Monday, May 2, 2016

Incidental Erections



I was working on some unfinished photos from last year, and this one in particular gave me an idea. While I guess I've made something of a habit of taking pictures of erections in a variety of contexts (because a little twist of sexuality makes almost anything more exciting, and also because I find the idea of involving sexuality in nonstandard situations intriguing), something about the deliberately incidental nature of the erection in this photo struck me. I'm not playing with myself. I'm not even especially posed in such a way as to emphasize the erection, or my sexuality. I could easily believe that in this picture I had simply been playing video games, and for some reason - whatever it may be: a breeze from the window, a pretty girl on the screen, a sudden awareness of my nakedness, pressure from my arm, or just random blood circulation - my genitalia began to stiffen. Which is exactly the sort of thing I've talked about both in terms of why I think erections should be ignored in nudist situations, as well as why I don't think they should count as "sexually explicit" (i.e., pornographic) from the perspective of censors.

So now I have half a mind to do a whole series of photos depicting "incidental erections" in various situations. The emphasis must not be on the erection itself - while its inclusion in the image is paramount, the subject must be involved in some other non-sexual activity. (Think of it as non-pornographic erections). The point of this would be to show that erections are a natural part of the male human anatomy, and that even though they are typically defined in sexual terms, they do not necessarily have to occur in an obviously sexual context. They are a normal part of life for most males, and are perfectly harmless when not being deliberately manipulated toward sexual purposes. This will emphasize the importance of acting versus being (which is an important nudist principle - nudity is simply a state of being, while lewdness is a form of conscious behavior), while also drawing attention to the fact that life itself is a highly sensual experience (arguably even more so when experienced in the nude). This is a fact of life, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is not necessarily an ugly truth, nor a problematic one, when considered from the perspective of giving people the freedom to choose how to lead their lives.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Victoria's Secret



Haven't you ever been curious?


Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Surfing the Web


The internet is a sexy, sexy place.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?

It's always gratifying when you have that moment of epiphany in which you're able to pinpoint precisely the way in which your personal philosophy differs from so many others'. It's one thing to go about the world suffering frustration at every turn by people expressing beliefs that contradict your intuitive understanding of an issue. But being able to actually articulate where and why that difference arises - well, it brings a certain level of peace of mind, and it's also the first step in being able to explain your own position in the hope that maybe some more people will come over to your side.

Being a sexual progressive, it's incredibly frustrating for me to find frequent fault with the platform of mainstream sexual progress, because I feel that it's not progressive enough. It's one thing to be able to ally with other progressives against the common enemy of sexual repression and moral conservatism, but when your fight for sexual liberation places you at odds with even those who should be on your side, it's a very isolating and discouraging feeling. Now, it may be true that there are many out there, even among the progressive camps, who cling to the belief that sexual consent ought to indeed be considered a privilege instead of a right (rather than this simply being a semantic misunderstanding), but stating the difference is enough to create awareness of there being two different ways to approach the issue, so that in the future, progressives can dictate their stance, and other progressives who disagree with that stance can know that there is other ground to occupy, on which there may be others already standing, ready to stand with them.

(As a disclaimer, I'm not claiming to be the first person to ever consider the question of whether sexual consent should be considered a privilege or a right - although I have come to this point by independent channels of thought and reason - but I see so little support for the belief that sexual consent should be considered a right - a belief that I hold - and so much support for the other view, that I feel warranted in constructing my position rather than joining one that, as far as I can see in any direction, either does not exist, or is not visible enough to be easily found. And if the latter be the case, I hope that by adding my voice, it may become all the more visible, if even by just a little bit).

Now, to state my position:

Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?

The freedom to give consent - and, by extension, its opposite: the freedom to deny consent - to [give and/or receive, among mutually consenting parties] sexual stimulation is not a legal privilege to be granted to select populations with certain limitations. It is a fundamental human right.

Sexual progressives these days almost unanimously voice the opinion that consent is the cornerstone of positive sexuality. But while this is certainly true, they fail to make the distinction between true consent, and consent as a privilege granted by the state. To support the legal construct of sexual consent - as these "progressives" mostly do - is, in fact, a regressive approach. It is an acquiescence to the day's moral taboos. Fifty years ago, homosexuals were not permitted the privilege to consent to sexual acts with each other. Does this mean that they did not deserve the right to engage in such behaviors? Certainly not! That the law has changed since then is a victory for sexual progress, but do you think this ever would have happened without people challenging the notion that the law is the final arbiter of the validity of people's desires?

You might believe that, since the law has been more or less "corrected" for its previous glaring omission(s), we can now afford to fall back on the view that the law is sovereign. But nothing about the law's fallibility has changed. Including a disenfranchised minority under the law's protection does not change the fact (or my opinion, if you wish) that sexual consent ought to be considered a human right, and not a legal privilege. Is our work done now, or is progress a never-ending pursuit? Should we not stay vigilant against the forces of regression, lest public sentiment take another turn, and we find ourselves sliding back into old ways? Then, all our support for the new law will be easily switched over to support the newer, more regressive laws, because by putting our faith in the law, we've demonstrated that while public sentiment may change, in the end, the law has the final say.

