but that's not really what interests me. I'm more concerned with my freedom to read all those gratuitously violent and sexually explicit books that keep getting thrown into the fire. Authenticity in human interaction is of utmost importance to me. I'm not interested in filtering human nature (one way or another) to suit an agenda. I don't want someone else deciding for me what I can be exposed to, even if what I am exposed to ends up "corrupting" or "offending" me. That's my choice, and my responsibility. Don't take that away from me.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Bending Back



This may be my best back bend yet!

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Erection Day 2016



It's gonna be huge!