Rather, I think it is more righteous to acknowledge an adherence to the law only insofar as doing so contributes to the social order, and not to the extent of letting the law dictate our personal philosophies. For if laws may change through time (as they most assuredly do), then there must be a greater purpose guiding them, and I believe that purpose is human conscience. And rather than a legal privilege - like operating a motor vehicle - it is my belief that the ability to grant or deny consent to engage in sexually stimulating activities is one of those inalienable rights upon the recognition of which the dignity of human life depends. Furthermore, I consider this a fundamental tenet of true sex-positivity.

Friday, April 22, 2016

A Crime To Hide

I'm (finally, I know) looking over the photos I took over the course of 2015, and I came across one that I really like, that I don't think I ever posted - here, or anywhere else. And I just thought to myself, it's a crime not to let the world see this picture. (Which, incidentally, is a similar thought process to the one that led me to start sharing my nude self-portraits all the way back in 2008). Sadly, I don't have any kind of fame as an artist, and I can't even post images like this one on most photo-sharing sites where I like to present my photography to an audience, because they generally don't allow "pornography" which includes the most artistic erotica, so long as it includes certain types of content, including erections. And though I could post an image like this one on any number of amateur porn sites, I honestly don't believe that a bunch of perverts primarily looking to get off would be able to fully appreciate it. But, just look at this picture:


At the risk of sounding like Narcissus, it's gorgeous! (The truth is, I would be just as enthusiastic if this were a picture I'd taken of someone else - or even if it had been a picture someone else had taken. To reiterate what I've explained before, I don't shoot self-portraits out of any kind of excessive self-obsession, but mainly due to a combination of convenience, anxiety, and the limitations imposed by certain modern taboos. In a perfect world, I would prefer to be shooting other people as gorgeous as this; I actually consider having only myself to work with a frustrating obstacle, and I've merely done the best I can with the material I've been given).

When I look at this picture, I just think about how unfortunate it is that the world will largely not get a chance to see it. There are forces out there - the forces of chastity - that want to keep images like this one hidden behind barriers that only immoral perverts would ever dare cross. Why? Would seeing an image like this one destroy a person's soul? I don't believe that knowledge of the human sexual condition is in and of itself ruinous. This image is beauty incarnate, and I want the whole world to have access to it. I honestly think it transcends the genre of "pornography" and manages to accomplish my personal goal and mission statement of creating erotic works that rise to the level of fine art. I want to say that you needn't be someone who enjoys the erotic appeal of the male form to recognize the beauty in this image. If people didn't behave so weirdly when confronted with the human body and its sexual functions, I would absolutely support plastering this image on the walls of art galleries and above fireplace mantels the world over. I lament that, again, due to the weirdness with which people approach these issues, I can't show this image (and the many others I take) to my own family, to demonstrate what talent I have, and what I've been doing with my life, where I've been applying my passions. Some (perhaps many) of my images, admittedly, are more for fun and the unbridled pursuit of eroticism. But because the censors are blind, I cannot even take pride in the best works I am able to accomplish, due to blanket prohibitions against certain sights that are part and parcel of most people's lives (every man views a penis on the regular, and an erection on occasion if not more frequently, and many women have similar viewing privileges, although there is no reason why even those who don't should not have access to such fundamental knowledge of human anatomy).

To go even further (and I may be pushing it already, but I'm not going to stop halfway), it seems to me a crime that sights like this aren't allowed to be displayed in person, in full public view. It's kind of a joke how many times people (some of them I've lived with, others I've interacted with online) have told me that it should be a crime to cover up my body with clothes. And I agree, wholeheartedly - but yet, there is the law. That's partly the reason I am a nudist. An advocate of public nudity. And one with a lax opinion on the subject of public displays of so-called indecency (including something as innocuous as an isolated erection). Granted, not everyone is equally "beautiful" (a subjective thing to start with), and we live in a democracy, so it wouldn't be fair to let "beautiful" people (but by whose judgment?) walk around naked and have sex in public while the rest of the population are discriminated against for their lack of fitness or lucky genes. Still, as I've said before, I'd be willing to put up with giving everyone the freedom to go nude and engage in acts of reasonable sensuality in public, just for the (probably rare) privilege of being able to witness those beautiful specimens with whom we occasionally cross paths.

Alas, it seems that it was not meant to be. And why? Because we live in a rape culture, where the slightest hint of naked flesh, accompanied by an unasked-for feeling of titillation, imbues us with a sense of entitlement? I'd be more than happy to extricate these brutish animals from the rest of us more civilized creatures, but perhaps the fact that it hasn't happened yet is because they constitute too large a percentage of the population. I feel as though I am the member of some secret society, who may only practice its rituals under cloak and dagger in unhallowed halls accessed by secret passages. Except that there isn't much of a society around me, and it isn't as much fun without community. Nudism is only a vague approximation of some but not all of my ideals. I am a lone wolf without a tribe. An alien stranded on an unfamiliar planet, with no knowledge of where my home is, let alone how to get back there.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Scenes From A Motel Room

I would have liked to have gotten more and better pictures while I had this rare opportunity to stay in a motel room, but I was extremely busy that weekend, so all I got was a few selfies. Still, it's better than nothing!





And one from the con itself: