Truth & Beauty

An Example of Hypocrisy

2012-02-24T05:56:00.000-08:00

Here's an example of the kind of hypocrisy that is rampant in modern society. Tumblr isn't a particularly egregious example of this kind of hypocrisy, they're actually pretty decent in my [admittedly limited] experience (hey, at least they allow porn!). But this statement is a perfect example of how hypocrisy creeps into people's lives, and I think that sometimes these people don't even realize it:

"We are deeply committed to supporting and defending our users’ freedom of speech, but we do draw some limits. As a company, we’ve decided that some specific kinds of content aren’t welcome on Tumblr." (source)

Look, I won't argue that Tumblr isn't entirely justified in censoring the content that goes up on their website, I'm not even going to argue that it would be a good idea if it wasn't. I just wish they wouldn't pretend like they care about freedom of speech, in the same breath as wielding the ban hammer. You see this a lot. People - businesses, especially - see that they have to censor, and they know that censorship is unpopular, so they issue an idiotic statement saying that they are "deeply" committed to free speech. It's doublespeak, pure and simple, and saying it doesn't make it so (and I worry about how many people are stupid enough to believe it when it's so obviously untrue). "We support free speech, but we do censor some things". I've written before that speech is either free or it isn't, it can't be free just for the things you like. That's the very definition of censorship. It's the unpopular ideas that need to be defended for free speech to be meaningful.

I'm not complaining about the fact that Tumblr doesn't like people who engage in self-harm, and they don't want content on their site that encourages suicide or eating disorders. What bugs me is their asinine claim that censorship is compatible with a free speech approach (and I'm not sure which is more egregious, the lie, or the idea that they may actually believe it themselves). I mean, they didn't just say they are committed to free speech, they said they are deeply committed to free speech. I could let them off the hook if they were only somewhat (i.e., half-assed) committed to free speech, because that's something I could believe. But a company that is deeply committed to free speech is the kind that actively defends the very unpopular content Tumblr is announcing they want to censor - all in the name of playing nanny to their user base and being able to wash their hands of the idea that their site could be used to host content they don't personally agree with.

If I were to start a business dedicated to free speech, it wouldn't just be for the content I like. If I claimed to defend the free speech of my users, then I'd allow content I disagreed with. And there's no reason why Tumblr has to defend its users' free speech - that's up to them, their consciences, and their business model. And it doesn't necessarily make them bad if they don't defend free speech (clearly, truly free speech is an exceedingly rare commodity in this world). It's just this attitude of hypocrisy that drives me crazy. You can't support free speech and censorship at the same time. You can choose one or the other - and while I don't like censorship, I will concede that we do not live in a perfect world, and sometimes have to make compromises, especially on a business rather than a personal level - I just wish you would be honest about it, and not lie (either to us or yourselves) to protect your image. 95% of the world's population may be stupid enough to fall for it, but to me it just makes you look stupid.

Or maybe that's just closer to the truth...

Further ruminations:

It's clear that Tumblr is concerned about suicide and eating disorders as a social issue. But silencing these people's voices isn't going to help anyone. This is a feel-good measure designed to ease one's conscience and promote a good public image, but without any real positive effect. It comes from a 'rescue' desire to control other people's behaviors that you don't like. I think it's tragic that people commit suicide (although sometimes I believe it's justified), and suffer from eating disorders. But the cure is not to attack the speech that we may view as encouraging that behavior. People are going to do things we don't like one way or another, and the solution is not to try to control both behaviors and speech to prevent that from happening.

Life is a journey of self-discovery - not forced discovery. You can't teach someone who isn't willing to learn. If we are really concerned about people who commit suicide and suffer from eating disorders, what we need to do is not silence them and criticize them. We should open up to them and be there for them. We should listen to them, and that means accepting the reasons they have for doing what they do - as good reasons, sometimes. And then we can work WITH them, not against them, to help them better their lives. But ultimately, it has to be on their terms, and we can't expect everyone to come over to our way of seeing things.

That's life, that's diversity, that's freedom. Not control, freedom. Freedom to let people make bad decisions - in our opinion. And there is the crux: it is highly arrogant to assume that one's own morality is universal, even on seemingly objective issues like suicide and eating disorders, which some people believe are "just wrong". God, how I hate that phrase - it's specifically designed to close down debate, advocating a sort of blind, religious faith in a particular moral stance. Nothing - I repeat, nothing - in the world is "just wrong" from an objective standpoint. Things are either wrong for a reason (a subjective, debatable reason) or they're not. Geez, is that not obvious?

Male Guilt

2012-02-17T09:00:00.000-08:00

Decades of feminism in the public consciousness has had a peculiar effect - whether intended or not - on the sexuality of sensitive males. These are the type of men who do NOT oppress women but treat them with respect. Yet they are also male, and in many cases have a healthy sex drive. But feminist thought (or at least one extreme end of the spectrum of feminist thought) has constructed this world view of women disempowered by a patriarchal system, which manifests in the sexual realm as follows: women are vulnerable (as opposed to empowered agents) to the naturally aggressive sexual advances of men. For a man to 'get off' in the traditional way, it is believed that he must oppress or degrade a woman. Anything else would be unsatisfying. This dovetails nicely with the puritan attitude towards sexuality, that it is a disgusting (rather than beautiful or sublime) human activity.

The result is that you have men being shamed for their sexual feelings towards women. Maybe there are advantages to this trend, maybe it's just tipping the balance to hold men in contempt for the way they've, traditionally, been treating women, by scaring them straight. But the men who are dicks aren't going to be swayed by male guilt - it's the sensitive ones, the ones who don't want to hurt women, who are being subjected to shame for their sexual feelings towards women. These are the men who don't deserve the brunt of feminist ire. But they are afflicted when sexuality - particularly when construed as a male activity used to denigrate females (as if women can't enjoy sex, or enjoy being sexually desirable) is demonized.

It's really more to do with our sexual attitudes than feminism, but the feminism is where the guilt comes in. I feel guilty for the way women are mistreated, and I don't want to contribute to that. Yet if feminist thought dictates that my natural sexual appetite is harmful to women, what choice do I have? I can ignore the plight of females, and just indulge in my sexual appetite without shame, but I don't want to become one of the oppressive dicks who don't treat women with respect. Or I could shun my sexuality and toe the sex-negative feminist line. Well as PC as that might be, I refuse to denounce my sexuality. It just means too much to me.

The result I choose is to try to inform the public about sexuality. "Sex is gross" usually arises from an ignorant position on sex - one devoid of experience or even basic knowledge about human sexuality, and usually also inspired by pointed 'education' attempts that are really ignorance campaigns designed to misinform the public about sexuality (regardless of which conservative fundamentalist agenda is behind it). Hell, I'm sexually liberated and I still think sex is gross - but that doesn't mean I can't find the appeal in it, and it doesn't mean that I'm quick to call anyone who likes sex a disgusting pervert.

Because that's the problem. You have girls who are educated to shun sexuality, and so when guys appreciate their sexual desirability, they get all defensive and icked out. They throw out insults. Because they see "you're attractive" as an insult instead of the compliment it's intended to be (because they view sex as ugly instead of beautiful), they believe it's fair to counter with an insult of their own ("you're disgusting"). And the great rift between the sexes grows ever deeper and wider, and our attitudes toward sexuality - a fundamental human experience - remain as unhealthy as ever. Some men - the aggressive type - actively decide to treat women with the disrespect they've been shown, while others - the more sensitive ones - are wracked with guilt and recede into the shadows, which unfortunately lends more visibility to the jerks, and reduces women's contact with the men who are more likely to treat them with respect.

Come on, people. I've learned it. I know, not everyone is comfortable with receiving sexual compliments. But you can learn, just as I have, and there are polite and impolite ways to deal with the compliments you receive. "You're sexy" is a compliment (although it comes in many different forms, some more polite than others). Are people really that concerned about being considered sexually attractive? I thought that was something most people strive for? What's the point of advertising your beauty if you're going to bite someone's head off the instant they admit that they like what they see? Or are you so caught up in appearances that you think there are right ways and wrong ways to tell a person they're pretty? Am I a bad person because I find an erotic quality to your beauty, compared to someone who thinks your beauty is purely aesthetic, purely asexual (usually involving some level of denial or personal discretion, a.k.a. hypocrisy: the antithesis of honesty and truth)? Are people who shun sex, like you, inherently better than those that embrace it? Is the measure of a person's worth dependent on their approach to sex? Will you always be treated better by prudes than you will by perverts?

Don't fool yourself.

Re: Video Voyeurism

2012-02-03T12:58:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I discovered a naked vlogger on YouTube, who goes by the name of Deja Nude, who is a nudist, and has a series of videos discussing nudist issues. I watched a few of her videos (and am looking forward to watching the rest), and I was very impressed both with her views on nudism, as well as her courage to post naked vlogs on YouTube. In fact, she's quite an inspiration, and I've begun to wonder if it wouldn't be a fantastic idea for me to do some naked vlogs of my own. The only problem is, despite my familiarity with being in front of the camera, I am far less comfortable recording videos, specifically ones in which I talk. I'm a pretty good writer, I think (at least that's what people tell me), but giving speeches is not one of my talents. Still, maybe, just maybe, it's worth a shot.

I'll tell you, I was this close to recording a naked vlog with my response to Deja Nude's video titled "Video Voyeurism", but I just wasn't comfortable with it, so you'll have to get this written speech instead. However, I did take a snapshot from my webcam so you at least have something to look at! :p

Anyway, in Video Voyeurism, Deja Nude talks about people who take other people's nudist images and submit them to sexual websites, in effect "exploiting" their nude image for sexual purposes. I agree that this is a problem, but I have a minor (maybe not so minor) quibble with the addressing of why this is a problem. (See, also, my post on sexy pictures, which covers the topic of picture trading on the internet).

I think it's important to emphasize that this is a crime of nonconsent, not a crime of sexual deviance. The motivation may be sexual in nature, but it's wrong not because it's perverted, but because these people are taking images and using them in ways that the owners haven't authorized, and may well object to. Focusing on the sexual component, rather than the violation of consent, has a tendency to conflate perversion with nonconsent. Notice how contemporary sexual mores threaten to reframe basic male desire (the pleasure in seeing chicks naked) as criminal intent.

Particularly, the concept of "voyeurism" is so tied up with a notion of clandestine spying, that it gives a bad name to people who might get a thrill out of looking, but only want to do it to people that don't have a problem with it (see my post on consensual voyeurism). The existence of the voyeuristic desire itself does not necessarily entail a corresponding lack of concern for the rights and consent of others (in other words, perversion is not synonymous with, or a direct cause of, sociopathy). Naturally, there are going to be people - voyeurs - who have this desire and don't care about other people's consent, and that's a problem. But again, by focusing on the voyeurism, as if that were the problem, and not specifically the violation of consent, you're giving a bad name to voyeurs who are conscientious and concerned about consent.

And then people who receive these messages (about how voyeurism always seems to involve nonconsent) in the social media environment, who might have these voyeuristic desires, start wondering if they, too, are capable of violating another person's consent for their sexual gratification. What we really need, on the other hand, is a positive model of sexuality that demonstrates that people can have these sexual desires - and all sorts of sexual desires - and engage in them in ways that are not criminal, and are not destructive to the social order. The only way to do that is to focus on what exactly is wrong when people commit sex crimes, instead of writing them off as perversion - as if perversion were a crime. Perversion is not a crime. I'm a pervert. I know perverts. They're good people. They're also fun people.

And in response to Deja Nude's comment that she doesn't want to be a "freakin' sex object" - I can respect that, but as for me, I enjoy being a freakin' sex object. Granted, my opinion is that sexual pleasure is a virtue, not a vice. But if the image of my naked body makes people feel good, then that's great. I'm not concerned about the sexualization of society, or the perversion of morality, or the misguided concepts of degradation and objectification. People who are tend to have either a warped or very narrow view of sexuality and exactly how it works.

Even as a nudist - and this is inevitably a point of contention - I don't mind if people interpret nonsexual nudity (mine or anyone else's) in a sexual context. That's their prerogative. I'm not so concerned about my "image" as a nudist. If someone thinks I look sexy without my clothes on, that doesn't automatically translate my naked body into a sex act, whereby I would therefore be engaging in a "sex act" (being naked) every time I enter a nudist environment - just because someone else might interpret it that way. It doesn't matter who or how many people think nudity is sexy, that doesn't change the truth of the fact that nudists take their clothes off for nonsexual reasons.

We're so afraid of who might be getting turned on in the world (why?), that we become paranoid about policing our images in society, lest somebody should think perverted thoughts about us. On the one hand, I want to say, who cares? But on the other, if people are getting off, then that's great! Isn't that better than people dying of starvation, being shipped off to pointless wars, and such? It's not just that sex isn't the worst problem that society faces, it's not even a problem. Sex is good.

P.S. Deja Nude, I still think you're awesome!

On the topic of free speech

2012-02-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

On the topic of free speech, there's a distinction between allowing a person to voice an unpopular opinion, and then criticizing them for it, and respecting a person's dissenting voice, even as you disagree with it. The former case is not really freedom of speech at all. Even under a regime of censorship, opinions that are disallowed can still be voiced, short of some means that can directly and preemptively prevent people from saying certain types of things. People will be discouraged (strongly) from voicing such opinions, but they still maintain the freedom of choice to voice those opinions, provided they are prepared for the repercussions of doing so. This, however, is not freedom of speech.

It's akin to saying, "you can say anything you want, but you better prepare yourself for the consequences". Giving somebody the opportunity to speak, and then throwing them in jail or executing them (or what have you) for doing so, does not reflect a respect for freedom of speech. Discriminating against a person for their opinions in other, less extreme ways (like personal criticism, ostracization, severing of business ties, etc.), may not be as severe, but it is still a form of punishment for having dissenting views. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone's views are "right" or should be adopted, but that their ability to speak up about those views ought to be respected (not just tolerated but respected); and where disagreement occurs, as it inevitably will (and should!), the focus should be on debating the topic, and not attacking the person whose opinion you disagree with. That shows a true respect for the principle - and the fundamental importance - of free speech.

Modeling after the Lowest Common Denominator

2012-02-01T12:24:00.000-08:00

I don't believe the few should be punished for the crimes of the many. Does that make me a privilege-ist? Well, if a person deserves privilege, he should have it. We live in a culture of appropriation and amalgamation, where, in spite of (or perhaps as a reaction to) all the diversity in human life, we try to regulate human behavior according to sweeping generalizations. It's a curious symptom of the equality mindset, that everyone should be treated the same, and have to follow the same rules. Even if it means putting extra pressure on the underachievers and pulling back the overachievers. It occurs when you mistake equal opportunity for mathematical equality. People are not the same. Fairness (and thus, justice) is not predicated upon treating everyone the same. We're all different. We have different abilities, and we have different sensibilities. Equality means that we all deserve to be treated as having equal worth - that no one of us deserves to be overlooked, discriminated against, or have our basic fundamental rights violated. Especially if we're not like everyone else. That we're different doesn't mean we don't deserve to be treated with the same humanity. But that doesn't mean we must or even want to be treated in exactly the same way. A man in a wheelchair should not be expected to take the stairs, but his inability to do so does not reflect a lesser worth or humanity. He is not equal to anyone else in the world, he is different. But just as worthwhile as anyone else. Just as deserving of dignity and his basic human rights.

In law, we have a tendency to want to legislate across the board, because it's easier than taking individual factors into consideration. And yet, this is precisely what the courts are designed to do. And they're designed that way for a reason - to protect each individual's human rights. Because a man in a wheelchair is not a handicapped man, he is an individual. A man of color is not a black man but an individual. A female is not a woman but an individual. A youth is not a child but an individual. There are, unfortunately, persons in our midst that go about committing crimes against law and humanity - raping, stealing, murdering, etc. - but this is no justification for the limitation of the basic human rights of the individual. To legislate "safety" to the extent that it violates the freedom of the innocent is not justice. We do not have a responsibility, as citizens of a social order, to give up our rights and freedoms for "protections", nor for the excessive punishment of those who break the social order (criminals). On the contrary, it is our responsibility to stand up for our rights and our freedoms against this kind of legislative and social protectionism. That one man might steal a gun and use it to commit murder is not reason to restrict another from purchasing a gun for self-defense. The honest citizen should never be penalized for the irresponsible actions of a criminal. It is not just to punish a person for someone else's bad decisions.

Sensual Nudism

2012-01-11T19:41:00.000-08:00

Nudism is - quite vocally - not a sexual activity. But is it a sensual activity? I would argue that - strictly defined - yes, it most certainly is. Just by its own nature: shedding the layer of clothing that normally separates you from the world around you introduces a heightened sense of tactile awareness of one's surroundings, making it an experience that is highly sensual - not in terms of sexual contact, but rather in terms of contact with things in general, through your sense of touch.

Sure, nudism may often be a rather mundane activity. You do whatever you would be doing anyway, except you do it without clothes, because it's just more comfortable (or convenient) that way - because you don't like the feeling of having clothes clinging to, or hanging off of, your body. But at its best, in the most sublime moments of nudism, you are uniquely aware of the sensual experience of being in closer connection to your surroundings, and being free and exposed to the natural world.

This is going to sound counter-intuitive (if not downright offensive), but I would be more comfortable if I saw more semi-erections in nudist venues. For men, one of the primary concerns about engaging in nudism is what to do if an erection pops up - knowing that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon. Nudists tend to shrug it off, rightly saying that it's rarely as big a deal as you're liable to make it out to be. And yet, even though I am no longer a complete newbie to the practice of social nudism, it does cause me some level of anxiety.

Yes, it's true, that when you're focused on other activities, and particularly if your nerves are feeling the pressure of wanting to make a good impression, your member is much less likely to spring to attention. But does that mean that it never happens? How about after you've gotten comfortable, when you're relaxed and off guard, and you happen to find yourself in a moment of sublime enjoyment of the tactile sensations on your body? What if some unexpected pressure is applied to just the right spot, or some unplanned motion stirs an involuntary response?

There's a stereotype about nudists that they're mostly older men. My experience has been that the genders are actually more mixed than I would have expected (certainly from the online nudist presence), though there's a question of how much of that is staged (by gender quotas at nudist resorts), or driven by the male interest in nudism (men persuading their wives to join in). Though, there does seem to be a skew toward the upper ages, only partly balanced by the occasional presence of children. And there's a conspicuous dearth of young persons from around the age of adolescence (said to be caused by the unfortunate embarrassment and body consciousness that puberty brings) to young adulthood.

That's a whole different issue to tackle, but the reason I bring it up is that - and I apologize if this is a gross mischaracterization of the older population - some people may not have much of a problem having inappropriate erections at inappropriate times, particularly if they have enough trouble working up an erection when they really want one! Not everybody is in this situation, however, and there are people like myself (whether young and virile or not) who may be highly sensitive to tactile triggers and responsive to the psychological condition of being free and exposed to the world (this may skirt the issue of exhibitionism, but that's a far more nuanced topic than it's given credit for).

I regret the inconvenience it causes, but, to choose one example, spinning a hula hoop around my waist has a tendency to get me hard. After a while, if I stay focused on the task, it will go away. But at the start, I can't help involuntarily responding to the sensation of thrusting my hips in an enthusiastic manner. Nudists tell you that if you get an erection, you ought to hide it and not flaunt it. This is common sense advice, but it's not always straightforward how to go about doing it. For example, laying on one's stomach, if one is not highly disciplined, can serve to actually encourage an erection (by means of pressure). In the hooping example, if I were to stop, and hide myself, I'd never get past the initial phase after which I could continue hooping without trouble. But to get to that point, I have to spend some amount of time swinging my engorged member through the air. Wouldn't that be considered "flaunting it"?

Another issue that comes to mind is that hiding and discouraging one's sensual enjoyment of nakedness could very well significantly dampen a person's enjoyment of their nudist experience. Nudism tries very (too?) hard to be nonsexual, but the problem comes in trying to define what does and does not constitute "sexuality". Most people, I think, see arousal as a precursor to sexual activity, but I don't necessarily see it that way. Getting a boner is not sexual activity (nor necessarily proceeds or engenders an expectation for sexual activity), unless you'd like to suggest that I was having sex in the middle of my eighth grade history class on an irregular basis (you know, them crazy hormones).

Is it possible to separate sensual enjoyment from sexual enjoyment? I think there's a huge difference between your body showing signs of physical arousal in response to environmental triggers, and sitting there stroking yourself while you fantasize about sex. We can't tell what people are thinking about (and not everyone with a boner is thinking about sex), but there's that huge difference between someone who's hard just because he's having a good time, and someone who's actively encouraging his erection through direct means.

Can't we see the difference between the state of arousal and the act of sex? Don't nudists often complain that textiles don't see the difference between the state of being nude and the act of behaving in a lewd fashion? Why does the presence of engorged tissue in a particular part of the male anatomy (a state) cross this line, when a much clearer crossing point would be the direct physical manipulation of that tissue (an act)? The arousal is no more evidence of sexual behavior than a sexual fantasy that exists only in one's mind. It's only after one chooses to act on the thought or the feeling that it crosses into deliberate behavior.

As it is, I know the whole "what if I get an erection" problem is more of a psychological concern than the reality of it warrants. Nevertheless, it's something that a lot of people think about and a lot of people worry about. There are certain activities, that could be very enjoyable for me, that I am afraid to engage in on account of what might happen. As I said, nudists say it's not a big deal, but when was the last time you saw someone sporting a semi at a nudist venue and everyone ignored it or laughed it off? It's all about hiding it as quickly as possible so as not to give the wrong idea.

If I saw a few of them every now and then, and could observe that no one was getting upset about it, I wouldn't care so much whether or not one happened to pop up, knowing that my resolve not to behave lewdly was enough to prevent embarrassment. Getting hard is an involuntary biological response to a trigger, which may or may not be deliberate, and is not something you can willfully and directly control like the flexing of your bicep (I understand this is a difficult concept, as I can recall a heated discussion on this very topic between some of the students and the teacher of my 9th grade biology class).

I'd just like to have the comfort of knowing that something I can't control doesn't stand the risk of ruining my reputation and, to extrapolate to the worst case scenario - especially if it happens in front of unsuspecting women or, worse yet, poor, defenseless children - get me ousted from the club for lewd "behavior". I mean, there are nudists who think it is never appropriate to even sit with your legs apart. In a truly nudist society, we would see these things, and we would get used to them, and understand that they're natural, and nothing to get alarmed about.

I have one final note on the distinction between sensuality and sexuality. I know it's tempting to view arousal as an inherently sexual phenomenon, and hard to view it any other way. We engage in sensual experiences of various types with other people all the time. These are not people we are (necessarily) sexually intimate with. Have you ever sat in a hot tub with strangers? Had a delicious meal with family? Gone skinny dipping with friends you weren't sexually interested in (like, for example, other guys, if you were a straight male)? Or gone to a spa with your girlfriends? Most of these experiences don't cause people to get hard in most cases, but what if it did? What if stripping off your clothes and diving into the lake got you excited, despite the fact that you're not about to have sex, and aren't in the company of anyone you'd want to have sex with? It doesn't mean you're suddenly a sexual predator, looking for a target. It's just a natural, physiological function that we put far too much weight on.

And putting that weight on it is what causes this neurotic anxiety that results in far too many men worrying and asking about "what happens if I get an erection when I go to this nudist venue for the first time". If you're a nudist, and you're sick and tired of hearing this question, the best thing you can do (if you're a man), is to sport an erection the next time you go to a nudist resort. Don't flaunt it, and don't encourage it, but if it happens to pop up, don't hide it. Just let it be. And everyone else who sees it will thank you, not because they're sexually interested in you (although one or two of them might be, but who cares?), but because they'll all be that much more relieved about what would result if the same thing happened to them.

Of course, if you're in the mindset that you would quickly and happily ban anyone who acts in such a way from any nudist resort you visit (or perhaps are in charge of), then here's the effect of your actions. You're getting rid of everyone who has a healthy attitude toward sexuality, while keeping everyone around who is uptight and sexually repressed. Your fear of total sexual abandon is totally misplaced in the healthy subset of the pro-sex population. A healthy approach towards sexuality does not mean having sex everywhere with everyone. That's just as unhealthy as being so uptight that you never have sex with anyone, except maybe in the dark, under the sheets, behind locked doors, with your spouse, while shouting down anyone who ever dares to speak more freely and openly about sex than you feel is decent.

A healthy approach to sexuality means treating sexual arousal, outside the context of deliberate sexual intention, largely in neutral terms (with a lean toward feeling good for another person's enjoyment, rather than jumping down their throat for being "indecent") when it is not also accompanied by inappropriate sexual behavior. Once again, there is a huge difference between enjoying life, however your body displays this enjoyment, and acting in a socially unacceptable manner. You may as well start punishing people for getting goosebumps, blushing, or having their nipples harden when exposed to cold water.

Consistency & Accuracy

2012-01-06T17:40:00.000-08:00

A huge obscenity trial just went through in the U.K., which put the decades old Obscene Publications Act to the test. I'm happy to report that the good guys won, and the court ruled that it is legal to advertise/sell pornography depicting legal sex acts (fisting, water sports, etc.) to informed, consenting adults. Although it should have been a foregone conclusion, this is a very exciting and positive result, because in this world, you don't get to wield your basic human rights until after they've been successfully defended in court (and then, only until a different judge overturns that decision).

In addressing this result, blogger Belle de Jour writes a fantastic post that is nearly flawless, but for a small oversight that most people would probably forgive or ignore, if not outright defend, because it relates to bestiality. Yeah, I know, bestiality is different because it relates to animals and not people. Well, fisting and water sports are unpopular to a certain demographic, too. I'm not interested in animal sex and I don't generally support it (nor necessarily think that it's unproblematic to the extent that fisting or water sports is between consenting adults) (incidentally, Belle, I regret that I have to make this disclaimer, but you know, does your argument apply to fetishes that could cost you a webhost?), but what I am interested in is being consistent, even where it means taking an unpopular stance, and that's where Belle briefly (only briefly) stumbles.

The importance of consent is crucial to the smooth running of a healthy, sex-positive world. However, in order to respect consent, we have to understand it. Belle said that sex with animals is "necessarily non-consensual". It is my understanding that engaging in sex acts with animals is illegal. It may be true that gauging an animals' consent is effectively impossible, and for this reason, the ease with which a person could take advantage of and sexually abuse an animal justifies across the board restrictions against bestiality. However, to say that sex with animals is necessarily non-consensual is not accurate. If the only thing that mattered in negotiating sex were the consent of the participants, then we'd have to allow those consensual acts that we find distasteful. A person could make the argument that nobody could properly consent to fisting, or any other kind of sexual depravity, but what really counts is what the person engaging in it wants. If it's impossible for us to know what an animal wants, or if it's our collective belief that animals are too vulnerable to abuse to allow any humans to have sex with them, then so be it. But unless you're willing to ask the animals (and are able to understand them), you can't say there is necessarily a lack of consent. That's speaking for another demographic - a demographic that doesn't have a voice. If we can't understand animals, then the most we can say is that we don't know what they want (and maybe it's best not to test the waters just to be on the safe side), but that's different than speaking for them and saying "they could never want this".

It's easy to talk about sex acts between consenting adult humans, because we're currently in a zeitgeist where that sort of thing is on the vanguard of what's popularly allowed in the sexual landscape. But if we're more concerned with truth than politics, and wish to be consistent in our beliefs and ideologies, then we must be willing to extend the principles we apply to the popular issues (fisting porn, water sports, etc.) to the unpopular issues also. Otherwise we risk engaging in hypocrisy, and allowing our well-reasoned arguments to stand as nothing more than convenient explanations for why we ought to be doing what it is we want to be doing. That's not science, it's rhetoric. And I must ask the question, is "consent" a privilege we extend only to those whom we deem fit for it (in today's zeitgest, living adult humans), like as if it were the right to vote, or the right to own land, or is it something we ought to extend to anyone (my own personal prejudice is toward living organisms, with the caveat that dead or inanimate objects don't have much to lose by being "inappropriately" handled - when was the last time you asked your vibrator for consent?) who can demonstrate that they have a personal will and the ability to differentiate (and communicate, on some level) between something they want or enjoy, and something they do not?

A New Year's Resolve

2011-12-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

I began last year working on my overly ambitious Slumber Party Massacre project, which took months to complete, required tracking down various outfits and scouting out different locations, and wasn't ready for exhibition until May. Actually, it was ready in April, but April saw my anticipated attendance of an anime convention, during which I cosplayed Chii in an extravagant (both elegant and skimpy) pink dress. Between posting my cosplay photos (in addition to myself, also the girls in cosplay I took pictures of at the con) and the Slumber Party Massacre photos (along with their Behind The Scenes entries right here on this blog - parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), I got massively behind and ended up with a backlog of photos to upload for the majority of the remainder of the year - which I have only recently gotten pretty much caught up on.

However, I have the sense that I am evolving as a photographer (and model), and I'm looking into better and more efficient ways to exhibit my photography to the world. I have seen, in my work, a distinct strain of material that has uncovered itself over the last year, which reflects the sort of erotic (or pornographic, if you will) photo sets that are produced commercially, that you can find all over the internet. This type of photography has always undoubtedly been a large inspiration on my own work - websites like femjoy and domai and met-art, and the erotic art they produce. But lately I've noticed that I've been producing distinct photo sets (as opposed to loose art) that mimic the sort of themed shoots you'll see elsewhere, usually with me dressed in some kind of outfit (either sexy or girly), stripping off my clothes and posing erotically for the camera in various stages of undress.

For a while now it's been my desire to have a website to feature these erotic photo sets (some of which have gone unpublished), but my unfortunate lack of webdev skills (I impressed my computer teachers in the '90s, but technology has come a long way since then) and total lack of experience as an economist or entrepreneur of any sort has left me high and dry. I've also been increasingly inspired to try to somehow make my artistic talent work for me, in terms of earning money for the greater and greater amount of effort I've been putting into my photography. I'll be straight with you - I hate capitalism, but I don't have any choice but to submit to it, as I don't have the skills to live off the land on my own. So I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to get things for free (and it pisses me off that my work as a photographer is not valued monetarily in the way that other types of work arbitrarily are), but I've come to the decision that to value myself and my art and the work that I put into it means to put a price on it. It's up to you to decide whether my work's good enough to pay for, but I simply can't afford to continue producing it for free. So I either have to start making some money off of it, or spend my time doing something else that's more profitable.

And that's where XTube comes in. For the longest time I was reluctant to embrace openly pornographic sites like XTube, not because I bear any ill will towards them at all, but simply because I don't like to surround myself with raw images of genitalia closeups and gushing bodily fluids. To me, eroticism is about beauty and nudity, not the sticky, sweaty, grunting mess that characterizes sex. So it's simply been a matter of taste. But there are very few sharing sites that cater to the middle ground of eroticism, and most non-porn sites don't even allow content that involves nudity (let alone blatantly sexualized nudity). Flickr is the one major exception I've found, in that they allow pornographic content, but are not characterized as a website by it. However, flickr offers no options for users to profit off of their own content (especially if it's pornographic, which is an attitude that persists all over the non-porn web - blogger included, unfortunately), and in fact they actively discourage using their site for that purpose. But XTube has its own Amateur program which makes it very easy for me to upload photo sets (or videos, if I choose), charge a small fee, and profit off of them if they're popular.

So, it's taken me some time to warm up to using, let alone associating myself with, a blatant porn site, but I've joined XTube and as of this week, I have signed up and become verified as an amateur model. Now it's a matter of producing lots of good content, and seeing if I can make any money off of it. I'd like to advertise here on blogger, but my reading of their content policy leads me to the conclusion that that wouldn't be allowed, and I don't want to risk deletion, as I've enjoyed using this blog to post lots of good content about my philosophical explorations on nudity, eroticism, and sexual liberation. However, I have registered two other accounts - on twitter, and on tumblr - that I intend to use to keep my followers up to date on the sets that go up on XTube, as well as other things of an erotic nature that pertain to me or happen to catch my interest. So I encourage you to check those accounts out, and follow me, and hopefully as I begin to fill my XTube account with lots of new material, you'll find something you like, that's worth spending a paltry percentage of the money you make from whatever work you spend your time doing for a living. Thanks!

Exhibitionists "Hiding" Behind Nudism

2011-12-21T19:38:00.000-08:00

I've kind of pulled back on calling myself a nudist lately. It's not because I'm any less supportive or enthusiastic about the activity of nudism, but I'm becoming increasingly jaded about the community of nudism, and its seemingly unhealthy obsession with sexual purity. Now, there are practical reasons for this obsession (which I've discussed before), but that still doesn't excuse their prudishness. To be clear, it's not that every nudist is a prude - in fact, there has always been a large subset of the nudist population that is very open to sexuality, which is a fact that prudists regret, because it supposedly tarnishes the clean, nonsexual image of nudism.

Make no mistake, nudism is not intrinsically related to sexuality, and is not a sexual activity. But if we, as nudists, were to be honest about our mantra of "normal, just naked", then we ought to understand that sex can be involved in nudism in the same way that sex is involved in people's textile lives outside the world of nudism, without it suggesting that the sex is an inherent part of the activity (whether nudist or textile - sex is just a part of life, and a big and important part too, that we ought not try so hard to extricate from our lives based on bullshit puritan values). No, the thing that bothers me is this wave of elitism, which is born of nudists' desire to keep nudism's image pure - so as to render it more acceptable to mainstream textile society. This elitism breeds the sort of attitude I detest, where the pure, nonsexual nudist is a "true" nudist, and a nudist who happens to be an exhibitionist or a swinger, or gets turned on by nude scenes in movies, or what have you, is a "fake", and worse yet, a traitor to the world of nudism.

I've said it before. I get that nudism is nonsexual. And I like that nudism is nonsexual. If nudism were about naked people getting together to have sex orgies, I wouldn't be interested in it. That's precisely why I'm not a swinger, and have no real interest in becoming one. I can enjoy nudity on a purely nonsexual level. But there's also that middle ground, where being naked outdoors and in public feels sexy, and might get me aroused - not to the point that I want to start boning someone, stroking myself, getting covered in disgusting bodily fluids, no! I just mean, on a sensory level, it can be a very enjoyable sensation both physically and psychologically. And trying too hard to take the eroticism out of that just defeats the fun of it.

I'm an exhibitionist. I'm a voyeur, too. I won't lie and tell you that it isn't exciting to be able to be naked in front of other people, strangers, in different places. I won't lie and tell you that it's not exciting to be able to see attractive people nude in similar situations (most nudists are not attractive to me, just like most people in the world are not attractive to me - but every once in awhile, you'll come across someone who's attractive, and it's that much more exciting if you have the opportunity to see them naked - that's the simple truth, void of any feeble attempts to deny biology and my feelings in the hope of winning brownie points with my pastor who preaches God's decree that Man be asexual, against our very natures - that's the very basis of my point about the truth of beauty - being honest, and sincere, regardless of the image you wish to project).

Problem is, most people have this idea in their head, the image of the exhibitionist, who stands there with a stupid smile on his face, staring at all the naked people, and the voyeur, who hides in the bushes or peeks over the fence, jerking himself off while spying on all the naked people. Few voyeurs and exhibitionists actually behave like this. Most of the peepers, anyway, are not dedicated voyeurs - they're probably just curious (and who can honestly blame them?). The real voyeurs and the real exhibitionists are probably already inside the club, and are probably already good friends with you. And there's a good chance you don't know that they're a voyeur or an exhibitionist, because they aren't cartoon caricatures, they're people.

Now a lot of people being faced with that fact might think, oh god, I'm being deceived and taken advantage of, something must be done! But that's ridiculous. Voyeurs and exhibitionists are not dangerous. They're not going to rape you or your kids - in fact, if they're really voyeurs and exhibitionists, that means they enjoy just watching, and not actively getting involved; and even apart from that, their interest in the eroticism of the naked sensory experience a) does not mean they are constantly horny, looking for sexual targets, and b) does not imply that they cannot also enjoy the true nudist appeal of being naked, that is to say, the myriad nonsexual reasons that nudity is enjoyable. It's true, that a person can (and even simultaneously) be both a nudist and a swinger, voyeur, or exhibitionist. Many nudists do acknowledge this fact, but from the elitist/prudist point of view, these nudists are "dirty" nudists, not true nudists, traitors and deceivers, bringing down the name of nudism, and hurting nudists everywhere. Well that's ridiculous.

Let's think critically for a moment. Naturally, there are going to be people in the world who are turned on by nudity. Whether this is something any one person thinks ought to be the case or not, those people are going to exist. Obviously, there are a lot of people who like sex, but I think it would be a specific kind of person who is attracted to the sort of not overtly sexual nudity that nudism celebrates. Anyone with half a brain could figure out after a little research that nudist resorts are not playgrounds for sex orgies, and if that's what they're looking for, then they're bound to start looking elsewhere once they figure this out. What about the people who are curious about the nudity? Is it our place to police people's thoughts, to place restrictions upon certain kinds of motivations? Or should we judge people based on their behavior and how they comport themselves? It's easy to kick out a person who's causing a disruption, and engaging in behaviors that are clearly frowned upon. If a person behaves impeccably, should it matter whether or not he thinks nudity can be sexually exciting?

What this world needs is the creation of the image of the polite pervert, the person who can enjoy the erotic stimulations that life sends us, without acting like the stereotypical pervert, making rude comments, harassing strangers, engaging in lewd behaviors in public. Ironically, the polite perverts go largely unnoticed, due to their great ability to control their perversion and not act out in stereotypically perverted ways. So they go ignored, and the public, seeing only the type of pervert who acts out, begins to associate perversion with acting out. Then, in their language and their policies, they begin to fight perversion when the original goal was to fight those disruptive behaviors. And the casualty is the polite pervert who does not engage in those disruptive behaviors, but who is nevertheless discriminated against in the language of the policies and attitudes that have adapted to treating perversion as if it were the causal factor triggering the sort of rude and lewd behaviors they want to abolish.

And so sex becomes an enemy, and people repress themselves, and we end up in this terrible state of affairs, overwhelmed by deception and hypocrisy, where everyone is absolutely obsessed with sex (more so because it's taboo), but too terrified to admit it because they don't want to be one of those obnoxious perverts that they and all their friends are constantly compelled to complain about (because that's the zeitgeist, and god forbid you should step out of line and refuse to conform to popular notions - then again, you've been raised with these erroneous beliefs, so you probably don't even realize how wrong you are).

It's quite a mess, isn't it? Well, I'm doing my best to right it by advocating for sexual liberation - the goal being not to induce sexual anarchy, but to encourage the polite perverts, the ones who are being overlooked, to admit to their perversion in the hope that in doing so, more people will be able to recognize that perversion doesn't have to be about indiscriminate sex orgies and all the "terrible" things god (and our politicians) warn us about.

And in the meantime, I see no reason to be alarmed by the fact that sex perverts are going to necessarily be attracted to nudism. As long as nudists continue to make it clear that nudism is not about having sex orgies, and that overtly sexual behaviors will not be permitted in nudist venues, that's all that really needs to be done. There's no point in fretting over the perverts who might have the wrong idea - they can be educated, and if this doesn't change their perverted feelings, then what more can you expect? You're never going to be able to force people to not be attracted to nudity, and you're never going to be able to stop perverts from having some interest in nudism, on account of the fact that nudity is so hard to come by in this puritan world. So you might as well stop worrying about it. You can't perfectly police the image of nudism, either - you will never get everyone in the world to have the "right" (according to your limited perspective) view of nudism, and you really shouldn't want to (think diversity), so you might as well stop losing sleep over it.

People will always be attracted to nudity. You can't change it or stop it. If that's the result that public acceptance of nudism requires, then you better think of a different strategy, because you're never going to get there. You might wonder what other strategy one could possibly have - well I've already got one. Ending the sex taboo. Prohibitionists and abolitionists (these people actually believe commercial sex work is a form of slavery) will try to convince you that embracing sex will initiate a rapid societal decline into a state akin to that of Sodom & Gomorrah. This is a lie. It's called propaganda. It's seductive because it's designed to be - it's designed to make you accept their goal (controlling sex). But it's not true.

The same argument is used about drug use, and all sorts of "vice crimes" that don't hurt anyone. Pretty much everything you've been told is wrong. Why do you trust the media and politicians? Why do you trust scientists and teachers without critically examining the evidence yourself? Everyone has an agenda, everyone stands to profit from getting other people to believe their lies. Even I do. But that's why I try so hard to emphasize skepticism, and honesty to combat hypocrisy. I don't want you to believe what I say, I just want you to consider the point of view that's being silenced. Because only after balancing the issue, and critically examining the two sides can you come to a balanced decision, and have a much greater chance of accepting what is true, instead of what is convenient (or what someone else is invested in having you believe).

Everywhere I go, I see chants of sex is bad, sex is dangerous, sex is dirty. So naturally, since I enjoy sex in a good, wholesome, healthy manner, I want to promote my perspective, which is quite contrary to the popular image, which encourages no end of discriminatory language and practices against those who engage in sex (who certainly, in most cases, don't view themselves in the same negative terms their opponents fling at them). What is your goal in this world? To make everyone else think the way you do? To force them to embrace your idea of what's good and what's evil, of what's valuable, and what's rubbish? To act and think like you? Do you want to control other people? Shame on you. My goal is freedom of choice - giving people the ability to choose to live their lives the way they want to - not the way you or the sheriff or the mayor or God wants.

Generalization is the enemy of individuality. And I caution you to avoid using it where you can. I feel guilty about using it myself against my opponents, but I'm dealing with people who hurt me and others like me, due to their narrow-mindedness. I don't think most of them are bad people, I could probably be friends with them given the chance. They might not even realize how hurtful the ideas they toss around are. But that's why I'm speaking out to raise awareness. Don't criticize people who don't live like you. Try to get to know them first - actually get to know them, not just research stereotypes and more generalizations. And in the meantime, refrain from judging them, just because they're not like you, and you maybe can't understand them through the lens of your own biased perspective (everyone has a biased perspective, even me - that's why it's important to put extra effort into being objective and thoughtful, and thinking before you speak). Not everyone has it in them to be a better kind of person, but if you do, you owe it to yourself and the rest of humanity to try.

Clear Shower Curtain

2011-11-29T11:25:00.000-08:00

Now that you've read my preamble on showering with strangers (you did read it, didn't you?), here are some pictures of me taking a shower. ;-)

Showering With Strangers

2011-11-26T23:58:00.000-08:00

I think that, in our culture, showering is a pretty private activity. It's a bathroom activity - and most of those you do alone, even if some of them (brushing your teeth) are less potentially embarrassing than others (sitting on the toilet). Plus, you're naked in the shower, and modesty dictates that noone is allowed to see your naked parts, but for a few exceptions (close relatives when you're small, friends when you're drunk and goofing off, spouses when you're horny). If that's not enough, you're rubbing your hands all over your naked, wet body in the shower, and hell if that's not at least a little bit sensual (even if you're not thinking about that when you do it).

Most people shower alone, and have an expectation of privacy when they're showering - again, but for a few exceptions, like if you're showering with an intimate partner, or if you're a kid in the bath with your siblings. Of course, not everyone goes by those rules. Nudists, for example, are by definition lax about modesty regarding nudity, and in many nudist resorts and locales, there are outdoor shower facilities (like the indoor kind you find in locker rooms, that go largely underused thanks to a combination of excessive modesty and homophobia, due to locker rooms being unnecessarily segregated by gender) where men and women old and young alike all shower together without a care in the world (then again, they're hanging out naked together without a care in the world in the first place).

You, of course, don't shower with strangers in these places, as that would be pretty awkward, but you could very well find yourself showering next to, or in front of, complete strangers as well as friends and family members. And really, once you get over the thought that "this is supposed to be a private activity", it's really not a big deal. We all shower. And nobody is particularly interested in your shower routine - you do what works for you. Unless they're a jerk, nobody is going to criticize your routine or anything of the sort.

But what of the sensual element I mentioned above? Watching an attractive person shower can be a highly sensual experience, I won't deny that. In nudist contexts, this sort of thing is strictly verboten, because it is impolite, and people don't go to nudist resorts to be gawked and leered at. And what's more, if you aren't intending to be watched, then having someone's eye on you can make you incredibly self-conscious. But in a more appropriate context, it could be a very sensual experience, both for the exhibitionist in the shower, and the voyeur watching.

Now I get the sense that some people would think, "who would want to watch me showering?" And if they're not particularly attractive, then maybe the answer to that question is, not very many people. But if they are, or if they are more attractive than they think they are, then there might be some people out there who would be interested. Now, how is one supposed to feel about that? Cultural values regarding modesty dictate that we ought to feel a bit creeped out that somebody would derive pleasure from looking at us naked. But I say, why the hell should that bother us? It's only natural.

I guess if you think about it reflexively, if it were you looking at yourself, you'd probably be a bit creeped out, because I imagine that most people are not particularly attracted to themselves (I may be a bit of an outlier in that sample). But think about somebody else, who is very attractive to you. Of course, if you've internalized the sexual shame that society has pounded into your brain, then you'll probably feel bad about "lusting" after another person. But if you're comfortable with your perfectly natural and healthy sexual feelings, then you might recognize that getting to watch an attractive woman (or whoever you might be attracted to) taking a shower (preferably with her permission, firstly because it's more fun if the other person is enjoying it too - although your feelings on that may vary - and secondly because it's more ethical that way, which entails less guilt) is a pretty exciting thing to do.

Now, just conceptualize it this way. There might be some people out there who are attracted to you, and would enjoy watching you take a shower. It's not creepy or anything, it's just natural sexual curiosity. And there are probably a lot of other people who have absolutely no interest in watching you take a shower (and not necessarily because you're ugly, they may just not be attracted to men, or whatever the case may be). There's no reason to feel dirty about letting the people who want to see it see it. And if some people don't want to see it, that's perfectly fine - and they really should not criticize you for letting others who do want to see it see it. That's called censorship - keeping something from someone who wants to see it. If somebody thinks you shouldn't give a naked picture of yourself (just as an easy example) to a person who wants to see it just because the first person (who wasn't asked and shouldn't be butting in) has no interest in seeing that sort of thing, they are forcing their interests and morals on you, and attempting to restrict your freedom of self-expression. Don't let them do that to you. Don't let them make you feel guilty or dirty for engaging in this kind of activity, either.

On a related issue, I hold firmly to the belief that letting a person see you naked, or even going so far as to let a person watch you masturbate, is not equivalent to giving them permission to have sex with you. This is why you should not feel awkward allowing people you are not attracted to, to be turned on by you. You can give people the gift of sexual excitement, without committing to engaging in any kind of sexual contact with them (that's the beauty of voyeurism/exhibitionism). To use a more concrete example, say you're a straight man. If a gay guy hits on you, you have no reason to feel intimidated, because simply being attractive to a gay guy doesn't make you gay. Attraction, as you probably know, is not always a two-way street. It doesn't have to always be a two-way street to be worth anything. If you're willing to give your attractiveness out without reciprocation, and if others are willing to be attracted to you without expectation of reciprocation, then more people can be happier and hornier and more relaxed about their sexuality without a need to put pressure on those they are attracted to who aren't attracted back.

Looking vs. Touching

2011-11-22T01:24:00.000-08:00

The difference between exhibitionism and swinging is the difference between looking and touching. I might enjoy having sex in front of a crowd, but it doesn't mean I'm willing to have sex with any or everyone in that crowd (whether or not I might fantasize about it in the safety of my own head). My erotic photography is not an advertisement for a product that can be bought for the right price. My erotic photography is the product. Some people would argue that it's a tease, that there's no value in arousing one's sexual desire unless you also intend to satisfy it. I vehemently disagree. I think there is intrinsic value in the eroticism itself, apart from any consideration for sexual satisfaction, and I also think satisfying oneself to an external stimulus is a perfectly respectable alternative to having a stimulus that actively satisfies you.

It's not unlike the argument that girls who dress provocatively and don't put out are asking to be raped. My sexual attraction to another person is not their responsibility, and if I find someone attractive, they have no obligation to me. I could be attracted to someone who doesn't dress particularly provocatively, or I might be drawn to an element of her clothing or style that she hadn't intended or expected to be attractive. This does not imbue her with any sort of responsibility to my sexual desires. And it's no different if she wears something that our culture defines as provocative, and expects to be accompanied by promiscuous sexuality. Regardless of a person's intentions with the way they dress (or act, or simply look), the only and responsible way to know if a person is interested in a certain type of activity is to ask her, not assume, based on appearances.

I welcome the internet because it greatly facilitates the practice of voyeurism. But we need to divest ourselves of this belief - particularly rampant concerning the interpretation of pornography - that a sexy picture is intrinsically related to sexual activity. If the picture depicts sexual activity, then it is obviously related to the sexual activity that it depicts. But if it does not, then we cannot presume that a certain body posture, or a come-hither stare, or the style or lack of clothing, or anything, is an invitation to sexual activity, when it could simply be flirtatious and sexy (not sexual) behavior.

In either case, there can be no presumption of a link to any other sexual activity that follows the display or sharing of that picture (and we must differentiate between independent sexual behavior, and sexual behavior that actively involves the stimulating subject - in other words, jerking it to a picture on the web is not equivalent to having sex with, much less raping, the person in that picture; all the more so if that person has absolutely no idea). Again, it all comes down to asking what a person wants. Pictures are not a "fuck me" permission slip (in your dreams), any more than wearing a miniskirt or flirting are. And neither should we treat them as if they were such an invitation to loose and licentious behavior by censoring them. A picture is just a picture, depicting only what it depicts. Nothing more. Anything else that might come of it is courtesy of the installment plan, and can be billed exclusively to those active participants who are responsible for it.

Hang on, "fuck me" permission slip? ...Oh, I just had a wonderfully naughty idea. >;-)

A(nother) Note On Privacy

2011-11-13T16:49:00.000-08:00

I don't want to criticize other people's uses of the internet, but sometimes my philosophy runs counter to the intuition of many. On flickr, there is a sizable portion of the community that is interested in what can best be described as amateur porn. This is entirely understandable, as sex is popular (whether you like it or not), and I respect flickr for allowing it, because otherwise, I would likely not be permitted to make 'artistic erotica' that borders the line of the explicit, and would therefore either have to give up my passion for erotic photography, or else find some other place to showcase my work.

Most of the people who are into this amateur porn sharing activity are less like me - with a driving artistic passion - and more of the 'let the horny pics flow' variety. Moreover, though they are undoubtedly sexually liberated, I get the sense that in most cases their sexual liberation is a 'secret' from their public and professional lives, whereas I - though I don't advertise my sexual interests to my friends (well, maybe a little) and family (to say nothing of business associates), neither am I committed to keeping it a big secret, because I respect honesty and transparency, and I think that sex should be less stigmatized and the only way to do that is to fight back against the 'deny it and pretend it doesn't happen' mentality.

Not everyone, though, is in a position to be able to afford the potential blow to their reputation should others find out about their proclivity for sexy "mis"deeds. And so, there is some concern about privacy when sharing pics online. Now, I agree that general concerns about privacy on the internet are valid and important, as regards personal information. But when the point of an activity is to share pictures, it seems counterintuitive to go to lengths to control the distribution of those pictures in certain ways. Most people keep their pictures on flickr private so that only specific people they add to their designated contact list can then see the pictures they share. This serves the purpose of preventing anyone not interested in seeing those pictures from seeing them, and only allowing those to see them who have expressed an interest in seeing them (and in some cases, having something in return).

On the first concern, I can't help thinking that flickr's safety filters already do the job of preventing people who don't like porn from seeing it. Of course, somebody who likes to see porn (or doesn't, but is willing to look for investigative purposes) will be able to see it even if you don't want them, specifically, to see it (say, a friend of yours or a family member who you'd rather not know you were into this sort of thing). On the other hand, people put up these "walls" of privacy that are mostly illusory, that do more to lull you into a false sense of security than to really prevent information from getting into the wrong hands. Any person you let past your wall of defense can take your pictures and then post them anywhere else, without your permission. Most of the people coming in are largely anonymous anyway (because they, like you, don't want their activities to be known), so you can't possibly know them well enough to trust them, and limiting access to only the most trusted has the effect of 1) pretty much defeating the purpose of sharing in the first place, and 2) not keeping you 100% safe anyway, because people you trusted can turn on you, or prove to be less trustworthy than you thought, or even cause problems unintentionally by making mistakes.

So, I say, if you're posting pictures on the internet, chances are they could end up anywhere. Which means two things. If you absolutely cannot deal with having to defend that picture no matter who sees it, then you really should not be uploading it to the internet*, unless you're prepared to deal with the regret and fallout should you gamble on the risk of nobody important finding out, and lose. The other thing this means is that if you're posting a picture on the internet that you're capable of defending even if your, say, grandmother** ends up finding it (as unlikely as that is, it is not impossible), then there's really no reason to put up any extraneous privacy walls other than trying to keep that picture in a place where people who want to see it can find it and people who don't can easily avoid it (although this is only an issue of social politeness).

* Of course, sending private pictures to your boyfriend/girlfriend/someone you trust by email is an entirely different matter than posting pictures on a photo sharing sight to be viewed and admired by anonymous strangers.

** Ex: Say I have a relative who is conservative and very religious. I'd rather not have her know that I pose for sexually explicit pictures and share them with strangers on the internet. On the other hand, if she found out, I'm not going to deny it, and I'm not going to hang my head in shame either. This is a part of who I am, and while it's unfortunate if she doesn't like it and chooses to judge me for it (the possibility of which is the reason I don't go out of my way to tell her), I'm not going to change, and I'm not going to feel sorry for myself because someone else doesn't like what I do.

And that's how I do things. I did mention another concern, which is the 'barter' system of internet trading - "you can't see my pictures unless you have some pictures of your own to show me." I think it's great to encourage people to go out and take more pictures for us all to see, but I'm not going to require that someone have a picture of interest to me before I allow them to take pleasure in viewing what pictures I have. Some groups on flickr also have this policy, in that you will not be allowed to join unless you have pictures to contribute that fit the theme of the group. While it's great to have contributing members, it seems kind of discriminatory for me not to be able to join a group to advertise my appreciation for erotic nudes of women, just because I haven't really had the chance to take any erotic pictures of women myself. Do you see what I mean?

Anyway, there's definitely a poor opinion of "leechers" and "lurkers" in internet communities, and while in some cases that opinion is warranted, in others it looks to me like your typical discrimination against voyeurs and people who lack opportunity and those who are more passive and like to observe the world more than interact with it. That's not to say that they're worthless and don't have anything to contribute, just that they go about it in a different way, and you really shouldn't discriminate against them just because they behave differently than what you're used to.

In short, to paraphrase what I've said before, I'm not about hazing and private communities and secret privileges. I'm about honesty and transparency and giving power to the people.

Toy Sex

2011-11-12T18:35:00.000-08:00

I took the above pictures several years ago, just for fun. Who among us hasn't looked at an attractive doll or action figure of the appropriate sex and thought, I wonder what she'd look like without her clothes on? And who among us hasn't had the thought cross our mind to experiment with sexual roles using these dolls as stand-ins? After all, we play war games and adventure games and all sorts of games with our toys, why should we not also play sex games with them? The only reason I can think of is that we are indoctrinated to believe that sex is dirty and immoral and something we should be ashamed of, and only experiment with behind closed doors, keeping it all a big secret as if to pretend that none of it really happens.

I took those pictures purely for my own entertainment, but that was at a time when I was less sexually liberated than I am now, and also when I had less experience as an erotic photographer. These days, I can see the wealth of inspiring potential that the use of a doll or figurine can have in the context of an erotic photo shoot, and suddenly my mind turns once again towards the toys of my youth, but with a sexual gaze that has been for much of my life restrained. As a person who is questioning the accuracy of his lifelong socially appointed gender, I do tend to jump at opportunities to recover the girlhood I never had. Yet with a clear sexual appetite, I now see so much more potential in the procurement of a collection of Barbie dolls, for example, than a simple chance to practice the consumerist fashion-conscious role that is prescribed to girls.

Furthermore, I notice with curious amusement that among the great variety of sexual tastes that abound, there are some out there who do indeed get a special thrill out of interacting with their 'dolls' of various styles in a rather, shall we say, intimate manner. Though it does not represent an obsessive passion of mine, I must frankly admit that it all sounds like quite a bit of fun. And so it was that almost a year ago now I posed with one of my own anime figures for some intriguing pictures. I wasn't sure how or if I wanted to present those pictures at the time, so I stored them away for a while. But the idea was so clever and novel, that several months later, I decided that I simply must share the best one, at least, of those pictures for the world (or at least the perverted component of it) to see.

And now, because I have recently come upon some photos taken by others that have rekindled my inspiration for this particular photographic theme, I'd like to share with you a handful of other photos that came out of that shoot, almost a year ago now. Apart from being sexy, which you may or may not agree with, I think they are clever and amusing, so if the subject itself doesn't turn you off (which is to say, it doesn't bother you to look at closeups of somebody else's penis - which I would entirely understand if it does), then I hope you'll enjoy these:

Erection Day

2011-11-08T10:34:00.000-08:00

I hereby designate the Tuesday after the first Monday in November Erection Day! So don't be shy, this is the day to sport your erections - because the only thing the "polls" are good for is jerking!

I don't support democracy. It doesn't make sense to me that a nation should be ruled differently depending on the personality of its ruler(s), especially when those ruler(s) change too frequently to provide any stability. Laws and rights and policies should be determined by logic and ethical reasoning, not tastes and opinions. Fundamental equality is a farce unless we abide by universalist ethics, not ethics that are voted on by a majority. Having a Constitution means nothing if its enforcement depends upon the individual interpretation of the person the rest of society has elected to judge you.

Sexy Holidays

2011-11-07T19:55:00.000-08:00

Some people complain that Halloween has become too sexualized, with all the girls dressing up in "sexy" versions of popular costumes. I've never had a problem with that; in fact, I think it makes the holiday that much more exciting. Then again, I don't limit my festivities to Halloween - I like to sexualize all of the holidays!

Sexy Santa!

Nude New Year's!

Voluptuous Valentine's!

Frisky Easter Bunny!

A Horny Halloween!

And A Tasty Turkey Dinner!
Everything in life is simply more fun when it's sexy! And you don't have to wait for the holidays to come around - every day can be Sexy Day!

Witchy Woman

2011-11-01T23:43:00.000-07:00

A Halloween treat!

Redefining Voyeurism/Exhibitionism

2011-10-13T16:05:00.000-07:00

Voyeurism and exhibitionism seem like the same thing to me. They're just two sides of the same coin. After all, you can't have exhibitionism without someone watching, and you can't have voyeurism without someone being watched. In any given act of voyeurism/exhibitionism, one or more persons is the voyeur(s), and one or more persons is the exhibitionist(s).

I suppose consent may be an issue. A man who exposes himself to strangers in the park is engaging in exhibitionism with nonconsenting "voyeurs" (if we can even call them that). And a man who peeks through the keyhole of a bedroom door is engaging in voyeurism of nonconsenting "exhibitionists" (again, if we can even call them that).

But it seems to me that a person who likes to watch (or be watched) would, purely out of politeness, prefer to watch (or be watched by) someone who likes to be watched (or who likes to watch). Yet there is this stereotypical assumption that voyeurs get off on invading the privacy of others, and that exhibitionists get off on shocking and offending people.

I am sure there are fetishists out there that are like that, but what about the rest of us who like to watch or be watched preferably in a consensual context, given the opportunity? Is there a different word for us? Frankly, I think it's discriminatory to assume, by definition, that voyeurs and exhibitionists are persons who are aroused by intrinsically nonconsensual sexual activity!

Personally, I think there should be more of a distinction between consensual and nonconsensual voyeurism/exhibitionism, than there is between voyeurism and exhibitionism itself. Perhaps we need a new concept to describe voyeurism and exhibitionism as they occur in a consensual context - Mutual Voyeurism/Exhibitionism (MVE) perhaps? Or maybe something that emphasizes the importance of observation, without signaling one or the other side of it: as nonconsensual voyeurs engage in voyeurism against non-exhibitionists, and nonconsensual exhibitionists engage in exhibitionism against non-voyeurs, and only mutual voyeurs/exhibitionists engage in consensual voyeurism/exhibitionism (simultaneously).

Note also, that if a person engages in nonconsensual voyeurism or exhibitionism, it does not necessarily preclude them from being a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist. It may simply be the case that, due to an inability to find a consenting partner (not hard to believe in a society that discourages, even stigmatizes, voyeurism and exhibitionism), they may, perhaps in desperation, or purely out of convenience, have taken risks or made decisions resulting in a less than optimal outcome. Given the right opportunity, they may prefer a consensual experience to a nonconsensual one, and should thus not be stigmatized as the type who thrives on the nonconsent of their "partners" (or victims, if you will).

Furthermore, even a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist may prefer one over the other, due to his tastes and personality, just like some people in the BDSM community prefer to be doms or subs, while others can enjoy both sides. I would designate these persons either mutual voyeurs or mutual exhibitionists, depending, with the "mutual" prefix indicating that they prefer consenting partners to nonconsenting ones (contrary to what the public casually assumes about voyeurs and exhibitionists - much like they have, in the past, stereotypically assumed that members of the BDSM community are rapists and committers of violent sexual abuse).

Myself, I would describe as a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist, as I enjoy both sides, and prefer to engage with consenting "partners". (In the case of voyeurism and exhibitionism, the term "partners" may refer not only to people you are engaging with in sexual contact or intercourse, but also to persons you are watching - "performers" - or persons who are watching you - "observers"). Lastly, because of the hands-off nature of voyeurism and exhibitionism, as well as the immediacy of sight, it stands to reason that allegedly "nonconsenting" acts of voyeurism and exhibitionism can often be very minor invasions of privacy or offenses against decency - indeed, if at all - and should thus be considered accordingly, and not treated like serious crimes when they clearly do not constitute such.

Art or Sex

2011-10-04T17:41:00.000-07:00

The difference between myself, as an artist, and an ordinary pervert is that I am devoted to beauty, not sexual conquest. My interest in girls is not to possess them sexually - that is not my goal. I merely desire to have their permission to honor and admire their beauty; and in the best-case scenario, to be permitted to immortalize it in my photography.

Now, that's not to say that eroticism isn't a part of the beauty I admire. I wish it were as simple as separating my sexual interests from the aesthetic qualities I appreciate. Then I could just be a regular photographer taking pictures of beautiful people, without having to deal with the stigma of being labeled a "pervert".

And certainly, the experience of spotting a pretty girl on the street is qualitatively different from the experience of spotting a sexy girl on the street. But I'm too honest to pretend that there isn't some relationship between the two, and that the two never overlap.

Most people politely avoid sexual connotations in order to defend their reputation (because sex, in this society, is vilified). I'm not willing to do that, because I'm dedicated to exploring the world as it is, and that means not sweeping inconvenient truths under the rug.

But even accepting the potential sexual connotations of my work, the fact remains that there is a distinction between erotic beauty and sexual activity. One is a transient act that brings intense pleasure usually to no more than a few people at a time. The other is a romantic concept, the realm of dreams and desires, often inspired by a physical quality that is possible to preserve, through art.

Both of these have their virtues, and their drawbacks. But they should not be mistaken for one another, though they may be related. And my dedication is not to sexual activity (not that I am asexual, either), but to beauty, even as it approaches the erotic.

It is possible that, in my mind, I have eroticized aesthetic beauty to an unusual extent. But if part of my admiration of those qualities is erotic in nature, I don't feel comfortable denying that. Yet if, on the other hand, I were to tell someone that my interest in photographing models (especially nude) is artistic or spiritual, and not at all sexual in nature, they will be suspicious if they have any reason to suspect otherwise. They will not trust me unless I am 100% clean. And because I have so far embraced sexuality to the extent that I have, I am not only not 100% clean, but blatantly unclean, in the eyes of the chaste.

So my honesty is punished, where more deceptive men may be able to get away with it - men who, I emphasize, may have less noble goals than I do. After all, if they've deceived you about their sexual interest, they may also have deceived you about their devotion to art, and only be interested in exploiting and taking advantage of their models. This is cause for much distrust in the artistic community (see: GWC - Guy With Camera), toward those who express an unverifiable "artistic interest", as if this were a badge of honest intent, entitling the bearer to special privileges.

Well, as a token of my honesty, I'm telling you that I do have a sexual interest in the models I'd like to photograph. But my devotion to art is likewise sincere.

Pleasure in Procreating

2011-09-29T22:33:00.000-07:00

Why does sex feel good?

I suppose it's because our bodies are designed to respond with pleasure when our sexual organs are stimulated.

But why is this so? If you believe in intelligent design, then I guess your creator has a few questions to answer (and I'm afraid it looks like he's not talking). I, however, am of the opinion that evolution is the most reasonable hypothesis currently on the market.

So what is the key to evolution? Survival. This sounds like a tautology, but that which is adapted to survive will survive, and that which is not will die off.

What forms does survival take? One is immortality - indefinite survival of the self. Unfortunately, this poses certain physical problems (see the Law of Entropy), and I don't believe any living organism we know of has figured it out...yet.

Another form is renewal. Though the individual must eventually die, his species can live on through his progeny. Enter the cycle of life. Those that wither and die are replaced by new generations, created through sexual reproduction.

As we can see, procreation is important for survival. So what kind of mechanism is necessary for organisms to procreate enthusiastically, in order to encourage the continued propagation of the species?

Logical thought is one possibility. An organism may procreate because he understands the need to procreate. However, many organisms have not developed an intellectual faculty for logical thought (as far as we can discern). Furthermore, an individual may decide that survival is not his goal.

The species with the best chance for survival is the one that has an overwhelming compulsion to reproduce. An organism that enjoys sex is more likely to fuck - and fuck often. Since we are the product of many years of evolution, it may very well be the case that sex feels good because it has enabled us to survive.

Now, an amoeba or a fruit fly's primary concern may be to reproduce before it dies, but we as humans are highly advanced organisms. Beyond survival (of the self, and the species), there is a little thing called "quality of life", that we can afford to concern ourselves with. And though happiness is very complex, in general, pleasurable activities are desirable - including sex.

Of course, procreation - while both important and rewarding - carries a large burden, and is not the desirable end result of every individual sex act, for organisms intelligent enough to understand the process and make that decision. Reproduction is fundamentally important for the species, but pleasure is an even more basic desire for the individual. And while an individual may desire to reproduce only a handful of times throughout his life, he wants to experience pleasure as much as possible.

Sex fulfills a very unique and strong desire. It is unlike any other. A man can pursue all sorts of alternative pleasures in life, but none will equal the pleasure that sex brings. Perhaps in some transhumanist future, we will be able to displace the need for sex and replace it with something decidedly less risky, that also doesn't involve the complications of interpersonal relations. Perhaps we will become the engineers of our own evolution, and be able to separate completely the pleasure of sex from the need to procreate.

But for now, we have to deal with the potential complications of sex (transfer of disease, unplanned pregnancy, complicated relationships), while understanding that sex is both pleasurable, and fulfills a fundamental human need. I think we are intelligent and sophisticated enough to engage in recreational sex responsibly. Shaming people out of having sex too freely is no longer helpful (if it ever was). It negatively affects the quality of too many people's lives, with minimal benefit (it does not encourage people to fuck responsibly). People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to engage in sexual activity, after being properly educated about both the pros and cons, how to minimize risk and act responsibly, as well as how best to enjoy oneself (and one's partner(s)).

And aside from that, whether in addition or as an alternative, people should be encouraged to pursue the erotic arts and seek out the sensual pleasures in life, and develop a rich fantasy life, for those times when sex with another is not convenient. Life is a sensual experience, and there is no excuse for shaming people out of being able to enjoy those pleasures.

The old may not admire the young?

2011-09-22T16:58:00.000-07:00

I was just reading some comments on a random thread about convention photography, looking for some advice about good lenses to use in that environment, and I came across a comment which is not particularly uncommon. The poster of that comment was remarking at how "gross" it is that at conventions s/he often sees "old" men shamelessly snapping photos of all the young girls in skimpy costumes, and oh my god, isn't that creepy? And I can kind of see where that comment is coming from, because I'm not blind to the prudish attitudes that pervade modern sexual politics. And it's not simply a matter of 'guy attracted to girl' - which is, after all, natural - but it's a matter of 'older guy attracted to younger girl' that so often grosses people out.

Like I said, I can see where that's coming from. But that doesn't mean it's a justified reaction. It's no more natural for a young man to be attracted to a girl his age than it is for an older man to be attracted to a girl of that age. I'm hesitant to make a generalization about how all men are interested in young, virile women, but you do see it a lot. And I suspect it's part of biology. But why is it creepy? If the young girl represents a man's ideal of beauty, then why is it gross for him to recognize that, and admire it, regardless of his age? We have this expectation that people only be attracted to other people close to their age, but time and again, experience bears out that this is not always the way that sexual attraction works.

Now I suppose there are reasons why it's easier to date within one's age bracket. Social institutions often tend to be geared toward a generational segregation. You grow up in a system where you spend most of your time in classes with people within a year of your age. You make friends with those people, and often some of those people stay your friends throughout life. But even beyond that, people within a generation share quite a bit, in terms of interests and cultural experiences, so they're often easier to socialize with than people of disparate ages whose life experiences are vastly different from yours.

But you know what? A lot of good can come out of spending time with people who have had different life experiences than you. And a lot of value can be shared between older persons and younger persons (going in both directions), if their minds are opened. I am of the opinion that age is just a number, and I have had a lot of friends throughout my life that have been significantly older than me. I've always expressed a bit of a maturity beyond my years, so I suppose that's not all that unexpected. But as unique as I am, I'm not the only one who can benefit from those sorts of friendships.

Generally, these kinds of platonic friendships are respected, but as soon as the question of love and sex and romance come into play, people get uncomfortable. Anyone who dares to defy the "half-age plus seven" rule is bound to draw suspicious looks and hushed whispers. After all, age-peer relationships are the rule, and we live in a conformity-loving society. It is the popular belief that freaks who flout convention deserve ridicule. As far as condoning age-disparate relationships, it would be worthwhile to discuss the difficulties that such relationships might pose compared to age-peer relationships, but there have been more than enough examples in practice to demonstrate that such relationships can be entirely sincere and positive. Ultimately, the responsibility of choice rests on those engaged in the relationship, and not on society to either condone or prohibit such relationships en masse.

And yet, the greater the disparity, the greater our concern. But neither are age-peer relationships always free of concern and complication. A person is not good (or bad) for you based solely (nor even primarily) on their age. Personality is a much better predictor of character and motivation. I ask you, is there reason to condemn a man's appreciation for the beauty of a young girl, based purely on his age? Does acceptable behavior at 20 become unacceptable at 40? At 60? At 80? Should people in those upper ages be forced to suppress their admiration and appreciation for youth? And if so, on what grounds? Because it looks "creepy"?

Viewing the appreciation of erotic beauty as "creepy" can only come from a sex negative mindset. What harm does appreciation do? Who is harmed by being appreciated? And is it because we love to shame people both for expressing their sexuality, and for being the target of sexual attention (yes, that's right, we just love to blame the victim)? And if so, are we justified in condemning these people when we should be pointing the finger back at ourselves?

As Oscar Wilde once wrote, "those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt." And yet the cultural paradigm is to regard anyone who responds to beauty (if there is any erotic context whatsoever) as a creepy pervert. We inject creepiness and perversion into our conception of beauty. Like as if beauty must exist pure and independent, that it is somehow spoiled if it is recognized, viewed. Or, perhaps, there is something wrong with beauty in itself - that it is some kind of evil, a taunting, sinful lure. If there is anyone at fault here, it is those who view the appreciation of beauty as something ugly. It is their twisted and confused attitudes about the nature of sexuality that need remedying. If we are to be honest, the truth is that these young girls are beautiful and sexy, and I can see no reason why anyone should be criticized for recognizing that fact.

Lens Talk

2011-09-21T17:01:00.000-07:00

It took me a matter of hours to learn how to shop for a lens, and what all those numbers mean, but it took me years to work up the motivation to actually learn it, on account of my chronic laziness. I bought my digital SLR camera (a Canon XSi) just before Christmas 2008, which was almost three years ago now. At the time, I had recently lost the point-and-shoot camera I had been using for my 365 Daily Nudes project (at the Burning Man festival, along with all the amazing pictures I took at the festival). A few months after losing it, and being forced to fall back on the even crappier point-and-shoot camera I had been using before that one, I rekindled my fading desire to shoot photography. I decided that it was time to upgrade to "prosumer" level (somewhere between mindless consumer and sophisticated professional) and purchase a dSLR camera.

It's one of the best decisions I've ever made (certainly in terms of my photography hobby).

Thanks to the guidance of a tech-savvy friend, I got a good deal on a Canon XSi. The kit lens included in the package was the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens. As far as I can tell, it's a fantastic multi-purpose beginner's lens. I was upgrading from point-and-shoot quality photography, so the fact that it's not a high-end high-quality lens failed to affect me. Over time, I've begun to desire even better quality optics, but the flip side of that is that the technical quality of my photography has increased by leaps and bounds since my point-and-shoot days - as well as my knowledge and experience, especially after I made the daring move to start shooting in manual (versus auto) mode, and learn how to manipulate exposure.

Meanwhile, my tech-savvy friend, who's always been at least one step ahead of me (my first two digital cameras were old cameras of his that he was trying to get rid of), started recommending the EF 50mm f/1.8 II [prime] lens, which is a good quality lens for its really low price. I spent several months deliberating, and then finally bought it, lured by the promise of better quality pictures, and faster exposures, thanks to the larger aperture (f/1.8 versus the kit lens' f/3.5-5.6). The latter is of particular importance to me, considering that I shoot a lot of medium to low light photography, and I abhor using a flash. (I want a quick exposure to reduce motion blur, but to do that in situations where there's not a lot of light, you need a larger aperture to suck in as much light as possible).

The 50mm lens delivered on its promises. It's fast, and I really like how much better the pictures look compared to those taken with my kit lens. However, the one significant drawback is that with a 50mm focal length, the angle of view is very narrow - close to the upper range of the 18-55mm zoom that my kit lens sports. So it's like using that lens with it stuck in the "zoomed-in" position (except, of course, with faster exposures and better quality pictures). But for my photography needs, the tight angle of view is hard to deal with. I don't shoot a lot of small objects, and I probably shoot most of my photos indoors, where there's not a lot of room to back up and get everything in the frame.

So, I actually use my kit lens more often, switching in the 50mm only when I can get away with it - like if I'm shooting outdoors, where there's more space - although, ironically, there's usually more light, too, which kind of negates the need for faster exposures. And if I think about it, most of my photography is self-portraiture, where I'm using a tripod anyway, so I can afford to deal with slightly longer exposures. With a tripod, hand-shake from holding the camera isn't an issue, and I've become pretty good at holding still for poses. Hence, my kit lens is usually adequate, although there's still the desire to have a better quality lens - one without the drawback of having a tight angle of view like the 50mm has.

However, there's one other area in which I've felt my photography equipment has been considerably lacking, and that's in shooting convention photography. Most convention photography is indoors, where there's not a huge amount of natural light; and since it's not really practical to set up your tripod, you have to shoot hand-held, so quick exposures are important. But in the middle of a crowd, especially when the hallways are narrow and cramped, there's not a lot of room to back up, so you need to shoot fairly close to your subject. Plus, rather than head-and-shoulders portraits (which have never interested me much), you usually want to take full-body portraits to get the whole costume in the shot (and that's not to mention some of the long props congoing cosplayers sometimes wield). So you have to have a lens with a wide angle of view.

As it stands, I have two lenses. One of them has a wide enough angle of view for this type of photography, but it's too slow, and I've been consistently getting pictures that are way too blurry for my standards. The other lens I have is fast enough, but the angle of view is too tight, so I can't get the kind of pictures with it that I want. So now I'm studying the lenses that Canon has available, looking to see if there's something affordable I might be able to get my hands on. What I need is something with a focal length close to the lower range of my zoom lens, which is 18mm, but with an aperture size closer to my 50mm lens, which is f/1.8. Something fast, with a wide angle. But it also has to be cheap...

In an ideal world, I'd get a super expensive lens that is really high quality - for example, something in the luxury series, like the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM perhaps (and I might as well get a better camera, too, while I'm at it). But those lenses run for upwards of a thousand dollars, and are completely outside of my price range. I'm looking at the EF 28mm f/2.8, which is one of the cheapest Canon lenses on the market (other than the two I already own). It looks to be a reasonable compromise between the lenses I have: faster than my zoom, but wider than my prime. Although I would really like to try it out first before buying, to see if it's wide enough and fast enough, rather than risk being disappointed.

It's tempting to consider either the EF 24mm f/2.8, which is a bit wider than the 28mm f/2.8, or the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, which is a bit faster, but the former is a hundred dollars more expensive, and the latter is almost double the price of the 28mm f/2.8. I've never been a technical snob, and as long as I can get the pictures I need, with as much or better quality than the equipment I have (which doesn't allow me to get those pictures), I think I'll be satisfied. After all, the pictures you get with the cheap lens you own are going to be better quality than the pictures you don't get with the lens you don't have (because you can't afford it). Right?

Still, though, it'd be nice to try before I buy. Also, I haven't considered the used market (nor third-party lenses), where prices might be more affordable.

Abstinence vs. Sexual Purity

2011-09-20T11:31:00.000-07:00

Sex - as in sexual intercourse, and various forms of sexual activity - carries some risks, and should be engaged in responsibly. There are reasons to abstain from those activities. Maybe you're not ready for the responsibility. Maybe you don't want to deal with the risks. Or maybe you simply don't have access to a partner you trust. But even if this is the case, it doesn't mean you have to remain sexually pure. There are other methods to sate your erotic desires.

Think about it. I don't go out and have sex with somebody every time I get horny. Most people probably don't. Some people are in committed relationships where they can have sex pretty much anytime they want it. I think this is probably the exception to the rule, as most people are not in such relationships, or their partners are not horny and available all day, every day (and even if they were, they'd probably be complaining about how you're not!).

So when I'm not with a person I want to have sex with (and who wants to have sex with me), do I restrain myself from entertaining any erotic thoughts? Do I abstain from pleasuring myself in any way? No. Whether I'm stimulating my body, or just my mind, there are plenty of ways I can indulge my erotic fantasies and desires - and one that I have great interest in is the art of eroticism - the creation and sharing of erotic pictures.

The point of this discussion is that when people think about sex, they think about all the risks of sex, and then they judge sexually-related activities based on those risks. But there are different forms of sex, and not all sex involves the risks of sexual intercourse. We shouldn't judge non-sexually-explicit erotic art as if its creation involved sexual intercourse. We shouldn't treat fantasies as if the activities they describe were being acted out in reality. And we shouldn't react to expressions of attraction as if they were a form of sexual assault.

If you're not having sex, you can still be sexy, and if you're sexy, it doesn't mean you're having sex.

The Difference Between Fantasy and Reality

2011-09-19T18:07:00.000-07:00

I think we really need to understand what the difference between fantasy and reality is. Because restricting fantasies on the basis of their merits when practiced in reality is insane.

Imagine this fantasy. You're sitting on the subway, and a naked girl (or guy, depending on your orientation) walks up to you. She (or he) is really hot, and she immediately unzips your pants and begins to manually and orally pleasure you. You then take her home and fuck her hard all day long, again and again, until you're both exhausted. Then she leaves and you never see each other again.

That fantasy is really fucking hot, right? You know why it's hot? It's hot because you don't have to worry about getting arrested for indecent exposure on the subway. You don't have to worry whether this girl (or guy) has any sexually transmitted diseases. And if it is a girl, you don't have to worry about getting her pregnant (you don't even have to concern yourself with whether or not the sex is safe). You also don't have to worry about the repercussions of skipping out on a day of work to have an all-day sex orgy. And you don't have to worry about seeing this person again in case you don't get along very well, either. There are no laws, no responsibilities, no consequences, none of the shit that so frequently gets in the way of having a good time in real life. It's just imagination.

Having these fantasies doesn't make you want to go out and perform them in the real world. Well, you might want to perform them, but you don't perform them just because you're thinking about them. You refrain from performing them for exactly the reasons why they shouldn't be performed (unless it's a fantasy that can be performed in reality without any problems - and there are plenty of those, too). There's no reason why you should be barred from thinking about (and enjoying) those fantasies in the safety of your own mind. And there's no reason why those fantasies should be restricted topics in the realm of creative fiction (audio, visual, literary - whatever).

Sabotaging Sexuality

2011-09-15T12:30:00.000-07:00

How to sabotage a person's sexuality:

Preach the belief that sex is an immoral act perpetrated by an aggressor (the one who desires sex) against a victim (who is incapable of either desiring or enjoying sex), where the aggressor derives sexual satisfaction by degrading the victim.

Note that this is essentially the script put forth by anti-sex "feminists" describing men's sexual attraction to women (especially as applied to pornography).

Then, when a person experiences sexual feelings, he will interpret those feelings as a desire to degrade the target of his attraction, and will feel guilty about it.

Supposedly, shame will encourage sexual repression. But you can't eliminate sexual desire, and people are bound to continue acting on their sexual urges, while merely feeling bad about it. And god knows how they'll begin to act once they've been convinced that degradation is the key to satisfaction. You may as well be short-circuiting their moral fuse. See, you can't really control people's sexuality, you just end up fucking with their heads. And that's totally humane.

Meanwhile, the lucky ones among us see the trick for what it is, and recognize that our sexuality, which is wholesome and natural, is simply a desire to seek and pursue pleasure, and not a need to parasitically feed off of the humiliation and degradation of others (although you have to wonder about the desires of the people who insist that that's what sex is all about).

We think of sex in terms of who is getting off. The only time it is ethical to get off on the stimulus of another person is if that person is also getting off (i.e., is a knowing, consenting partner). Otherwise, we view the stimulant as if she were being used, inhumanely, as a sexual object, against her will. Degraded, if you will.

Well, here's another way to think about it. If somebody experiences sexual release, it means they're feeling good. That's better than feeling bad, right? Why are we so tied to our sexual modesty and purity, that we value them above the pleasure of others? Why would we rather maintain those vapid qualities, at the cost of allowing others to suffer through life? If you have contributed to another person's orgasm (knowingly or not, willingly or not), you should feel honored to have had a part in increasing the amount of happiness experienced in the world, to balance out all the pain.

None of this is to suggest that we throw out our concept of sexual ethics. There is polite sexuality, and there is rude sexuality. But don't assume that all sexuality is rude. And don't feel like you have to police your image, both digitally and in the real world, lest some pervert drool over you. If you don't know about it, then how is it inconveniencing you? And meanwhile, you're helping somebody to feel better in their life, if only for a brief moment. By contributing to sexual shame you are only encouraging people to feel miserable.

And perhaps it's because you already feel miserable, and misery loves company. But you know what? I bet you would feel a lot better if you began treating yourself to the occasional orgasm. But even better than that, revel in your sexuality. When you're able to appreciate the sensuality of simply living, when you allow yourself to respond to the erotic triggers you experience daily, you will then be more receptive to the transcendent joy that is inherent in life. And maybe that will better prepare you to deal with the hardships that life inevitably brings. No doubt life is hard. There ought to be a balance, after all. Don't be afraid to let yourself enjoy the good things in life. And don't punish others for having the ability to enjoy those good things, even when you can't.

Public Nudity in the News

2011-09-14T11:35:00.000-07:00

According to a recent news article, there is currently some debate over the status of public nudity in San Francisco - specifically in the neighborhood known as the Castro. They are discussing drafting a new law requiring nudists to put a towel down on seats before sitting down, and to put some clothes on before entering restaurants. While the issue stirs up the usual intolerant attitudes about public nudity, it's kind of exciting to hear that the city actually recognizes a person's right to be nude in public - even if it does so reluctantly, and potentially only in this specific location.

But about those intolerant attitudes...

"They are unabashed in their brazenness, setting off a robust debate about how far San Francisco's legendary penchant for tolerance should be stretched."

I hate this sort of thinking. The idea that public nudity stretches the boundaries of reasonable tolerance. Oh lordy, lordy, of all things, we cannot allow naked people to roam our streets! There are much harder things to tolerate. Drugs, prostitution, hate groups picketing in the streets. In what twisted world view is public nudity a cardinal sin? The only thing offensive about naked people in public is that we're conditioned to view the naked body as disgusting (except when it's sexy). But the naked body is natural, and our aversion to it is what is sick. Luckily, there's a cure: exposure.

"the city's elected leaders have largely stayed out of the debate over public nudity, not wanting to run counter to San Francisco's storied reputation as an anything-goes culture where individual rights and freedom of expression are embraced."

This is just an extension of those beliefs. I'm bothered by the idea that embracing individual rights and freedoms is tied to this notion that "anything-goes". People seem inclined to believe that if we give people one freedom (that they deserve), then they will go off and take every liberty they want. If we let people roam the streets naked, they're not going to initiate public orgies. And if we celebrate people's freedom to roam the streets naked, we don't have to also celebrate their right to initiate public orgies (a right they haven't been given, whether you think they deserve it or not).

This sort of "anything-goes" language is just a form of scare-mongering that conservative-minded folk use to scare us out of giving people any more freedoms than they already have - not just the freedoms that would be detrimental to civilized society (which they cite to prop up their argument), but also the freedoms they deserve, that would contribute to a more civilized society. Make no mistake, this is exactly the same kind of thinking that conceptualizes gay pride as a threat to the social order, and evidence of the decline of modern civilization.

"'I'm all for live and let live, but this has gotten out of hand,' said Jonathan Mills, who lives in the Castro and has complained to police about the naked guys. 'This is not hip or cool or an asset to San Francisco. These people make other people avoid our neighborhood at a time when it is struggling.'"

Actually, nudism is totally hip and cool - or, it could be, if it weren't for its image being represented by old, lumpy people.

What's more, if you actually advertised the city's tolerance for public nudity, you would get tons of tourists. Imagine the boost to your neighborhood's economy! But you resist this simple solution because either a) you think the shape God created us in is ugly, or b) you have unfounded fears about people having sex in public or something similar. I get that you don't want people having sex on the streets (although I don't understand why that's a problem), but what about that leads you to the conclusion that people shouldn't be naked on the streets either? Are you really equating nudity with sexual activity? I hear about that a lot, but I didn't think anyone was ignorant enough to actually make that mistake.

"Karla Zeitz, who lives in the neighborhood with her children, ages 4 and 5, said she usually avoids the areas where the naked guys congregate. Still, she moved into the Castro knowing it was not Kansas. 'Frankly I'm more disturbed by the meth heads, the drugs and the panhandling than I am by seeing a couple of naked guys,' she said."

Finally, some sense. A couple naked guys (and I wish it weren't restricted only to guys) in the streets is not a serious problem.

But if there is any good in this article, it's that having a law requiring nudists to put a towel down before they sit down, and to dress before entering restaurants, implies pretty directly that it is not against the law to be nude outside, as long as you put a towel down before you sit down (which is pretty standard nudist practice, in my experience).

I'm wondering if there's any affordable property up for sale in that neighborhood. ;-)

Interestingly, the poll attached to the news article, which asks your opinion of what should be done about public nudity in San Francisco, doesn't offer the option, "legalize it explicitly". The most positive choice is to "keep tacitly allowing it". I don't want it to be allowed tacitly. I want it to be allowed EXPLICITLY!

In other news, a body painting artist working in Times Square is advised by police to cover up his topless model. This story caught my attention because, to my understanding, women are allowed to go topless in public in New York City. But apparently, the reason the model was asked to cover up is because she was creating a commotion, and the authorities wanted to nip it in the bud before it "got out of hand".

I wonder, how exactly would it have gotten out of hand? Were they expecting some kind of orgy to break out? Or were they afraid people in the crowd would get into fights for some reason? I don't understand. Unless it's simply a matter of crowding - you know, causing a traffic hazard or something.

But we hide nudity under our clothes, and in seedy strip clubs behind velvet curtains; if you put a nude right out there on the street, of course people are going to be intrigued and want to look. My question is this: if there were more nudes in public, would it be a problem? Would people be as shocked if they'd seen half a dozen nudes on their walk already? Would they stop and crowd around if they knew they would encounter a dozen more nudes if only they would keep on their way?

It bugs me that if a woman takes her top off in public, we, as respectable citizens, can't "handle" it properly. What's more, it's pretty offensive to suggest that a woman's topfreedom can be rescinded if enough men take a prurient (or any) interest in her breasts. I guess men and women aren't equal after all. But I think the solution is not covering the nudity up. The solution is exposing more of it. It's the only way to get over the titillation factor of nudity, on account of it being rare and exciting.

P.S. I just came across a blog written by a guy who lives in the Castro district, who is regularly nude in public. It is fascinating to hear about his experiences, and the kind of reactions he gets from people - some positive, many negative. I suggest you start here, where he describes how the neighborhood has changed over the years, and has succumbed to mainstream conformism. But be sure to check out the rest of the blog, too.

Pluralistic Politics

2011-09-04T17:42:00.000-07:00

In a society of many members, which believes in basic human rights, and the fundamental equality of its citizens, it is necessary that unlimited freedom be restricted, under the understanding that one man's freedom can only extend as far as the point at which it begins to infringe on the rights of another. I cannot do just anything I want, because some things would harm others, and that would not be fair to the other person's right not to be harmed - just as I would not want to allow others the freedom to do things that would harm me. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for society. But recently I've been seeing a lot of expression of a very disturbing trend, based on the concept of building a uniform social policy to be applied across the board of society.

Dealing with individuals enables scrutiny of individual circumstances. We can see just whose freedoms are being exercised, and just whose rights are being infringed. The purpose of the courts is to look at every accusation of criminal conduct (which should be defined as a rights infringement), and to judge on it, individually, by a jury of peers, taking individual circumstances into account. Yet this philosophy seems to be at odds with the popular mindset that the law is an imperfect, blunt instrument, that can only be applied to citizens equally across the board, without consideration to individual circumstances.

What I'm seeing is people actually submitting to the inevitability of the imperfect law model, wherein people are judged by the standards of the majority. Policy is dictated by what caters to most of the concerns of most of the people, with the concerns of the minority sacrificed for the good of the statistical majority. This is a gross injustice. People have come to believe that it is right that a person's freedoms be unreasonably restricted because the democratic majority has argued that exercising those freedoms causes rights to be infringed in a statistically significant proportion of instances, without concern for the fact that exercising the freedom in a particular instance may not have that effect. It's like outlawing the use of scissors because too many scissor mishaps have occurred - in some cases even to the point of absolutely forbidding anyone to use scissors, even with the proper training and safety precautions. And if a scissor expert can't use scissors safely for a good purpose, most of the rest of society will be eager to say, "that's a good thing, because unleashing the power of scissors on the populace is way too dangerous, we can't afford to even let one careful person use them, because then how do we stop them from getting into the hands of the reckless?"

This is absurd. I have the strangely uncommon belief that the law should serve the citizen, and not the other way around. The law exists to protect people - specific people - who are being wronged. It does not exist to oppress freedom for the good of the statistical majority, applying measures where they don't belong, because it takes too much effort to scrutinize which people or circumstances those measures should specifically apply to. It's a brainless, pro-conformist belief in the inherent supremacy of the majority, to the detriment of diversity and minorities everywhere. Infringing the rights of an individual is never justified by a call to statistics, much of which are frequently built on lies and stereotypes. Have I mentioned how much of a gross injustice this is? Do people not believe in the worth of the individual anymore? That the bodiless entity called "society" is not more important than your basic human rights? "For the people" doesn't mean "for the faceless mob", it means "for the individuals that make up that faceless mob". For the individuals, each of them, individually.

The Pornography Stereotype

2011-09-03T16:16:00.000-07:00

It occurs to me that when I make arguments about pornography, I'm usually thinking about the term in a way that is probably different than how most people think when they talk about pornography. In the popular lexicon, especially "informed" by certain branches of feminist thought, pornography is a highly profitable industry wherein perverted men force women to humiliate themselves for the gratification of other perverted men. This is not what I mean, at all, when I refer to pornography. I have never been involved in "commercial" or big industry pornography. I don't particularly have any desire to. And as a consumer, it doesn't even interest me very much, compared to the aesthetic discipline that concerns itself with erotic beauty. But when I think about pornography, I think about sexually explicit speech (since much, though not all, erotic art is not sexually explicit), usually in the context of a person celebrating their sexual agency in a way that, unlike private sex acts, can be shared with a mass of people. It's not about women being coerced and degraded, but about women (and men) celebrating their sexuality.

See, the difference is between looking at porn from the sex negative mindset - that porn is a tool of sex, which is a vice, that harms everyone that comes in contact with it - and looking at porn from a sex positive mindset - that it is a celebration of life and the sharing of pleasure, engaged in consensually and with positive feelings. Unfortunately, the pervasive nature of the sex negative mindset throughout society informs the way we think about these issues, and porn (and sex in general) is far more commonly associated with the "evils" that sex may bring, than with the good that it can inspire. It's hard to argue about the positive effects of porn, when the popular discourse is concerned with how porn degrades women, how most women are forced into it, probably at dangerously young ages, and how people in the sex industry are stigmatized and at risk for any number of other vices - particularly drugs and disease.

But what it also does is marginalize positive sexual expression - which, I'll admit, may be in the minority. But what do we accomplish my marginalizing that minority, and repressing it in an attempt to stamp out the more common (arguably) negative sexual expression? The approach of most anti-porn crusaders is full-on sexual repression, not a replacement of negative sexual expression with more positive sexual expression. Supporters of the latter are your pro-porn crusaders, whom the anti-porn camp would love to fool you into believing are actually apologists, defending negative sexual expression for selfish reasons. It's the same way the pro-life camp would love to smear the pro-choice as anti-life activists. It's all propaganda. No reasonable person would argue that coercing and degrading women for a profit and the sexual gratification of perverts is a good thing for society. But when people argue in favor of porn and sexual expression, it's the good kind they're arguing for. And I caution you about the danger of total sexual repression. Stamping out the good in an attempt to eliminate the bad (even if there is more bad than good) doesn't end well. The best approach is to focus on the good, identify what makes it good, and then promote it above and beyond the bad stuff. If you think a lot of porn is bad for society, then start advocating for people to produce more positive sexual expression - the kind of sexual expression I talk about when I use the term "pornography", the kind of sexual expression people use to express themselves to the world, with a positive sexual mindset that encourages pleasure and more happiness in the world, not more suffering.

A Couple of Excerpts

2011-09-01T17:27:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across a rather interesting essay on erotica and aesthetics while surfing the web, and I wanted to reproduce a couple of brief passages here, since they are well-written, and happen to align with my own position on sexual expression and fantasy. The title of the essay is "The Erotic as an Aesthetic Category", and you can read it in full here. The website also has a number of other interesting philosophical essays on a variety of topics, so if you've got a large block of time to kill, you might like to check it out.

"Erotic literature is thus bound to explore every possibility, even those possibilities that someone might regard as appalling, morally, socially, or psychologically, but that curiously contain the power to arouse. If this reveals something about the unconscious and about the natural terms of the erotic response, it would be wise to be aware of it and deal with it. Or, as Jung might say, the unconscious can become too energized with it, and acting out an irrational response becomes more possible.

"Whether or not this is a real danger, it still behooves human curiosity to see what is going on and represent truths, however disturbing. The erotic as an aesthetic category does mean that, like other aesthetic categories, the requirements of morality, although independent, are not otherwise suspended. Art, literature, and fantasy are one thing, action is another. Some people confuse them, both that fantasy spills over into action, and that the limitations of action are thought to require the suppression of fantasy." (my italics)

"The truth is that Greeks and Romans found human bodies and sexual intercourse beautiful, interesting, and wonderful -- and funny. And if its representation effects an erotic response, so much the better -- a divine gift. This may not be agreeable to religions that mandate tightly circumscribed sexual expression, but, for better or worse, modern life has broken through such restrictions. Promiscuity and disease are not good effects of this, but then one discovers that the Greeks and Romans thought no better of promiscuity than we might. Their sexual explicitness did not imply sexual license, an accommodation and a balance that has not yet been struck anew in popular or elite culture. Mere disapproval or alarm at erotic representations will not do this job. An anhedonic moralism that would suppress them instead would contribute nothing to the richness of human life." (my italics)

Why 2257 Bothers Me (And Why It Should Bother You)

2011-08-28T00:17:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and the following does not constitute legal advice. Actually, one of the things that bugs me most about our laws is that legalese is so hard to parse, that you often have no idea what constitutes "following the law" without paying a highly-priced professional to interpret the rules for you - which may well be overturned in a court setting. Nevertheless, the following are the issues as I understand them, and I may not be a lawyer, but I am a critical thinker.

I've been trying unsuccessfully to articulate the reasons why the 2257 Regulations make me feel uneasy, and I think it all comes down to this: the law places an unconstitutional burden on protected speech, but it does so with the justification of protecting children from sexual exploitation. And, frankly, it's incredibly difficult to construct a convincing argument placing the importance of essential liberty above the alleged "safety" of children (and there is no doubt policy-makers take advantage of this fact). No matter what I say about how 2257 chills speech and gives the state way too much control while taking away the privacy of its citizens, my entire argument could be destroyed by a simple, "don't you care about the children who are being sexually abused and exploited?"

I don't want to seem insensitive (though it may be inevitable) to the plights of abused children, but where does it stop? How much of our rights and freedoms are we willing to give away "to protect the children", when it's not even clear that we're doing that much? The 2257 Regulations do nothing to prevent child sexual abuse. If someone is intent on breaking the law, drafting more laws isn't going to stop them. What 2257 does is make it easier for law enforcement to identify and prosecute illegal speech. But at what cost?

What really bothers me about 2257 is that it shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. If you are accused, then you are guilty unless you can provide the required records proving your innocence. If you cannot, then even if the prosecution can't prove the speech you've created is illegal, then you can still be punished (rather harshly) on account of not having those records. I get the sense this law was pushed forward by frustrated prosecutors who felt it was unfair that producers of "indecent" pornographic speech were getting off unpunished just because they couldn't prove that the speech was breaking any laws.

The other thing that really bothers me about 2257 is that it reinforces the position of law enforcement as enforcers of social control, instead of mediators of public conflict, which they're supposed to be. I am unnerved by the thought that a cop could look at an image, decide that a crime has been committed, and then press charges without ever receiving (or even soliciting) a complaint from anyone involved in the creation of that image. I know victims are not always in a position to stand up for themselves, but I was under the impression that this country was founded on the principle of NOT infringing on the fundamental rights of the innocent in a [sloppy] attempt to get at criminals.

You might think that the 2257 Regulations (read them here) don't apply to you. You might think they only apply to big profit-making pornography industry companies. Well, you're wrong. The courts have argued that individuals intent on sexually exploiting children are not motivated purely by commercial interests, and therefore ALL speech that includes pornographic content ("actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct") falls under this law, including the videos you make with your wife in your bedroom.

You could argue that the courts are never going to prosecute you, for any number of reasons (because you're not a threat, because the videos you've made are obviously not illegal, whatever), but that's entirely beside the point. The law is on the books, and you are expected to obey it. If you do not, you are subject to the penalties, whether you manage to get away with it or not. And it's not good for society to have laws that most people aren't expected (or don't expect) to follow. Above all, this is not like getting a speeding ticket; failure to comply is a federal crime, and you could spend up to 5 years in prison - all because protecting children from sexual exploitation (even if that means tossing innocent people in the slammer) is serious business.

You might think that the 2257 Regulations are reasonable. After all, there is an official age limit for involvement in pornographic media, what's so bad about keeping records to enforce that? Well, it's reasonable to require individuals intent on creating this type of media to check first and make sure those involved are of age. What the recordkeeping requirements do is burden the civilian with what should be law enforcement's duty to investigate. It's their job to get in contact with those involved and ensure they are of age, if they believe otherwise. This falls under shifting the burden of proof.

Moreover, the recordkeeping requirements are simply too much. Can you imagine having to create and maintain documents (viewable by government agents at any time) for every single alcoholic beverage you drink, every single cigarette you smoke, every NC-17 movie you ever watch, just so that law enforcement has an easier job of prosecuting people who give alcohol, cigarettes, and NC-17 movies to minors? It may be a noble task, but it's just too much control, it takes the fun out of everything, and most of all, it's an unlawful restriction on liberty. And it gives the impression that law enforcement doesn't trust you to follow the law. Sure, distrusting its civilians is a better way of cracking down on crime, but do you really want to live in a country where the government doesn't trust you? It's "guilty until proven innocent" all over again.

IDing is reasonable, given the age restriction. But having to keep these records is overkill. I would even go so far as to say that having these records for cases that appear to be borderline (i.e., "barely legal" porn) is not just reasonable, but a really good idea. Still, I don't think it should be a legal requirement (especially not across the board), simply an intelligent defense for those few who think that misunderstandings could lead to mistaken charges.

In a discussion on the constitutionality of the 2257 Regulations, and whether they should apply to all producers of pornographic content or only those producers of content that could be reasonably mistaken for illegal speech*, one defender argued that one could not always tell, just by looking, the difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, or, more importantly, the difference between an 18 year old and a 15 year old - hence why the records are crucial. This may be true, but it reveals much of the intent behind the law. Very few cases would involve a reasonable confusion between a 15 year old and a 21 year old (or, more importantly, between a 12 year old and an 18 year old).

We have a federal age restriction on pornography set at 18, even though teens under the age of 18 have often been sexually active of their own volition. Remember that the purpose of these laws is to combat the sexual exploitation of children - a concept that evokes images of prepubescent children being raped on camera for profit: very visceral, emotional images that tug on our heartstrings, and short-circuits those reasoning faculties that might prevent us from agreeing to give up more of our rights and liberties. Is the state really using this law to prevent prepubescent children from being raped? I think, comparatively, it would be very easy to tell the difference between a prepubescent child and an adult, as opposed to trying to parse younger teens from older teens. After all, if (actual) child pornography were indistinguishable from adult pornography, then why would pedophiles even bother?

No, this law is being defended on the merit that the state wants to be able to criminalize speech that is visually indistinguishable from legal speech: porn that features teenagers that are indistinguishable from adults. Teens that, quite unlike victimized children, may actually want to participate in pornographic speech - speech that, in some cases where the teen is over the local age of sexual consent, depicts legal conduct (quite apart from the court's conviction that child pornography - which really has nothing to do with this - is a form of speech inextricably linked to conduct that the court has a "compelling interest" to combat. I agree that the courts have a compelling interest to combat the sexual victimization of children, but the interest is far from compelling when we're talking about sexually mature teens).

If setting an age limit at 18 means a few prematurely developed 15 year olds might slip through the cracks, I fail to see why that is a serious problem. The real activity the age limit is meant to prevent is the abuse and exploitation of children who are too young to have an interest in sex, and there are extremely few cases where an 8 year old could possibly be mistaken for an 18 year old. We've already got more than enough laws on the books, that cover more than enough ground; the more we expand their reach, the more protected speech will be chilled, and the less freedom and privacy we'll have.

Once the government has put into place a system that can enforce the criminalization of speech indistinguishable from protected speech, what's going to stop them from raising the age cutoff from 18 to 21? After all, some 18 year olds are still in high school. What about parents who don't want their kids wasting their college tuition on fucking when they should be studying at university? Boom, the cutoff age jumps from 21 to 25. Which will be great for the lobby who wants you to wait until marriage and only have sex for procreation, in church-approved positions (and still feel ashamed afterwards). Because, you know, the worst possible thing that could happen in the world is a 17 year old masturbating on a live webcam feed - worse than widespread poverty, drug addiction, gang violence, war and famine, murder and genocide...

You think any of this would happen if we had a healthy and positive approach towards sexuality? And what really gets me is the fact that sexual crime and pathology thrives in a climate of sexual repression and obsession. Pathologizing healthy sexual urges does nothing to curtail criminal sexual behavior (in fact, it may have the opposite effect). If we want to "fix" the sex problems we have, the answer is not to push sex further and further under the rug, but to pull it out, dust it off, and stop behaving so pathologically towards it. Sex is a part of life.

*Read this argument for the unconstitutionality of the 2257 Regulations (it's very good). And then read this response (a bit harder to stomach). I know, they're long, and filled with legalese, but they're very interesting if you have the time and patience to plod through them.

Sex vs. Erotic Beauty

2011-08-26T00:15:00.000-07:00

If you've been paying any attention at all to my writings, or the nature of my photography, then this will come as no surprise to you - but, it's such a fundamental part of my philosophy on eroticism that it bears repeating, again and again.

I want people to understand the difference between sex and erotic beauty. Yes, they are related. But they are not equivalent. Sex is an activity that people can participate in. Erotic beauty is an idea, a concept, that can be explored through media (in my case, the visual medium of photography). If you lack any semblance of critical thinking skills, you might think that erotic beauty is intrinsically linked to sex in that it cannot exist independently of the sex act. Any intelligent, rational mind, however, will realize that this simply is not the case. Sex can be a source of erotic beauty (though it can also be devoid of erotic beauty), but though eroticism is intimately related to sexuality, it extends far beyond the limited domain of what constitutes "sexual activity".

For example, a picture of an attractive person nude can be a source of great erotic beauty, even though there is no sexual activity involved. This is the realm of "sensuality" that I've talked about before - the part of 'sexuality' that exists outside sex itself. Frankly, I think this realm is infinitely fascinating, but it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and I think it's because they don't know what to do with it.

Take nudists, for example. Nudism has nothing to do with sex. And because of the stigma against sex, nudists often feel compelled to legitimize their lifestyle by correcting people's misconceptions about nudity and sexuality. But what about erotic beauty? Nudism is not about erotic beauty, but it is about people getting naked, and when attractive people get naked, that is a potential source of erotic beauty. I sense that for some nudists, this is cause for great frustration. They are likely the people who confuse sex with erotic beauty. They fear that if they admit that there can be (not intrinsically, but incidentally) erotic beauty present in nudism, that this is the same as admitting that there is sex in nudism. Hopefully you're intelligent enough to realize how ridiculous that is. Unfortunately, many people aren't. I have no problem with nudists drawing a sharp line between their lifestyle and the sexual act, but it bothers me when I see them contorting themselves into pretzel twists of self-deception and hypocrisy in an effort to try to convince themselves that naked people [that are not having sex] can (and should) never be erotic.

But most of all, it's the people who embrace the creeping restrictions on sexuality into the realm of erotic beauty that raise my ire. People who would denounce, decry, and censor images of erotic beauty using arguments that are only relevant to sexual activity. People who believe that pictures are just as (or in some cases more - see the common discrepancies between age of sexual consent and legal age for participation in pornography) dangerous as the physical act of copulation, even when the pictures do not actually depict (or suggest) the actual physical act itself. People who would call you a slut and a whore for engaging in the artistic pursuit of beauty, as if this were the same thing as selling your body on the street.

Sometimes, sex is involved in the creation and exploration of erotic beauty; and I will absolutely not avoid exploring that angle for fear of losing the badge of "wholesome purity". I refuse to censor myself in that way. But sex is not always (and is frequently not) the source of erotic beauty. The stereotype of the porn industry is that it draws women in, objectifies them, uses them up sexually, and then spits them out. In some cases, this may be true, but I'd have to be short-sighted and narrow-minded to blame all of pornographic speech for this problem. Still, the pursuit of erotic beauty is another thing entirely, and this is where the controversial porn vs. art argument becomes meaningful. The goal of erotic art is not to get people off at whatever cost. If people get off, that's a good thing, but it's not all there is to it. It's about pursuing beauty - just like the rest of the aesthetic disciplines, except this one covers a specific type of beauty that is related (but not equivalent) to sex. It's not about exploiting models for (sexual or monetary) profit. It's about finding what is [erotically] beautiful in the world, and honoring that.

As a photographer, I see people complaining about pictures all the time. These are people who don't really understand pictures. And what they're really concerned about is behavior, which they mistakenly attribute to the pictures. On further thought, I think this is what David Hamilton was referring to when he said the following, which I've quoted before, elsewhere:

"A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recognize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty."

As a defender of pornography, I am sensitive to platitudes given out by erotic artists who denounce porn seemingly in an effort to distance themselves from the stigma of porn (much like nudists who seek to "purify" themselves by denouncing eroticism). Nevertheless, there is a meaningful difference between artistic eroticism and pornography - even if that difference is subjective, and notoriously hard to pin down. But what I think David Hamilton is saying here, in reaction to his detractors, who would argue that his photographing the erotic beauty of young girls in some way degrades or exploits them, is that there is a substantial difference between respectfully honoring the physical beauty of a model, and taking sexual advantage of her. This is something that, remarkably, some people seem incapable of understanding. We feel compelled to take up a drastic, black-and-white perspective on the issue - if your appreciation of a model's beauty is not entirely and perfectly nonsexual, if there is even the slightest hint of eroticism behind it, then you may as well be raping her on camera. In this perspective, erotic beauty - and its virtues - is entirely thrown out and subsumed under the broadening realm of "sexual activity" (deemed pure vice), which apparently now includes taking nonsexual pictures of attractive models, on the basis that you or a hypothetical member of your audience may entertain vaguely sexual thoughts at some point. If you ask me, I think this is just insane. And it needs to stop. Not all sex is bad, and not all erotic thoughts constitute sex.

Interpreting The Garden of Earthly Delights

2011-08-25T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Garden of Earthly Delights fascinates me because it is a sort of sensual paradise. A Garden of Eden, but where carnality replaces innocence. There is a wealth of intriguing detail to be studied in Hieronymous Bosch's thusly-titled triptych, but I'd like to address its overarching interpretation. It is popularly seen to be a warning about the sin of lust. That embracing a hedonistic lifestyle leads one down a slippery slope to total chaos and anarchy - and that such indulgence will inevitably be punished.

The left panel of the triptych seems to depict the Garden of Eden, at the moment that God introduces Adam to Eve. This is the genesis of man's carnal desire. The central panel depicts the Garden of Earthly Delights, which seems to be the logical progression from Eve's seduction of Adam, in which all kinds of people engage in carnal pleasures, plain and profane. Then, in the right panel, we see these people being punished for their sins of indulgence in a frightening nighttime hellscape.

The implication is seemingly clear, but I like to approach it from a different perspective - not as a progression from sin to punishment, but as a warning about the line where indulgence crosses into anarchy, as well as an illustration of the path (back) towards paradise. In the left panel, in the Garden of Eden, mankind is still young, and has yet to populate the earth, but the animals are abundant. Some of them are hunting and killing one another, as is the natural way. In the right panel, in Hell, demons taking on the distorted forms of animals violently punish men for various sinful activities. Only in the central panel, in the Garden of Earthly Delights, where man and animal alike are distracted by the pursuit of pleasure, is there a seeming harmony of sensual enjoyment.

In my view, sexual indulgence does not necessarily lead to unrestrained hedonism. Sex is a source of joy and happiness, and it brings people together. It distracts us from our other instincts - our selfish, dominating instincts, that lead us to inflict violence and suffering upon one another, and to pursue our own interests at the cost of others'. This is what's going on in the hellish right panel, and it's why we're being punished. That is what the world is like today. We shun positive expressions of sexuality, yet we glorify violence. We live in an earthly hell because we've forgotten paradise, and we'd rather hurt than love one another. Is it too late to go back? To return to the garden? I don't know, but we can try. All we have to do is lay down our weapons and redirect our aggression towards the pursuit of carnal pleasure. Then maybe someday we can again walk naked and happy across the land, at one with nature and at peace with all of mankind, pure though not innocent.

Paraphilia and Sexual Normality

2011-08-17T22:16:00.000-07:00

Personally, I think we should differentiate between those who have an exclusive fixation on an object or an isolated part of the body such that it and it alone can bring them arousal and/or orgasm (and frankly, I've never known such a person) and those who are merely enticed and excited by specific things, as one part (if an important part) of their overall arousal pattern.

Also, I think we should differentiate between fetishes that focus on inanimate objects or isolated animate objects (like specific parts of the body), and "fetishes" that can best be described as an unusual focus on a certain type of sexual organism (like, say, members of your own sex) - since, to me, it seems like there would be a significant difference in the mechanics of being attracted to a thing versus being attracted to a [living] being (however unusual or uncommon an attraction to that thing or that being might be).

To go further, I think it would be interesting to isolate the triggers for sexual attraction from those for romantic attraction, and determine to what extent they are related. Specifically, I think it would be fruitful to examine the difference between those who treat their fetish as an object with purely sexual purposes, and those who experience romantic feelings for their object (or being) of attraction. There's so much room for study.

None of this is to say that there is anything wrong, nor that there is nothing wrong, with such peculiarities - frankly, I think we are in no position to make such judgments, since our understanding of human sexuality is poisoned by very counterproductive biases on the nature of sexuality. Even so, it doesn't mean we can't study sexual abnormalities in a nuanced, scientific manner, separate from making value judgments about them.

Above all, I definitely think we should learn to differentiate between matters of sexual taste, and impaired psychological functioning. I know that if someone is turned on by something that grosses you out, the instinct is to say "that's sick, there must be something wrong with you", but we shouldn't mean it literally. It's not true in nonsexual matters (can you imagine "enjoys listening to country music" being a symptom of a psychological disorder?), and I think our belief that it's true in sexual matters is [mis]informed by our biases against sex.

A Little Music

2011-08-15T18:24:00.000-07:00

You may have to turn your volume up a bit.

Contact Survey

2011-08-14T22:10:00.000-07:00

I decided, on a whim, to do a quick survey of my contacts on flickr, just for the fun of it, to see what sort of photographers I follow and admire. The results are rather predictable. Out of a current total of 40 contacts, I have:

6 social contacts,
2 women who are aesthetic artists,
2 women who take naughty pictures,
7 women who dabble in erotic art,
6 male erotic photographers of women,
1 female erotic photographer of women,
12 teenage girls with cameras (who, despite what you may think, are amazing photographers),
1 mother who photographs her beautiful daughters very artistically,
and 3 girls who are mostly into fashion.

Pretty is Popular

2011-08-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

"Pretty is popular". I really think that's the crux of the truth about beauty, and I think it's something that bothers a lot of people - especially those who are less or not pretty, but also some pretty people too. Arguments go around about how pretty people are always used in the media, on television, in the movies, on the covers of magazines, but the issue becomes especially heated when we talk about feminism and sexuality. Some women are concerned that they are being judged primarily or solely for their prettiness, or sexual attractiveness, while their other merits are being ignored. And they complain that feeding into the "pretty is popular" culture just encourages that.

Is that reason to disparage, or even discard, the "pretty is popular" culture? Can such a thing even be done, or is it an inevitable part of human nature? Would undermining the popularity of prettiness even have the effect intended - to boost women's perceived value (by men, presumably) in all areas other than physical beauty? These are all questions that need to be asked and considered. Personally, I think it's futile to rail against the popularity of prettiness. And personally, the quality of prettiness brings me more joy than frustration. Granted, I am not female. However, I do have an unusual amount (for a male) of envy towards pretty girls, as I'd love to be one. Nevertheless, I don't view prettiness as a thorn in my side - it's the ray of sunshine that gets me through life.

Are women judged for their physical beauty to a greater extent than men? I think that's the important issue, that determines whether this is just a human nature thing, or if it's also a feminist/gender issue. And I'm willing to believe this is the case. Maybe because of years of patriarchal tradition, where men have been judged for their competence, while women have been seen as little more than wives and mothers (yet, though wives may be prized for their attractiveness, is it not true that a mother's good qualities are derived from skills of competence?). Assuming this is the case, the next question is, does our emphasis on the physical attractiveness of women significantly overshadow their other merits? In other words, are we judging pretty women just for their prettiness, and are we judging less pretty women harshly in spite of their other positive qualities and competencies?

I think, largely, it's a matter of image. I think the real amount to which women are judged solely on their appearance is small. I think men have an instinctual reaction to women, that could be described as vain, but I don't think it's a deep-seated commitment to valuing women solely for their appearance. I think men are perfectly capable of judging women on their other positive qualities and competencies. But I think it's very easy to point out instances of the "pretty is popular" culture as if they were indications of an underlying "unpretty is useless" attitude. Of course pretty women are going to draw attention. Of course they are well utilized as the visual image of a company or campaign - after all, isn't that what physical beauty is good for? Does this fact necessarily imply that unpretty women with other talents aren't going to be appreciated and utilized for other parts of the company or campaign? Frankly, I don't think so. But it's so very easy to feel like that's what's going on.

I'm not going to argue that women have equal opportunities compared to men. I just don't have the experience/data/knowledge to make that judgment. There is no part of me that wants to obstruct women's struggle for more and better opportunities in this world, and to be taken seriously, and judged adequately, and all of those things. I just don't want those things to be gained at the cost of beauty and sexuality. And I don't believe that it is necessary that beauty and sexuality be sacrificed for those goals to be attained. I think men could probably stand to be a bit more sensitive about women's feelings regarding being judged for their appearance, but I don't see what purpose it serves to undermine men's specific appreciation for the attractiveness of a female. It's something we must come to terms with, not try to defeat.

Just because a man tells some girl, "I like you because you're pretty", does not mean that he's also telling you, "I don't like you because you're not pretty." Don't fall into the trap of thinking that.

Also, if you complain about not being valued for your prettiness, you're giving off the impression that's the only merit you, as a woman, could possibly have. Emphasize your other merits. Being obsessed with prettiness (or the lack thereof) only plays into and contributes to the stereotypes you're railing against.

A Nudist Rant

2011-08-12T17:41:00.000-07:00

The following is an angry rant I wrote after reading sentiments suggesting that clothing is some kind of a necessary barrier preventing people from behaving like uncivilized apes. It is not directed at anyone in particular, but the points contained within, while forceful, I think are strong.

I mean, if someone is pissing on a park bench, then that's a sanitary concern. If someone is walking up to people and swinging his junk in their faces, then that's a behavioral issue. None of this has anything to do with what the person is wearing. If the only problem is that a person is naked and you don't want to look at him, then piss off. That doesn't give you any recourse to the law. I've seen plenty of ugly people I'd rather not have to look at, but there's no law against them coming out in public, and it's very easy for me to just not stare at them. The whole nudity taboo is arbitrary and unfair. What if there were a taboo against showing ears in public? What about the people who don't like covering their heads? If there are groups of people who don't like nudity, then let them have spaces where they can be free from nudity, but when it comes to shared public ground (and especially private ground, no matter where it is visible from), there should be no law against it. And it is the people who are deathly afraid of nudity in any situation that are insane, not the people who think it might be nice to doff all of one's clothes on a particularly warm summer day, for example.

Following on that thought, any practical argument against nudity is conditional. Though there may be practical arguments against nudity in specific contexts (sanitation is a popular one), there are just as strong (or stronger) practical arguments for nudity in other situations. If you're arguing pragmatically against nudism, then you have no choice but to concede that in some cases public nudity ought to be acceptable (like, say, at the local swimming hole). The only convincing argument for an across-the-board ban on nudity in public - though it shouldn't be convincing - is based on moralistic beliefs about nudity that usually conflate it with sex, reinforced by a lifelong tradition of gymnophobia (you have no idea how persistent habitudes are). Neither of these conditions should trump the practical considerations (and health benefits - both mental and physical!) for a more casual acceptance of nudity. No amount of your moral outrage outweighs my right to - for example - sunbathe on my front lawn naked. If you can't handle it, you're too sheltered, and if you don't want to be exposed to such things, you're more than welcome to lock yourself up in the privacy of your own home - or, barring that, put up a fence (yes, that's your responsibility, not mine). But your moral beliefs and personal standards of decency have no jurisdiction over what I do on my property, nor my state of dress when I'm on public streets or in public parks or the like.

In all honesty, I think it's only fair that anyone spend a considerable amount of time in a nudist environment before arguing against nudism. I've spent a lifetime in a textile environment, even though I might prefer a nudist one (clothing optional is the best of both worlds), and nobody ever asked me if I wanted to wear clothes, or whether I preferred to see other people dressed, rather than nude. If you can't respect my preferences, why should I respect yours? (Aside from the fact that your preferences are conveniently written into law...)

Women as a Sexual Commodity

2011-08-12T11:09:00.000-07:00

Ironically, I think that if women started asserting themselves sexually more, they would be commodified less. And that can only happen if we stop shaming women who do assert themselves sexually. Women have to demonstrate that they have a mind of their own, and that they like sex, or else men will continue to want to commodify them for sexual pleasure (whether or not they continue to have the power to do so).

I hear a lot of cross-talk between the male camp and the female camp, but I really don't think either one understands the other. The whole feminist movement has given the female voice a lot of exposure, but I don't think a lot of people are giving the male voice a fair audience. I understand that females have been disempowered for a long time, but today's males aren't responsible for hundreds of years of subjugation, is it right that they be punished for it? The point of the civil rights movement wasn't to enslave white people in order to get even. The point of it was that slavery was wrong - for anyone.

Both sides must be willing to listen compassionately to the other side. And I see a lot of criticism of male sexuality as if it were the in vogue or politically correct thing to do these days. Pornography is degrading to women. Men are sexual predators. Attraction to physical beauty is vain and shallow. I'm a male, and I try very hard not to be a creep or a predator or what have you, but I have these sexual feelings, and I refuse to feel sorry for myself for having them. Look, I want to make a compromise with women. I have sexual needs, and I'm sensitive to the needs of women. I'm not like the men that are out there that don't listen to women. I want to listen. But I don't want my own needs and feelings to be belittled either.

As an erotic artist, over the past few years, I've noticed a very conspicuous disproportion between males and females in the sexual community. Maybe women are more likely to be the subject (or object, if you will) of porn, but men are by far the more frequent fans/users. I see virtually no women expressing a sexual agency, admitting an interest in sex. I've looked and looked for women who can appreciate the work I'm doing and give me some feedback, and they are practically non-existent. The only thing keeping me from turning gay purely out of convenience is the fact that I'm really not attracted to men.

Is this a biological phenomenon or a social phenomenon? I don't know. I wish I had the answer to that question. I want it to be a social phenomenon, because then I think it would be easier to change (though still not easy). But regardless of what's causing it, this is what the effect is: lots of men possessing a demand for sex, and very few women providing the supply. The trouble is that women don't seem to want sex. So men have two choices. Go without sex. Or force a woman to have sex.

I know, I'm offensively simplifying the issue. But it's because I'm trying to make a point. It's a subconscious attitude that some men may have. Maybe it's heinous, but we can't get rid of it until we identify it and talk about it. I'm a nice guy, there's no way in hell I'm going to force a woman to have sex with me just because women aren't giving me the sexual attention I crave. Yet I can't help feeling a little resentful of that.

Now, I'm sensitive and I'm intelligent, so I'm trying to find an ethical way to get around my problem - that is, lobbying for more freedom of sexual expression, fighting the institution of sexual shame, because I think freer attitudes towards sex will allow more women to be more open about their sexual feelings. But another person who is not quite so sensitive, or intelligent, might deal with this resentment another way. Like, say, insulting women for not responding positively to his unsolicited sexual advances.

I'm just considering the possibilities. And I absolutely don't condone that behavior. But while we ought to discourage it, it doesn't help to solve the problem if we don't look at what's causing it. And I think one of the primary sources is the sexual disparity between males and females. Whatever causes it, and whatever we can to do alleviate the problems that result, that's an issue we need to deal with.

There Are Only Two Kinds of Porn

2011-08-11T13:47:00.000-07:00

Misogynist porn, and gay (male) porn.

I don't really believe that, I'm just trying to make a point.

It's curious to me the way some guys just assume you want to look at pictures of their dick. I don't mean when you'd rather be looking at family portraits or landscapes or something, but even when you're looking at porn. I can understand taking the benefit of the doubt when it's not clearly stated, but it's the people who don't even check that I don't understand. Why would a straight guy who's interested in girls want to look at gay porn?

I have nothing against different people with their different tastes, and I don't even mind a little intermingling. It's just that I would check first before I decided to show a girl a picture of my dick. Maybe she's only interested in other women. Maybe she doesn't like those kinds of pictures. I guess it's just the way I am. I like to research things and make sure my footing is solid before taking that first step. I see a lot of people who just barge in headfirst. Shoot first, ask questions later.

And though they might get tasked every so often when they barge through the wrong door, it also seems to be the case that they're more likely to get the things they want. After all, you can't get what you want if you don't ask for it, and sometimes you'll find it in places you wouldn't expect. Winning takes trial and error, and that involves quite a bit of error. Really I'm just envious of people who have that kind of confidence, that "go get it" attitude, and that resilience in the face of (potential) criticism.

On the other hand, I'm not like that, and I don't like the implication that there is only one type of personality you have to have if you want to get anywhere in life. (which seems to be the case - and I don't have it). So, being the person I am, I can't help wondering. What kind of a mindframe do you have to be in to go around soliciting random strangers with pictures of your dick, waiting to find out if they appreciate it by the tone of their reaction? Is that why so many people (especially girls) complain about how rude people (especially guys) are about sexuality? Because, I mean, if that's turning girls off of sexuality overall, that's really unfortunate. Because there is such a thing as a sensitive and caring sexuality. And it's not something that only females can possess.

The Importance of Proper Sex Ed

2011-08-09T17:54:00.000-07:00

(emphasis on proper)

People are growing up and not being taught how to deal with their sexual feelings. We sweep these feelings under the rug, because they make us uncomfortable, and because we think there's something wrong with sex, but these feelings aren't just going to go away. People are left to fumble around in the dark, learning on their own what to do about their sexual feelings, and some of them are making bad decisions. Those bad decisions are used as examples by the anti-sex crowd to "prove" that sex is wrong and dangerous and immoral. So it gets swept even further under the rug, but it still doesn't go away. More people grow up without learning that there are ways to deal with their sexual feelings that don't involve victimizing, objectifying, whatever, other people. They are forced to choose between repressing their sexuality (unhealthy) and indulging their sinful desires while taking advantage of others. It is irresponsible not to teach people how to deal with their sexuality, and it is unethical to teach them harmful beliefs that involve the requirement to feel dirty and ashamed for experiencing natural desires that are not voluntary.

I had sex ed in school, but I learned very little that was useful. We studied reproductive anatomy, but learned nothing about the practical mechanics of sexual intercourse. We were shown what a pain in the neck pregnancy is, but they failed to emphasize how good an orgasm feels. We were preached to about sexual morality (i.e., sex is immoral, so don't engage in it), but not instructed in sexual ethics ("don't have sex" is not a good ethical code). A speaker came in to talk about how amazing abstinence is (and how gross sex is), yet I'd be willing to bet a teacher would lose their job if they told the class to go home and have an orgasm as homework. Sex ed should be fun, not dreadful!

Sex[y Pictures]

2011-08-09T11:23:00.000-07:00

I talk a lot about sex, but it's not really sex I'm after. I'm not a swinger, I'm an erotic artist. I want people to be more comfortable with sex because people who aren't comfortable with sex tend not to have a very favorable attitude toward erotic art. But I'm not trying to promote a platform of unrestrained promiscuity.

The way I see it, modeling for pictures is safe sex. You're opening a window onto your sexuality through which the world can take part in your eroticism. I know a lot of people are hung up on sex being a private thing, to be saved for that special someone. But that's a highly selfish perspective. Through pictures, you can give the gift of eroticism, and even orgasm, to hundreds or thousands of people - particularly people who may never get the chance to sleep with someone as attractive as you. There's zero risk of pregnancy or disease. You don't actually have to touch anyone. And there's less risk of unwanted emotional attachment. It's a win for everyone.

That is, except for the tendency for polite society to shame sex-positive individuals. This kind of moral reactionism is a poison on healthy sexual expression, and it's precisely the thing I want to combat. It's the source of my ambitions for a sexual revolution. I don't necessarily want everyone to start having sex with everyone else, in one big global orgy. I just want people to be more comfortable sharing worldwide in the ancient art of eroticism, without being subjected to a grand shaming scheme. All of that shaming has one particular effect - it is a chilling effect that prevents so much potentially amazing erotic art from being created. I want to create that erotic art. But I can't do it alone, and my potential allies are being brainwashed by the opposition into avoiding having anything to do with me and my work. That's what I'm fighting against. That's what I'm fighting to correct.

Additional Point: You can find lots of galleries on the web of pictures of naked chicks, uploaded mostly anonymously. The anonymity helps in some part to deflect the negative attention a person might get for posting such pictures online, but it's not complete protection, and having to guard one's anonymity creates many limitations. But even more concerning is the suspicion that, although hard to gauge with any certainty, many of these pictures are likely either uploaded without knowledge or against the wishes of the girls in the pictures, or, those pictures have been uploaded by the girls with the intention that they will remain private, yet they have been stolen one way or another, and posted publicly - again, either against the girl's wishes, or without her knowledge.

Obviously, that type of behavior raises ethical concerns, especially considering the reaction one might get if pictures of that sort are found online by friends, families, co-workers, et cetera. Though I must point out, fighting the stigma against that kind of behavior (instead of shaming those who engage in it) would have the effect of reducing the threat of that risk. But people who take these pictures and post them without consent are ruining the practice for everyone - because the girls who are victims, as well as everyone else who objects to such activities, don't tend to make a distinction between the theft and the sexual expression. They think everybody who engages in sexual expression has no morals, and are just as willing to steal pictures for sexual satisfaction as those who actually do. So they attack the expression itself, encouraging girls not to take those pictures in the first place (and to view with derision any guy who asks or encourages a girl to take such pictures).

I like those pictures. I like those pictures a lot. Whether they're shared with consent or not, the pictures themselves are really nice, and fun to look at. I'm not a thief and I'm not a creep. I don't like that girls have to be "victimized" and stolen from for those pictures to be shared. I would never engage in that kind of behavior with any pictures I might take of a girl, or any pictures that a girl might choose to give me in confidence, with the expectation of the pictures remaining private. I don't betray people's trust. And the last thing I want is to poison my noble enterprise (creating erotic art) by engaging in shady and unethical behaviors.

Nevertheless, I like those pictures, and I want them to be available. So, what recourse do I have but to try to talk to society, and girls, and try to get them to open up about sexual expression, so that they will be more willing to share those pictures with strangers? I don't want to steal pictures of girls, so my only choice is to do what I can to create a more friendly environment in the hope that it will lead girls to feel more comfortable to consent to that sort of thing. But it's really hard as long as these stereotypes of perverted creeps are out there, and as long as we as a society at large shame people for embracing their sexuality, and especially sharing it online, regardless of the details of the case. It's why you can't post sexually explicit erotic art most places, because it's treated just the same as porn.

So the next time you find out someone you know has posted sexy pictures on the internet, don't even think of chastising them. Instead, shake their hand and congratulate them for their courage, for standing up against the sick sexual mores of our time, which insist on keeping our sexuality locked up inside ourselves, where it can do naught but screw up our minds.

Also, as long as girls keep saying, "no way, I will never post pictures like that", unscrupulous individuals will continue to post them without consent. There is most definitely a demand, and there is nothing we can do to eliminate that demand. But we do have some measure of control over how to meet it. I'm not going to argue that anyone should be forced into doing it if they don't want to, but I guarantee you there are some girls who are more willing to share than others. What does it accomplish to shame them out of it? We're just fueling the black market trade, where ethics aren't even considered. It's irresponsible. If a girl wants to share her beauty with the world, we should be thanking her for doing her part, not shaming her to stop. Because every girl shamed out of participating just encourages many more girls to become victimized, to fill that hole. I don't believe people are demanding for victimization. I have more faith in humanity than that. It's just, if you intentionally dry up the supply, and victimization is the only source, that's where the demand is going to head. You can't eliminate people's sexual desires. But there are many different ways to satisfy them.

Girls, Gurls, Grrlz

2011-08-08T19:02:00.000-07:00

I'm a little afraid to talk about this, just because I don't want to alienate or offend anyone. Rest assured, I try very hard not to let my personal preferences affect my judgment of a person. So, for example, the fact that I am not attracted to "gurls", t-gurls, trannies, transwomen, shemales, or chicks with dicks, does not mean that I don't respect them. Nor does it bother me when they (as well as plain old men) are attracted to me, despite the attraction not being mutual. In fact, that's precisely the reason why there are hundreds of people who call me a contact on flickr, yet very few of them are also my contacts. It's also why I feel socially detached in my work - because I'm not reaching the audience I'd like to reach. Nevertheless, I am very grateful for the audience I have. It's their support that encourages me to keep doing what I love, and I appreciate that regardless of whether or not I'd want to fuck them. :p

I'm also a little concerned about being called a traitor, since despite all I've said and done to combat gender stereotyping, the fact is, I actually like the gender binary. I would never force it on anyone who wasn't comfortable with it, but...it (generally) works for me. I like that there are complementary masculine and feminine forces. The only thing is - and this is the source of my dissatisfaction - I wish that biology and society didn't decide for us, without asking for our preference, which gender we're supposed to be.

Hence, I am a boy, with a lot more experience being a boy (not that I've ever been very good at it), that nevertheless wishes he could be a girl. Now, here's the wrench in the works. Despite my affinity for the gender binary, the traditional heteronormative standard is for an individual to be sexually attracted to his/her gender opposite. But I didn't start wanting to be a girl because I like boys, it happened because I like girls! And that does give me a sense of appreciation for the parts of me that are male, just because it allows for a smoother compatibility with girls. I honestly don't know whether my gender is male or female (how does one even diagnose gender?), but at times I feel both like a heterosexual male and a homosexual female (albeit lacking the all-important experience of being a girl). Which, to say the least, can be weird. And that, I suppose, is why I'm not completely conventional in my sex/gender beliefs and feelings.

But coming back to the point of this discussion, I view "girl" as the ideal that I strive for (unreachable or not). I'm seeing a lot of "gurl" pride among "gurls" on flickr, and it genuinely has me curious. Because, to me, "gurl" is not the goal I'm striving toward. It's a weird in-between thing. If I, at times, reach "gurl" status, it is only because it is a reluctant compromise between what I am, and what I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I like having the option to be a gurl. It's a lot better than resigning myself to my biologically and socially prescribed gender. That is, again, why I'm dedicated to fighting gender conformity. I may never be a true girl, but it's downright unfair for me not to be allowed to wear, say, a pink skirt, just because I've got a penis between my legs. However, the fact remains, I don't view being a gurl as something to be proud of (aside from the fact that it's a huge middle finger to the square, conformist establishment). I admire the parts that are girly, while simultaneously regretting the parts of me that are, inevitably, not. And all the while, I continue to admire girls - beautiful, beautiful girls - but not gurls.

The Insidious Practice of Slut-Shaming

2011-08-07T17:33:00.000-07:00

Attacking sexual expression as the cause of sexual abuse is not an attack on sexual abuse. It's an attack on sexual expression, which includes healthy and positive forms of expression. It's an attack on sex itself. If you don't hate sex, and you still want to fight abuse, then ATTACK THE ABUSE. Start promoting the platform that a girl (or anyone else) should be free to be as sexual as she wants (in dress, behavior, whatever), and that that IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO ABUSE HER (nor to shame her). As long as we continue to assume that sexy behavior leads to abuse, we are tacitly admitting that abuse is standard sexual procedure. That is an extremely sex-negative view, that completely ignores (and discourages!) positive and healthy sexual expression and activity, AND IT NORMALIZES SEXUAL ABUSE. Promote positive sexuality. Defend sexual freedom. Limit your attacks on sexuality strictly to sexual abuse - do not condemn the proper use of one's sexual agency (which may or may not involve promiscuity and pornography).

ANTI-SEX is PRO-ABUSE!

A Strategy for Revolution

2011-08-07T11:42:00.000-07:00

Sexual liberation is less about opening your legs, than it is about opening your mind.

Attitude must be changed along with activity, for a revolution to be successful. You can't go out and practice a sexually liberated lifestyle while still clinging on to your old moral values and internalized sexual shame and not expect to run into a conflict. Many try this, and claim the presence of conflict proves that liberation is unfeasible. (See: the sexual revolution of the '60s, and the ensuing backlash). But how can you expect to liberate your body when you haven't liberated your mind? And between the two, it's much harder to change one's mind. Posting a nude picture on the internet is, mechanically speaking, a simple task. Training your mind to ignore a lifetime of conditioning that compels you to feel ashamed for posting that picture is MUCH more difficult. However, it is possible, and the result can be magnificent. Yet even then, if the rest of the world hasn't changed, the pressure to revert (and conform) to old norms can be immense. It's peer pressure, pure and simple.

Liberation is worth it, even if it's not easy. But it has to be done fully, not superficially. You can't just liberate your behavior, you have to liberate your thoughts and feelings, too. Don't be discouraged by those (and there are many) who have done a half-assed job of seeking liberation, only to fail and then count that failure as evidence of what they'd wanted to believe all along - that the easy path of leaving things the way they are is the best thing. They are wrong. True change takes consistent and considerable effort. But don't be afraid to change the world. The result will be nothing short of amazing.

Why a Sexual Revolution is Worth it

2011-08-07T11:27:00.000-07:00

When faced with the difficulty of changing social-sexual norms, it's very tempting to say, why bother? After all, what will be accomplished but plunging society into moral decay, and giving fringe perverts free license to bask in their depravity?

But you see, that attitude itself is a symptom of modern sexual mores. Why do we see sex as this dirty, unnatural thing, and why are we in opposition to it? Does it have to be that way? Listen - what we have to gain from a sexual revolution is turning sex from something to be ashamed of into a powerful force for good in life.

Why do we insist on making people feel bad for wanting to feel good? Wouldn't life be better for all of us if we were allowed to indulge our sexual appetite without shame? Embracing sexuality doesn't mean allowing an anything-goes kind of mentality. We can still have ethics and morals about sexuality - so that people continue to treat one another well. The difference is that people won't have to feel bad when they treat themselves and others to the experience of sexual bliss. How is this not a positive goal for mankind?

The essential fact is, human beings have a basic fundamental right to guilt-free orgasms. This is true without limitation to race, gender, or even age. It's true for the perverts who have bizarre sexual tastes, and it's just as true for the vanilla majority (assuming they're truly the majority). Every struggle and hardship in life would be easier to endure with the sexual orgasm on our side. Why wouldn't we want to enlist such a powerful ally, especially when it's currently being propped up as an enemy, used to wear down our collective physical and mental health?

Elaborating on a Point

2011-08-03T18:15:00.000-07:00

Recently, I proclaimed the following:

"It occurs to me that anyone who faps to pictures of other people on the internet is a hypocrite if he has a problem with other people fapping to pictures of him on the internet."

Here's a potential counter-argument, that I will debate momentarily:

Porn stars, erotic models, et cetera are photographed with the expectation that people will fap to their pictures. Just because I might go ahead and fap to them doesn't mean other people are entitled to fap to non-sexually oriented pictures of myself (e.g., nudist pictures, pictures of me at the beach or pool) I might post online.

I will concede that point - yet not without mentioning how convenient it is that others are kind enough to be willing to become masturbation fodder for you, while you are not for them (granted, not everyone is equally attractive, and the burden of demand will therefore vary). However, the fact remains that nobody is harmed in an anonymous act of fapping. You may as well try to control people's sexual fantasies, because I guarantee you there are people fantasizing about people (if not about you) and acts that would offend you. I think what you're really concerned about - or what you should be concerned about since it's pointless to worry over something you can't control, i.e., other people's thoughts - is the sexual attention you may be attracting.

I feel for you, because sexual attention can be rude and offensive. And I'm not gonna say we shouldn't encourage people to be more polite about how they give out sexual attention. That's something I support. But sexual attention is not just gonna go away, and trying to censor people through sex shame is not healthy or humanitarian. We ought to come at it from both sides. While encouraging "perverts" to be more polite, we should also work on our own sexual hang-ups, and learn to deal with the fact that sexuality is out there, some people are going to address it, and we should, at the very least, learn how to accept polite sexual attention. That is to say, not dismiss (or attack) someone purely for giving you sexual attention, but only getting defensive when the sexual attention is proffered in a harmful (insistent, inconsiderate, etc.) manner.

Really, it depends on both sides (the prudes and the perverts) adjusting their behavior and working towards a compromise. That means that whichever side you're on, you have work to do if you want to live in a more sexually healthy world (and I assure you, that you will receive more of the wrong kind of attention, or hear of others suffering the same, in a less sexually healthy world, as we have now). If you're a prude, you don't have to become a pervert, but try to think of perverts as people, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, while suggesting ways NOT to repress their sexuality but to revel in it in a manner that is less offensive to prudes, while simultaneously learning to shrug off sexual comments and attention without getting all in a huff about it. Perverts, you don't have to become prudes, just try to be considerate of other people's sensibilities, and above all be polite, and don't give people attention you don't think they would want.

Prudes, perverts, can't we all just get along? Instead of arguing back and forth that the entire world has to either be sexually sanitized or dirty and debauched? Let's try to live and let live, without disparaging each others' chosen lifestyles. To each his or her own, with the freedom to associate with those of a like mind.

Sex, Strictly A Guy Thing (No Girls Allowed)

2011-07-28T22:53:00.000-07:00

My photography gets a lot of attention from guys, and very little from girls. This is something I've known for a long time. And while I appreciate all that attention, it's a little bit frustrating, because I'd really rather be connecting with girls. I've thought a lot about why guys gravitate towards my photography more than girls, and believe me, it's a very complicated issue. It's easy to conclude that guys are just more sexual, and sexually open, than girls are. And maybe that's true. I don't like to jump into gender stereotypes, though. The old, "men are horndogs, and women are frigid icicles" is a stereotypical generalization. After all, females make up 50% of the classical depiction of sexual intercourse. Or should I be led to believe that homosexual male sex is far more natural than heterosexual sex, and that heterosexual sex ought naturally to be of the type where the man demands and the woman reluctantly complies? I'd like to believe that females can be just as interested in sex as men - and indeed, I've come across many females who would suggest this is true (see: just about any pro-porn feminist blog writer). But then, where are they? Why are they not visible? Are they truly that rare? Or is it true that the female mind is wired in such a way that their appreciation of sex is fundamentally different from a man's - specifically, that they have far less interest in visual depictions (like photography) of sexuality? Any of this can be true, but what concerns me is that we can't even know for sure as long as we discourage girls from behaving sexually and admitting their interest in sex.

There's a lot I want to do for girls' sexuality. Basically, to tell them that it's okay to like sex. That it doesn't make you a "slut", or otherwise that being a slut is not a bad thing. But of course, the majority of people out in the world participate in so-called "slut shaming". So the fact that I'll respect a girl who embraces her sexuality doesn't give her much comfort that the rest of the world will do the same. I wish I could somehow, through my work as an erotic artist, get out the message that girls being sexual is okay, and natural, and that they shouldn't be shamed for it. And a lot of my work is about fighting shame and being proud of your sexuality, but it's tricky, because I'm a guy, and the issue is a lot different for guys than it is for girls. A guy is allowed to be sexual, even encouraged and rewarded for being sexual. So, as a guy - even though I'm an atypical guy that feels girly on the inside - the message doesn't have the same effect when it's me getting out there showing my sexuality to the world and saying, "look, I'm not ashamed." And if I dare try to encourage girls to be more sexual, I can so easily be accused of serving my own selfish sexual desires (which I refuse to deny that I have).

I don't know how to accomplish my goal - whether working with girls is the answer; using my skills to enable them a venue to express their sexuality. But it's hard to even do that, because most girls are afraid, reasonably afraid, to approach the landscape of sex. They're scared of being associated with it, and many of them are probably victims of the societal brainwashing that insists that sex is dirty and icky and sinful, and that men's sexuality in particular is impulsive and predatory in nature, and should be avoided. There really is no easy answer, and trying to break girls who have already succumbed to the social programming is not only difficult, but could be construed in very destructive terms by a social system that wants to keep girls pure and virginal and asexual. I mean, think about it. The whole "sexualization of girls" debate implies two things: that girls are naturally asexual (they have to be "sexualized" by an outside force), and that the sexualization process is a bad thing - in other words, good girls are asexual girls. And for that reason, I am concerned for my own safety. I don't want to push girls into being more sexual, I just want to open up the floor, so that the girls who are, feel comfortable being so, and admitting it. It would be really nice to meet some girls who are, like me, rebellious, and have already broken out of the socially constructed mold of how one is supposed to properly act, sexually.

And it's weird, as a (sensitive) male who is sexually attracted to females, I feel kind of bad about having strong sexual desires for girls, when the social paradigm tells me that girls are largely uninterested in sex, and actually in a lot of cases interpret sexual advances as aggressive, predatory behavior. See, I don't want to make girls feel uncomfortable or defensive. I want them to be interested in sex the same way I am, and I want them to be able to interpret my sexual interest in the proper context - that is, as a positive and natural physiological phenomenon, and not as a threat, not as an impulse that's going to cause me to think of a girl as a piece of meat, something only to be fucked, whether she wants to or not. Really, I just want to hear girls say, yes, I like sex. I think it's really sad that we've come to a point that we've lost any conception of positive sexuality. That you either have to stay sexually pure (or strictly private), or else you're part of this sinful world of vice - the idea that if you embrace sexuality, by dressing in a certain way, or posting pictures on the internet, that you're agreeing to be objectified or treated rudely or whatever. That you have to take the one with the other. That you can't be sexually open and liberated and still respected and treated like a human being. And I just want that to change. I want sex to be a happy thing again, like it was before the Christians showed up.

And I want more people to learn - as I have learned - that if somebody anonymously sends you the message "I want to fuck you in the ass" (an activity I have no interest in participating in), you don't have to be offended and feel threatened, you're allowed to take it as a compliment, and then completely ignore it, and know that the person on the other end is just indulging his sexual desires, and he doesn't (shouldn't) expect you to be interested, and that he's NOT going to track you down and rape you if you don't patronize him. And that you're allowed to tell people to back off if they're bothering you, but that you shouldn't take a playful sexual comment as an immediate threat of rudeness and aggression. Are we not sexual beings? Why do we run away from sex so much? I get that some people just don't like sex, but how many haven't even tried peacefully coexisting with it? Because it just isn't going to go away, no matter how much we legislate it, and restrict it, and repress it within ourselves. It's not going away. And if we embrace it, and learn how to approach it properly, we can turn it into a positive life force. It doesn't have to be the icky, sinful thing that we make it out to be.

Things do NOT have to be the way they are, just because they are the way they are. Consider alternative possibilities. I'm telling you it's possible. I used to be sexually repressed. I didn't learn to masturbate until I was 17. I was tempted (brainwashed) to take an abstinence vow in high school, but it didn't make much difference because I wasn't getting any, anyway (the full story is more complicated than that, but I have no desire to get into that here and now). Now, sex is a large part of my life (and when I say sex, I mean a million things in addition to sexual intercourse, which is only a really tiny part of what constitutes "sex" - that's another critical point that so many people miss), and a very strong positive force that gives me something to enjoy, to counter all the shitty things I have to deal with in life. And I'm not diseased, I've never gotten anyone pregnant, and I can count the number of people I've been sexually intimate with on one hand (not that it matters how many people you've been with - I'm just trying to make the point that embracing sex doesn't have to have anything to do with "sleeping around", if you don't want it to). And you can follow my example.

Unfortunately, reforming the sexual landscape (and it desperately needs an overhaul) is going to be extremely difficult. It's not just a matter of tweaking some attitudes here and there. We don't live in a vacuum, and as long as those sex-negative messages are out there, they are going to continue to affect our feelings about our sexuality. Even as a sexually liberated individual, I still have to fight the very powerful sentiments floating around that insist on convincing me that sex is bad. And you have to be really strong to resist all of that negative conditioning. But I'm convinced that it's doing us more harm than good. Repressing our sexuality leads to unhealthy attitudes towards sex, and is the primary cause of all of our sexual dysfunctions in society. It's not going to be easy to flip that switch, and the results may not be clearly positive until the more positive attitudes have time to sink in (which is bound to take generations, at least - after all, we've been exposed to centuries of Christian moralism). Nevertheless, I feel it's a task that is utterly worth undertaking. I ask you to be brave and join me. Only together can we change the world...for the better.

The appreciation of erotic beauty - as an end in and of itself.

2011-07-27T14:54:00.000-07:00

What is the purpose of erotic art? What is the goal in appreciating erotic beauty? The satisfaction of sexual desire? My stance is that this is one component, but not the only one. If erotic beauty satisfies one's sexual desires, then that is perfectly fine. And in fact, that is the primary element that sets erotic beauty apart from other kinds of beauty - that's what makes it special, and so very alluring. Yet the true connoisseur of erotic art understands that it is not simply the satisfaction of sexual desire that makes erotic art so appealing - after all, for that there is crude pornography. Erotic art taps into the romantic sensualism of beauty; it takes a sexy image, and drapes it in meaning and desire. It is, put simply, sexy but more. And it is this "more" that makes the erotic image far more appealing to some (even in a sexual way) than crude pornography. It is, in a sense, divine bliss, as opposed to earthly pleasure.

But is an appreciation for erotic art purely a means towards acquiring the goal of sexual satisfaction? Does one look at erotic images to pass the time between acts of fucking? Does one use those images as a catalyst or motivator for their other sexual behaviors? I'm sure some people do. Especially those who view porn. Yet, this is not the only possibility, and restrictions on erotic imagery should not assume that it is, while ignoring other, less 'salacious' uses of erotic images. In my own unique personal case, I have a suspicion that I actually enjoy the pursuit and appreciation of erotic imagery above and beyond the carnal act of sex itself. I'd rather create (or discover) and share a work of lasting erotic beauty, than spend a few moments attaining temporal carnal bliss. Should my interest in erotica (and eroticism) be belittled because some people (perhaps even a majority) have crude intentions? Should 'fine art' be dumbed down for the sake of the unsophisticated majority who are incapable of proper artistic interpretation?

No, absolutely not. That some people get off on images in crude ways is not an argument that those images should be in any way restricted. And that's without even touching on the argument that perhaps people getting off in crude ways is good for their health (and by extension, good for the rest of society, too).

Body Acceptance

2011-07-26T20:25:00.000-07:00

Body Acceptance is recognizing that you're not the prettiest girl in the room, and being okay with that. It's not pretending that there is no difference between you and her. Acknowledging the worth of inner beauty does not eliminate or negate the value of outer beauty. Having body acceptance means understanding that your worth as a person depends on a whole lot more than your physical appearance - not thinking that physical appearance has no importance.

I know I'm not the most beautiful model on flickr. And I accept that, because my character and personality enriches my work with a depth and style that makes it unique. However, I would be a fool not to recognize that the fact that I am at least moderately attractive is a huge benefit to my work. If I were considerably less attractive, I might very well not bother attempting the kind of photography I've been focused on. After all, photography is primarily a visual medium, and it would be silly for me to ignore the aesthetics of visual beauty as I approach my work.

"Image is not everything. But it is something."
Total body acceptance recognizes both of those tenets. And that is the truth about beauty.

Beauty is not everything there is to life, but it does have a certain appeal. Not everyone is intelligent. Not everyone is athletic. Not everyone is strong. Not everyone is funny. Lacking any one of these traits does not make you worthless. Find your individual strengths, and revel in them. Don't dwell on the qualities you do not, by chance, possess. You may regret that you are not pretty - well I regret that I am not even a girl to begin with. But I have other qualities that I can be proud of. My not being a pretty girl, while unfortunate, doesn't ruin my life completely, and it doesn't stop me from being able to positively appreciate others who are pretty girls.

So let the beautiful model, and do not condemn them for it. Meanwhile, if you are not counted among the beautiful, find the place where you do belong, and pour your heart into that important work. If you do, you are bound to find others who will admire you for it.

Pet Peeve

2011-07-18T00:20:00.000-07:00

Pet Peeve: people who would make me feel bad about wanting to take pictures of pretty girls nude. Like as if doing so makes me a bad person - for "degrading" or "objectifying" women (I call it "honoring" and "celebrating") - or that it makes me a weak person - for giving in to temptations of the flesh (as if we weren't supposed to enjoy the few pleasures there are in life).

I am an artist, and it is my calling to seek out beauty, in the perfect form in which it appears to me, and to capture it and share it with the world. What I do (or rather, at this point, what I'd like to be doing) is beautiful, in spite of your body shame, religious guilt, and sexual hang-ups. And if you have nothing good to say about what I do, then you've got nothing for me to hear. Go find another target for your psychological abuse.

Nudists Who Don't Mind Being Photographed

2011-07-16T23:43:00.000-07:00

As a photographer, one of my goals is to photograph social nudism. Unfortunately, many nudists (at least in America) are paranoid about having their picture taken, to the point of embracing a pretty general across-the-board "no cameras" policy at nudist resorts and events. Naturally, they are worried about voyeurs, as well as the ramifications of family, friends, and/or coworkers finding out about their practice of nudism. And while the latter is a valid concern, I feel it is an unfortunate result of how wider society views nudism, with a particular focus on how it misunderstands nudism. And hiding in the shadows only helps to reinforce the status quo.

That's why I believe it's important for nudists to stand up for nudism. And for us to embrace our own ideals and be less self-conscious about what people will think if they see us naked. Most nudists will perhaps not be so bold, but I'm certain that some of us are willing to stand up to the task, for the benefit of nudism. But even on a more basic level, for a photographer interested in shooting nudist recreation, it is more imperative than ever that he (or she) find a group of nudists who are prepared to give their explicit consent to being photographed, knowing that those photographs may end up in view of the public.

So I'm thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to start some kind of group - a network of people who aren't afraid to contribute to the public database of nudist photography. We could also provide education and discussions about both the risks and the importance of not hiding one's lifestyle, and of nudist photography in general.

I know that the people involved would probably be too few and far between for them to actually get together and do shoots, but I think that it would be helpful for people of this sort to band together and reinforce one another, while also hopefully getting the word out to the wider nudist community, if not society at large. Plus, having some centralization, with a focus on defending the merits of nudist photography, would help fringe nudists and photographers who may be out there worrying that they're the only one, and that there's no hope of ever finding other nudists who might want to contribute to a photography project they've been dreaming of for years.

Obviously, the focus of a group like this would be on legitimate nudist photography, so there would have to be an emphasis on the family-friendly, nonsexual context of the photography. And this is about nudists who aren't afraid to say to the world "I am a nudist", so it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the heaps of anonymous men who want to expose their junk to the world without showing their faces, nor with the private photo-sharing groups that are so popular. It's not necessary that one be a prude to join the group, just that they understand the group is not prurient in nature, and are willing to behave themselves, up to nudist standards. As far as fear of voyeurs go - if you're willing to unselfconsciously show your naked body to the world, then you have to accept the fact that voyeurs are going to look. Really, it's not a problem. It's just looking. Abusive behavior, on the other hand, is easy to combat.

So that's my idea. I know there are tons of nudist groups on the web, some better than others, and most of them have photography sub-groups, but they're all so small and fragmented and inactive. And it's just nudists talking about photography, it's not like there's any emphasis on educating the world about what they're doing, or even just the wider importance among the nudist movement that taking (and sharing) a nudist picture encompasses.

Maybe I am alone in this. But even so, discussing the merits of nudist photography might encourage others to get on board. As usual, I'm better at coming up with ideas than I am at actually executing them, so I'm not sure what to do. But, if you're reading this, and you're on board with what I've described, leave a comment and let me know you're out there.

Irony

2011-07-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

If you don't want people to view your images in a sexual light, it doesn't help to bring up the topic of sexualization in the description for your images. Telling perverts to "stop it" isn't going to keep them from thinking perverted thoughts. And on the other hand, introducing the subject encourages everyone else to entertain those thoughts as well. After all, if I tell you not to think about elephants, what's the first thing you're going to think of?

So what does it accomplish? The perverts see your warning (which also acts as a billboard directing them to your content) and go about their business more secretively than before (which is perhaps the best you could hope for). And yet, the images are still sexualized - except you're the one responsible for it. Good job.

This effect is particularly striking when it is the result of an excessive paranoia over pictures of kids. Just like with the elephants, if you have to follow every "look at this picture of my kid" with a "don't you dare think any sexy thoughts", then what can you expect? You think you're checking other people's compulsion to think sexy thoughts, but you're the one whose mind immediately goes there. In fact, it may not be a coincidence at all, as it's often the people who complain the loudest...

Personally, I don't have much time for self-righteous moral crusaders or cowardly hypocrites.

A Metaphor

2011-07-16T11:30:00.000-07:00

Imagine that sex is swimming. Now imagine that the most powerful church in the world just happened to be founded on principles that extol the virtues of being landborne. Naturally, the church forbids the teaching of swimming. Their idea of "education" is describing the dangers of swimming and telling people not to enter the water. Over centuries, people learn to avoid swimming, and categorize it as a risky activity, mainly out of tradition (backed by the church's support).

As you can imagine, most people who dare to dive into the water unprepared end up drowning. And this just reinforces the church's position that swimming is dangerous. Meanwhile, the lucky few who manage to figure it out on their own have a real hard time teaching others, because the church actively tries to silence them. You see, it's in the church's interest to ensure that swimming remains dangerous, no matter how many lives are sacrificed for it.

Now, think about our world, where there is no powerful taboo against swimming. Swimming is still a risky activity, but the dangers are largely controllable. In fact, we have created man-made environments that allow for swimming while eliminating many of the peripheral dangers of being in the water. Most people know the basics of swimming; lessons often begin at a young age, and even before that, the inexperienced are permitted to splash in the shallows under proper supervision, and with the right protective measures in place. Some people still avoid the water, by choice, while others, who have an aptitude for it, seek out a deeper understanding of the aquatic environment, and even pursue careers in related fields. And none of this is cause for alarm, because it's all out in the open, where the risks can be monitored and reduced. And the lack of a taboo eliminates feelings of guilt and shame.

What, then, is the difference between sex and swimming? One is an activity without which most people could still live a fulfilling life, and the other is accompanied by a strong biological impetus, which when denied or repressed, leads to complex psychological problems.

Examining Flickr's Safety Filters

2011-07-16T00:19:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: I make no claim that the advice given in this post is accurate. Standards change, and not every guideline is always clear to follow. These are simply the rules as I understand them at the time of writing this post. That understanding may change, and the rules themselves may change. I make no guarantee that by following these guidelines you will avoid running into trouble with flickr, or other flickr users. To stay safe, please visit the flickr community group Adult Flickr Members: How NOT to get Deleted!, and read their posts and guides thoroughly and frequently. ;-) Good luck.

Safety filters are the ingenious invention that allows flickr to play host to both family friendly content, as well as hardcore pornography. But, they are of course not perfect. They are essentially an imperfect solution to the problem of how to serve a global community where members from different parts of the world are bound to have different standards of decency.

There are only three levels of safety. "Safe" is basically anything that is completely inoffensive, whereas "restricted" is reserved for the really bad stuff, and "moderate" is for those things that tend to fall in between. Of course, illegal material of any kind is outright prohibited.

The biggest complaint I have about the safety filters (and it's something I can live with, even though I don't like it), is that nudity is not judged independently of sexual content. I understand that it's a lot harder to judge the context of an image to determine whether or not it's sexual than to just take a quick look and see what parts of the body are visible, but the result of taking the easy way out is that you get nonsexual nudity placed on the same level as explicit sexual penetration. A set of genitals ten feet from the camera is no less severe, according to the safety filters, than a set of genitals ten inches from the camera, and inserted into another set of genitals...and covered in goo. Now what kind of message does that send out?

Consider how the "restricted" level is described right there in flickr's FAQ:

Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids

Notice the discrimination against nudists. A nudist would have no problem showing his naked body to his [nudist] mum, nor would he have any qualms about showing it to [nudist] kids. In fact, in nudist environments, mums and kids alike frequently hang out together, in the altogether - that is, completely nude. And there's nothing sinister or sexual about it.

I realize we're talking about a minority here, but I'm part of that minority, and so it has to be said. Still, I can tolerate the fact that most people are offended by nudity (even though I don't like it), but the thing that bugs me more is that it's being equated with sexuality. I know there are people out there who can stand to view nudity uncensored (whether in a nudist or artistic context, or something else), but still have hang-ups about porn. But the way the safety filters work, you can't pick one or the other, they come together as a package deal. If you want to view uncensored nudity, you have to put up with the possibility of coming across porn, and if you can't stand looking at porn, then you have to deal with looking at only nudity that has been censored (or none at all). Again, what kind of message does this send out?

Let's take a closer look at the filters, and what falls under each safety level. Thankfully, flickr has included in its FAQ their favorite 'rule of thumb' regarding posting material that includes nudity. It goes like this: breasts and bottoms are moderate, full frontal nudity is restricted. And, one of the unspoken rules is, if your content is sexualized in any way - either by comments or tags or descriptions or by placing it in certain groups or even in the context of the rest of your photostream - you should filter it one level higher than usual. For example, a picture of bare feet, while technically including only safe levels of "nudity", might need to be rated moderate, or even restricted, if it is contextualized as a 'foot fetish' photo. This is true even for fetish items that are not strictly defined as a form of 'nudity'.

But for this exercise, let's take the following photos as is, ignoring their context, so we can see what the different safety levels allow for (in my own understanding). However, I'll note that, when in doubt (and sometimes when there is no doubt), I tend to filter my photos conservatively - for two reasons. One, the cost of reducing a photo's audience (which is admittedly unfortunate) is minor compared to the potential cost of getting in trouble (and possibly even deleted) for not filtering a moderate or restricted photo properly. Two, there are some photos that might technically be able to survive on a lower safety level, but I don't necessarily want them to be seen by people surfing on just that level, for personal reasons.

So, starting with "safe", the range goes from the fully dressed, purely mundane,

to family-friendly not-really-showing-anything implied nudity.

Many flickrites get away with creating the illusion of implied nudity via skimpy clothing - and they are the ones who tend to make a big fuss about the fact that they're not really naked, thereby spoiling the fun - but I've always gone for the authentic approach; that's just my style.

In the "moderate" camp, we have breasts and bottoms. Note that there is no top-equality on flickr. Shirtless men can be considered safe (if not overtly sexualized), but topless women cannot. That's just the way it is. Breasts and bottoms are officially "nudity", yet relatively harmless in comparison to full-on genitalia - think breastfeeding and mooning - so they come in at "moderate".

Now, I know people freak out when they see genitalia, but I can't help thinking that it's ridiculous that - for example - a nudist in the same innocent pose would be rated moderate when viewed from one direction, yet restricted when viewed from another. It just seems silly.

And so we come to "restricted", which covers everything from a flash of pubic hair,

less revealing nudity that is nevertheless sexualized,

full frontal nudity in a nonsexual context,

tastefully sexualized nudity,

blatant erotica,

all the way up to explicit hardcore pornography

(quite a range, eh?). And then you've got frustrating cases like this one, or this one, or this one, or, yes, even this one (which is certainly no more disturbing than the phallic imagery - including penis-shaped lollipops - a person might be exposed to at a public fertility festival in some parts of the world), where the "offending" bits are so small or nondescript that they are essentially benign (but better safe than sorry - er, sorry, better restricted than...uh, never mind).

As I said before, I resent the fact that immodest nudity and hardcore sexuality are judged on the same level. I don't mind there being a filter for nudity, but I think it's unfortunate that it's the same filter that is used for pornography. I have pictures that I would be comfortable showing to nudists and art lovers, yet I would not be comfortable showing them other pictures I have that could be described as pornographic. But instead of separating that content, it's all or nothing. And that goes against the very purpose of the safety filters - to let people view the content they want, while avoiding the content they don't want.

Those are my complaints, and as I said, I can live with the way the system currently works, whether I like it or not - that's the basis of free speech, being able to criticize something constructively. I do have much good to say of flickr, since they are the only service I've found so far that meets my needs of having a nice community, and explicitly allowing pornographic material, while not behaving like a sleazy 'adult industry' site. For that they have my kudos. My growth as a photographer has been greatly facilitated by the flickr service and community, and who knows how differently things would have progressed without it.

On the other hand, you hear a lot about people being deleted from flickr for breaking this or that community standard. I'd like to think that my courteous behavior and careful reading of the rules is what's responsible for me being kept around this long, rather than blind luck (and really, so many people do get deleted for really obvious reasons), but the content I post does put me sort of on the fringe, and I'm not impervious to making mistakes. But so far, pretty good. I'm crossing my fingers that it stays that way.

For an Ethical Morality

2011-07-13T20:08:00.000-07:00

Morality is a personal preference. It's a matter of taste. Unfortunately, religions have co-opted it and used it as a tool for controlling the masses. They tell their followers what morals they should hold, and then they try to pull the rest of society into line with those morals - because after all, each religion has the right answer, and every other religion is wrong.

What is morality but a guide for how to live a pure life free from sin? But who decides what is sin? Is sin a scientific concept, dictating ways of life that are harmful to the individual or society? Or is it an arbitrary designation made by uninformed zealots who once perceived this or that way of life to be harmful (or merely distasteful) in one way or another?

There are two kinds of immoral acts. One is a sin against others (e.g., crimes like theft and murder), and the other is a sin against oneself (e.g., vices such as gambling and promiscuity). But I can argue that with the philosophy of ethics and the principles of science, the concept of morality is completely irrelevant and extraneous to a complete guide for living well.

In the first case, we have sins against others, which can be completely covered by the rule of law, correctly applied - that is, applied for the protection of individual rights, and not as a moral prescription for living a clean life. When one person 'transgresses' against another, in the sense of violating the other's rights (such as in stealing from him, or killing him), we have a clear instance of crime that can be investigated, judged, and - if proven - punished. There is clearly a transgressor, and there is clearly a victim, and the execution of the crime clearly threatens the sanctity of the social construct. Ethics, as applied to dealings between individuals with concern for those individuals' equal rights, is all that is necessary to govern sins committed by one against another, and is the full proper application of the law.

In the second case, we have sins against oneself, which are commonly viewed as vices. While it is noble to have concern for one's fellow man, and to have a desire to protect him from harm and lead him to a pure life, there is a broad margin for interpretation when it comes to deciding what type of life is 'good', and whether or not 'purity' is even something to be valued. Ultimately, concern for the rights of the individual, and his ability to freely decide how to live his own life, trumps any moral concern for the decisions he chooses to make in life. It is perfectly fine to advise people on the rewards and pitfalls of various lifestyles, but ultimately, the decision lies with the individual, and that means we must be willing to respect individuals who choose to live in ways we may not support or recommend.

Now, regarding how we determine which lifestyles are 'good' and which are 'bad', we don't need a fictional being to dictate to us what those are. We are not children. We have developed the field of science as a means of understanding the world around us. Through objective scientific trials, we can determine which ways of life are harmful and which are beneficial, and we can observe precisely in what way(s) they are harmful or beneficial. And if science provides no evidence of harm, then there is no reason to discourage that lifestyle. We need not say that promiscuity is a vice because God forbids it, or because the Devil encourages it. Rather, we can say that promiscuity carries the risk of transfer of disease, unwanted pregnancies, and the like.

And, science also gives us the tools to isolate those risks and work on preventive measures so that a person can live promiscuously with less risk than they could before. This is the power of man - shaping the world for our own betterment. And in the end, risk or no, it's up to an individual whether he wants to engage in a vice or not, and we should respect that decision even as we disagree with it. For there is no value in choosing to live well if we cannot also choose to live poorly (which is, after all, a subjective value judgment that one who lives in vice may fully disagree with).

Because it is so subjective, morality is a thing that must be applied only to oneself, and not to others, if we are to uphold the virtue of individual rights and free choice. We can make suggestions for how others should live their life, but in the end it is their choice. Acts that infringe on the rights of others can be prosecuted by law, and lifestyles that carry scientifically proven risk of harm to oneself may be discouraged (and those risks should certainly be targeted by education), but must ultimately be permitted to be engaged in by those who choose to do so. After all, life itself is not without risk, and a person should be free to weigh the risks he takes with the benefits they bring him - this is something he alone can decide, for he alone knows what the value of those risks and benefits are to him personally.

And when it comes to activities that are scientifically safe and criminally benign - like, say, dropping a quarter at the slots, or sharing taboo sexual fantasies, or anything that has been deemed unhealthy without proof, or offensive without demonstrated empirical harm - morality dictates only whether or not you like it, and it is not fair for you to discriminate against others on that basis alone. Morals ought to guide your own life - noone else's.

A Window on Intimacy

2011-07-13T19:48:00.000-07:00

Many of the erotic photos I post are, sexually speaking, depictions of "intimate" (if mainly solo) moments. Pictures of me hard, sometimes pleasuring myself. It occurs to me that someone viewing those photos might get the impression that, because I post those photos publicly for complete strangers to see, I am "open" in such a manner that I wouldn't mind just anyone watching me in those moments as they actually occur (which is debatable, considering my exhibitionism). And, in other photos where I might be with another person, since I share those intimate moments with the world, one might imagine that I'm willing to share moments of that sort with just anyone.

But there is a barrier there - the barrier of photography. I choose which pictures to show the world, and through them, I can engage my exhibitionism while satisfying others' voyeurism, all the while without betraying the sanctity of my body. That is to say, I still get to choose when and where and with whom I behave sexually, and the fact of the matter is, my choices in those matters are much more restricted than you might think. You see, erotic artists are not necessarily sluts and whores, and I would argue that that holds for 'sex workers' of many stripes (individual results will vary).

Aside: In fact, I think the all-or-nothing assumption that if a person gets involved in erotic work of any kind then anything goes is generally harmful - it reflects poorly on the image of the sex industry as viewed by wider society, and it puts undue pressure on those who get involved ("you have to go all the way!"), or those who might have gotten involved if they weren't scared away by the horror stories they've heard (regardless of how true, or how common they are). Not to mention the fact that if you characterize the sex industry as sleazy, it will attract more sleazeballs. And you think that's a coincidence? It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon that the anti-sex puritans are all too happy to support - as long as sex maintains its sleazy image, their arguments which hinge on that "fact" will continue to hold water. Never mind who gets hurt in the process of ensuring that sex remains a dangerous, sometimes even criminal, vice.

Getting back to the main point of this post... If, for example, I were to post a photo depicting someone else touching me - you could not imply from that that I would give that privilege to just anyone I might bump into on the street (or even befriend). The fact that I show the world my intimate moments does not mean that I am "loose". I am essentially saying, "come, look at this", but I am not implying, "come, and join in". To do that requires passing a very thorough vetting process. ;-)

Although as far as pure fantasy goes, you're more than welcome to imagine whatever scenarios please you most. Just remember that those are your fantasies, and I have no obligation to participate in them. :-p

Selling With Sex

2011-07-11T15:55:00.000-07:00

I often hear people get upset when people use sex to sell their products. Firstly, advertising is far from an honest, upstanding industry. Either you begrudge their methods (and in the interest of free speech, I do), or you can attack them on a broader platform. People have reasonable arguments about why selling things with sex is stupid or wrong, but I claim that they're using those arguments to conveniently rail against sex from a sex-negative standpoint. If somebody dislikes sex, they're going to latch onto every good argument against sex that's out there (whether it's a valid argument or not), and they're going to try to lean on the non-sex-specific aspects of those arguments in an attempt to hide their personal moral judgments and make it seem like sex is bad from an objective standpoint, regardless of their personal beliefs.

So, people complain when sex is used to sell a product. I just saw a commercial where an anthropomorphic dog was used to advertise a furniture store. It didn't make any sense to me, it was just a stupid gimmick. I imagine whoever came up with it liked dogs, or just thought people who wear animal costumes are cute, and that it would generate some positive attention, that could be directed towards the product they were trying to sell. Why is sex any different? People like sex, so why should it be off-limits from an advertising standpoint? What if a person commissions a sexy advertisement for their product because they are the type of person who likes sex, and includes sex or sexiness as a part of their general lifestyle image (whether or not it has anything directly to do with the product he's selling)? What is wrong with that?

If you don't like sex, you're more than welcome to shop somewhere else. But don't try to prevent advertisers from choosing to use sex to sell products, and don't try to rob people of their choice to support companies that use those advertisements.

Dislaimer: I have no affiliation with Naked Juice, and my views expressed in this post do not in any way reflect theirs. Unfortunately.

Sex Advice from a Nudist

2011-07-08T20:55:00.000-07:00

I'm ripping off this idea from nerve.com because I thought it would be fun. Of course, I'm probably cheating, because in addition to being a nudist, I'm also a sexual liberationist, but the nudist experience is definitely there. ;-p

zharth, 27

Why are nudists better in bed?
Because they are comfortable in their skin, and more sensitive to the everyday stimulations of one's environment.

I'm interested in attending my first nudist event, but I'm really insecure about the size of my penis. What should I do?
You should learn to accept what you've got. A man is more than the size of his penis. Anyway, it's not like nudists are going to care how big (or small) you are. You're not there to show off.

My girlfriend is a nudist, but I'm not into it. I'm uncomfortable letting her attend nudist events by herself, and I'm not interested in going. Is it crazy that I want her to hang out with me, with her clothes on, instead of a bunch of naked strangers?
Yes, it's crazy. And you're ruining it for the rest of us. :p Stop being so possessive. Do you realize how lucky you are to have a girlfriend who is into nudism?

What's the best way to pick up someone at a nudist event?
Don't try. Because if you do, there's a good chance you'll get kicked out. If you meet someone, that's great, but it should progress naturally. Just because everyone's nude doesn't mean they're all looking for a hook-up.

I get easily aroused — sometimes for no clear reason. What happens if I'm at a nudist event, and I get an erection around someone I'm not attracted to, or worse, someone I am?
That depends on where you are and who you're with. I like to think most nudists will be forgiving, as long as you're not behaving lewdly (try to ignore or conceal the erection, if possible, instead of flaunting it). I get aroused easily, myself, but I find if you don't stimulate it or concentrate on it (or on whatever might have caused it), it will go away before long. If it's the person in front of you who caused it, then just try really hard to focus on the conversation. :p Worst case scenario, if somebody seems upset, address the issue in a light-hearted manner, showing them that you're personable and not trying to be creepy or aggressive.

How long do I have to wait before I asked out my sister's ex-boyfriend?
You should ask your sister that question. Unless you're on bad terms, in which case it's up to you, provided you're not interested in patching things up with your sister anytime soon.

I am not a fan of women who don't shave. Nothing personal — it's just a preference. I don't want to go home with someone, find out she's unshaven, and then offend her. How can I meet shaved women?
Find an online community for shaved people. Barring that, you have two options. If you're hooking up with someone and it's not serious, then don't feel bad about stating your preference. If you're in a more serious commitment, then you should be able to work something out if you let your girlfriend know how important it is to you.

I think it's really important for a young woman to learn about her sexuality. Is it weird to give my seventeen-year-old daughter a vibrator?
No, it's not weird at all. But you should probably ask her first, she might already have one.

I dated a professor, while I was in his class, secretly. He broke up with me, and now I've found out that he's dating another student of his. Should I report him?
Report him for what? Breaking your heart? Take the high road.

I'm a married woman who's no longer sexually compatible with her husband. Is it better to have a secret affair, and lie, or leave my husband and fuck up my kids?
It's better for you to talk to your husband, and try to work out a compromise, if possible. If that's not possible, you can still be there for your kids. You can't protect them from all the shit that's going to happen to them throughout their lives, but you can be there for them to support them when they need you.

I'm a gay man and I just found out my partner used to "date" older men for money. I wouldn't mind if he was broke and doing it out of necessity, but he was a student at a good college. I'd like to let bygones be bygones, but it's driving me crazy. What should I do?
You should talk to your partner. Find out why it bothers you, and whether it's something you can get over. He's not a bad person just because he's willing to trade sexual favors for money. Anyway, isn't it better that he did it voluntarily, and not out of necessity? Are you saying that 'prostitution' is okay if it's forced, but not if it's engaged in consensually? Isn't that a little backwards?

An Open Letter

2011-07-07T23:01:00.000-07:00

To the Anti-Sexual Brigade:

For god's sake, if somebody finds you attractive, it doesn't mean they're going to rape you. And do they really deserve to be ashamed for feeling that way? What reason do you have to counter somebody else's positive vibrations with a buzzkill? You have this opportunity to let other people feel good, and you'd rather they felt bad? Oh, what a fantastic person you are.

You don't have to go out of your way to please anyone you don't want to, but neither do you have to go out of your way to punish anyone for being pleased by what you would have done anyway. And if you take pleasure in pleasing others, then more power to you. God forbid somebody should get their rocks off. Heavens, no!

It's one thing if somebody is giving you attention that makes you feel uncomfortable, but to punish a person just for admitting what he likes? If you had your way, I bet you would put anyone who likes to look at porn in a concentration camp, wouldn't you? Bravo, you're a true Christian soldier, doing the Lord's work. How many souls do you have to crush in order to earn your wings?

Photographic Solipsism

2011-07-07T10:42:00.000-07:00

I envy photographers who have confidence and a pure enough spirit, that they can afford to take the moral high ground on the issue of photographing only people who have given their express consent to be photographed. I don't want to take pictures of people who don't want their pictures to be taken, but I sometimes get stuck thinking that the people I'd like to photograph would never consent to it - considering the nature of my work, and that I'm too honest to pretend that there isn't a sensual quality to my appreciation of beauty, something that is bound to scare many people away.

But, I suppose if you never ask, the answer is always no.

The trouble is, I hardly ever meet people - especially the ones I'd like to photograph - let alone tell them all about my photography hobby (which is a little bit more difficult to explain than it would be for someone who shoots inoffensive things like flowers and pets and sunsets).

If I were to take pictures of a public crowd, I would be instinctively drawn to the more attractive members of that crowd, and my realization of that fact would make me self-conscious, and I would begin to feel guilty. Because the fact of the matter is, I don't really want to take pictures of the crowd. It would just be an excuse for me to take pictures of the attractive members of the crowd, without having to single them out and ask them to model for my camera. And part of the reason I'm afraid to do that is because I feel guilty treating a person like a piece of meat.

I'd like to believe that anyone would be flattered if a photographer came up and told them they're pretty enough to be in pictures, but it's hard for me to think that way when I hear so many things about people being suspicious of photographers, not wanting their pictures showing up on the internet, and about how degrading it is to have your image appreciated on a superficial level by complete strangers.

Maybe it's my fault for conflating what people say about pornography with plain portraiture, but then again, maybe it's the odd way my mind works: that if you look at a picture and like it because the girl is pretty, that it doesn't make all that much of a difference to me (in terms of being more or less degrading) if the girl is fully dressed or nude and spread-eagled. To me, sex is sacred, and pornography is as innocent as any other kind of portraiture.

So I guess when people say, "it's different with porn", I don't really understand what they mean. Especially considering that we can't come to a consensus on what is considered porn. If a person can use an innocent image for pornographic purposes, is it right for us to then become suspicious of innocent images? And if not, then how can we condemn pornographic images outright, if there is the possibility that they can be meaningful, uplifting, and positive accounts of sexuality, that do not degrade the models? I just can't seem to sort out the logic behind the way we act on these issues, together as a culture. And I suspect that's because there is no logic behind it.

And that's why I rarely take pictures of crowds, and have very few pictures of other people, besides myself (with a few rare and important exceptions). I'm the only person I want to take pictures of who I know - with certainty - is on board with my goals and purposes as a photographer. And, you know, who won't complain when they learn that I sometimes shoot pornography, and then come to the conclusion that that somehow stains the rest of my work.

Blaming the Victim

2011-06-14T19:33:00.000-07:00

"It's society that needs to change, not the length of my skirt."

Sooo, regarding the crime of rape, I think it's fairly accepted these days that the civil approach is not to blame the victim. That is, if a girl dresses in provocative clothing, or if she acts in a flirty manner, or what have you, this is not an invitation for sexual assault. I am fully behind this approach. In fact, it's the only humane approach; which places the responsibility for rape in the hands of the rapist himself, while allowing for the rest of us the full range of free expression. In other words, I can express myself in a sexual manner if I like, and that does not constitute an excuse to be sexually assaulted. (Thank you very much.)

But I think this approach can be expanded a little bit further. Some so-called feminists have a bit of a misandrist streak and love nothing more than to define expressions of male sexuality as being inherently misogynistic and degrading of women. You hear this a lot from the anti-pornography camp. Well, here's the way I look at it. If I feel compelled to create artistic renditions of girls as viewed in a sexual light through the gaze of the horny male, I don't see how any part of that involves my supporting the rape and degradation of women. If somebody looks at pictures and goes out and rapes a woman, the rapist is to blame, not the pictures, and not the person who created those pictures. If women aren't to be blamed for being raped because they dressed provocatively, then neither should I be blamed for encouraging the rape of women by taking provocative pictures of them.

Because you see, thinking that a picture depicting a girl in a sexualized manner invites rape is no different from thinking that a girl presenting herself in a provocative manner (by way of dress or behavior) invites rape. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that women ought to be allowed to contextualize themselves as sexual agents, but that men should simultaneously be barred from viewing them that way. Even were it possible, it would completely disrupt the sexual chemistry between males and females. You simply cannot write off all male appreciation of female sexuality as the degradation of women, and proof of their support of rape. The key to preventing sexual assault is having a clear understanding of the line between sex and rape. Defining all sexual attention as assault doesn't accomplish that.

So please, place the responsibility where it belongs; don't treat people who express themselves sexually (and that includes pornographers) as if they were inviting or supporting sexual abuse.

Lust as a Sin

2011-06-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

I think a lot of people have a tendency to take the seven deadly sins at face value, and forget that they are only deadly in so far as you indulge in them excessively to the exclusion of other important things in your life - specifically, from a religious perspective, your duty to God. It's very similar to the concept of addiction. In moderation, none of the sins are necessarily a bad thing - despite the fact that they are considered to be vices.

Take gluttony, for example. There's absolutely nothing wrong with eating - in fact, it's necessary for survival. And I personally don't see any problem in taking enjoyment out of eating. It's only when your love of eating overcomes other considerations - like your health, spending time with friends, being able to concentrate on your job - that it becomes dangerous and loses its virtue. If you'd rather put down a sandwich than play ball with your son, for example, your love of food is a problem.

What are the other sins? Sloth? It's perfectly fine to enjoy some relaxation now and then, so long as you're not resting so much that you're not getting things done that you need to be getting done. Pride? It's a good thing to take a certain amount of pride in your achievements - it only becomes insidious when you start to overinflate your ego and put down other people to hoist yourself up. Greed? This is a tricky one, because the desire for material possessions is tempting, but who's to say a reasonable desire for enough wealth to live a comfortable life is something that poisons one's humanity? That excessive greed is a sin doesn't mean that you have to be a penniless ascetic to preserve your virtue. Wrath is a hard one to argue because even a little bit of anger can cause problems - but everyone is entitled to feel angry at times in their life. In fact, it's healthy - bottling up that anger can cause even more problems. The important thing is not to let your anger get control over you to the point that you hurt others.

People seem really quick to label anything sexual as being lustful. We can argue the definition of the word "lust", but in terms of the seven deadly sins, having an appreciation for sex and an interest in the vast realm of sexuality does not itself indicate that a person has been consumed with vice and fallen off the path of virtue. Get your head out of the Puritan sand - sex was not invented by the devil. Pleasure is not solely a device for temptation. Pleasure is a gift that God gave us. And sex is divine.

The different sins depict different qualities of varying virtue (or lack of virtue, one might say). Wrath and envy are generally seen as being negative things. Pride and greed and sloth are all viewed as vices, but this depends on the excessive application of their behaviors. In moderation, none of them are all that bad. Just like with gluttony - we don't define eating for survival, or enjoying feasting in moderation, as gluttony, it only becomes gluttony when it crosses the line into unhealthy addiction. Why shouldn't we view lust the same way? If your love of sex is getting in the way of things, then that can be unhealthy, but whose to say that all things sexual are demonic, that any sexual activity is a vice, that sex cannot be pursued as a virtue, like one who pursues the culinary arts for the purpose of brightening the lives of others?

Well I think it can.

Privacy & Public Intimacy

2011-05-24T23:09:00.000-07:00

I have some pretty uncommon beliefs about privacy (imagine that!). When I was a teenager, there was a period during which I exchanged some pretty personal messages with a particular person across the internet. Those messages included some very explicit conversations. Later, when I was on the outs with that person, it came to my attention that she had allegedly (I never received confirmation, so it could have all been a ploy) passed those messages on to someone I knew in person, a mutual contact. My natural response was, aside from a feeling of betrayal, extreme embarrassment. But guess what. It didn't ruin my life. And once I got over the embarrassment, I realized that it didn't make a difference.

Imagine you've just brought someone over to meet your parents. Much to your chagrin, they start talking about your childhood, and threaten to bring out embarrassing photos of you as a child - the 'baby on a bearskin'. No matter how much you protest, the photos come out. You spend a few moments being embarrassed, and then you get over it and realize it's no big deal. Nobody is going to disown you, or fire you from your job, or stop talking to you, because they saw an embarrassing photo of you. So even though I agree that these types of situations are a breach of trust, the repercussions are really not as bad as we make them out to be. And all it would take is a slight (ok, maybe not slight) attitude adjustment (on a cultural scale) to make those repercussions effectively nonexistent.

In this day and age, technology is changing the way we view privacy drastically. I still think privacy is important for personal reasons, but we ought to get over the fear that our lives will end if somebody finds out we have an embarrassing habit. Of course, a lack of privacy can be abused by people (especially those in power), to destroy opponents. Privacy is the stone age method of preventing somebody from using information against you. It just might be the case that in the emerging digital world, we need to invent a new solution. Maybe if there was enough transparency, it would no longer be possible to use secrets to hurt people. After all, nobody can blackmail you over public knowledge, and I think a person would be much less likely to name and shame when they've got just as many skeletons hanging out of their own closet for all the world to see.

But of course, in the meantime, anyone who chooses to be a pioneer and embrace transparency is just setting themselves up as a target for a majority which is still clinging to privacy. Perhaps this is all idealism, but the point I made above still stands. And is particularly applicable to the subject of nude and other photos of a sexually compromising nature. Now, if you've made an agreement (whether explicit or understood) that certain photos aren't to be distributed among strangers, then the person(s) you're intimately sharing them with ought to honor that agreement. I'm not going to argue otherwise. But if, perchance, those photos do happen to get out, whether by a breach of trust, or a legitimate accident, you should know that it's really not a big deal. And perhaps that knowledge might make you just a little more open to the possibility of agreeing beforehand to share the wealth.

After all, chances are, the only people likely to see those photos are people looking for photos of that sort - people who like seeing those photos. They're not about to track you down and make fun of you or something ridiculous like that. They'd just as soon thank you! And if anyone does try bullying you over it, that's a perfect opportunity for you to stand up for yourself and be the bigger man (as it were). You know the bully does things that are just as embarrassing - but between the two of you, he's the one who's afraid to admit it, and take responsibility for it. Make a stand for honesty and personal responsibility, don't let someone make you feel bad for doing something you believe in. And maybe you didn't intend on sharing your escapades with the world wide web, but how does anyone knowing what you did change your resolve in doing it? You shouldn't base your actions on who you expect is going to find out - you should engage only in activities that you're prepared to defend, and then you should engage in them with confidence! The only thing that sneaking around accomplishes is giving you a reason to feel bad when you get found out. Living in fear and shame is not a good way to live.

Reacting to Sally Mann

2011-05-24T21:23:00.000-07:00

You don't so much appreciate or interpret Sally Mann's photographs as you react to them. And the feelings, concepts, and emotions that Sally Mann evokes in her photographs are often uncomfortable ones. I believe this (apart from the whole 'naked children' hullabaloo, which is not entirely unrelated) is the reason many people are unnerved by her work. Yes, Sally Mann's work is undoubtedly disturbing. But it's also good. And the fact that it's so disturbing contributes to its level of 'goodness'.

Some people think art should only be beautiful, in a superficial sense. And while I'm partial to artistic explorations of the aesthetics of beauty, that's not the only thing art exists for. It exists to touch us in any number of ways - and not just positive, feel-good ways. Some people don't like 'dark' art. You might expect that I, as a horror fan and all that, am not unfriendly towards 'dark' art, and you would be right. I know that life is not all happiness, and I revel in the shadows. When I see the abyss reflected in art, I find myself relating to it, on some level. Artistic beauty is the heaven I strive towards - it's the fantasy I imagine in my head, the world I'd like to abide in. But the 'dark arts' are a reflection of the world that really exists, that I seem to be trapped in. And I find comfort in the fact that others recognize it as such, because there's nothing more irritating than somebody saying "don't worry, be happy" when so much sorrow surrounds you.

But the most fascinating aspect of Sally Mann's work is how much it reveals within the viewer: the interplay between the image - the real life moment in time it depicts - and the psychological concepts and emotions that we as viewers conjure up in the process of viewing it. Fans and critics alike testify that Sally Mann's photographs reveal uncomfortable truths, especially about childhood - truths that we are largely afraid to confront. But where we see images of death and violence and sexuality, I think a larger portion of that exists in the viewer's mind than it does in the moment depicted in the photograph. So that allegations about the ethics of Sally Mann's photography are largely misplaced. (There is also the argument about putting private moments out in public - but I am of the school of thought that believes that, provided those involved give their consent, there are no moments too intimate for exploration, even publicly, through art).

Take this image, "Jessie and the Deer":

I could probably do the same thing with any number of Sally Mann's images, but I think an examination of this image reveals what's going on in Mann's work. The first thing you notice about this image is how it makes you feel. And it probably makes you feel uncomfortable. A child's apparent happiness is contrasted with the stark reality of death. Mann's composition sells the image. Notice how the child's head, cocked to the side in a playful grin, mirrors the deer's head, hanging limply off the edge of the truck. This detail marries the two figures together, and the child becomes inextricably linked to the deer's corpse, and, by extension, death itself. Which forces us to acknowledge our own mortality, and - only slightly less morbid - the loss of our childhood innocence.

But most remarkable is the magic trick that Sally Mann has played on us. She has presented us with an image of a child and coated it in the symbolism of death. We fear for the child, and we reel at the tastelessness of the image. But strip it of all that symbolism and psychological weight and all we've got is a child living in the country, where activities like hunting (and wandering around naked) are probably just a mundane part of life for the child. She appears to be happy, after all. So why should we cry out against Sally for capturing these images, while thinking the child has somehow been abused or exploited in the process? It's not the individual child that has been put at risk (of death, and loss of innocence) - it is all of us, all the children in the world, and all the inner children hidden within us adults. It is the symbol of childhood, as well as life itself, that is being threatened in this image. And those are just concepts.

A very similar analysis could be made for The Alligator's Approach, or Hayhook, or The Terrible Picture, or any number of Sally's images. In fact, the entire concept is summed up nicely in the symbolism of the Candy Cigarette, one of Sally's more popular images. In it, we see a child apparently smoking a cigarette, and it scares us, but it's only candy. The abuse and neglect, the fear and death, the violence and sexuality, in these images - they are all candy cigarettes. In looking at them, we are reminded of the real terrors they represent, and we fear for the seemingly innocent children who are facing them. But those children are just living, like the rest of us. And even insofar as some of the terrors depicted might be real, or realistic, the subjects in the photos are in no more danger than we all are - and that, I think, is what truly scares us.

And I think it's rather short-sighted to say that Sally Mann shouldn't be taking images like these. These terrors won't go away if we don't think about them. But you do have the option of closing your eyes if you'd like not to be reminded. However, for the rest of us, who refuse to shut our eyes on the darker aspects of life, they serve as a study and a reminder - but not just that, as they are also beautiful images of [true] innocence standing up to overwhelming adversity, and great compositions from a purely artistic perspective to boot.

Nudism, Normality, and Sexuality

2011-05-21T21:23:00.000-07:00

One possible motto for the nudist lifestyle is "normal, just naked" - the idea being that there is nothing "special" about nudism beyond the mundane fact of being without clothing. Which means, that when nudists get together, they are not so much "doing nudism" as they are doing what any normal clothed person does, except that they happen to be doing it naked - and that's what makes it nudism. The fact that they're naked doesn't mean that it's some kind of perverted sex orgy or something.

Now, there is some value in this view, but it is ultimately flawed because if naked was truly normal, then there would be little reason to prefer nudity over being clothed in any given situation, essentially marking the nudists - those who insist on being naked - as having some kind of odd, and perhaps unhealthy, fixation.

The truth is, there are great benefits to being naked - both the physical benefits of not being restricted by clothing, and also the psychological benefits that come largely through the sensation of being unclothed in space, free and unhindered, and released from the bondage of mainstream society. There are practical reasons for preferring either nudity or clothing for specific tasks - clothing keeps one warm while walking in freezing temperatures, yet is effectively useless when going swimming. However, all things being equal - and sometimes even when the deck is stacked - nudists by and large prefer to go nude whenever they can get away with it. And this is mainly because of the physical and psychological benefits nudity has, that are sometimes (to some people) worth sacrificing the practicality of wearing clothing for (e.g., you might have a little bit more protection wearing a layer of clothing while playing volleyball, but the risk of minor injury is not so great as to outweigh the simple pleasure of playing the game nude and unencumbered).

The one area where nudism is frequently stated to be not normal is in the realm of sexuality. And this is largely a forced designation. Nudism is no more sexually pure than anything you might do clothed. However, nudism is often misconstrued as being a sexual lifestyle. This is inaccurate, and this unfortunate designation hurts nudism, because sexual lifestyles are unfortunately shamed and regulated in ways that no other type of lifestyles are. Nudists can't afford to let themselves be seen as a sexual lifestyle. It would destroy nudism. The most obvious example of this is that kids would no longer be allowed to be part of the nudist lifestyle, and nudism would not then be family friendly, which is one of its primary virtues. Viewed as a sexual lifestyle, nudism would be little more than any of the other marginalized sexual lifestyles, and not only that, it would be forcibly changed to fit the guidelines of a sexual lifestyle to the point where it would no longer resemble nudism anymore.

So to avoid this, nudists go far out of their way to disassociate themselves with the sexual lifestyles. Which is a defensible reaction. But I don't speak from the public mindset, I speak from a more evolved position. I understand nudism intimately, and I'm sophisticated enough to understand the difference between nudism and sexuality without having to keep them in opposite hands at all times. I'm looking forward into the future, the way the nudist lifestyle should be lived in an ideal sex-positive world, not in today's twisted sex-negative society.

And in this ideal world, nudism's approach towards sex would be the same as its approach toward everything else - normal. And this is the approach that I personally hold, though I may choose to modify the way I represent my views based on practical concerns about how this (broken) world currently runs. But in my head, in my ideal world, I don't see a problem with engaging in sexual lifestyles concurrently with my nudism. Because I'm smart enough to understand that the presence of sex during nudism doesn't make all nudism about sex. This is how I can consider myself to be both a nudist and an exhibitionist. It's because, though I enjoy exhibitionism, not every time I get nude is for reasons of getting an exhibitionist thrill. It's just like how, a nudist might get nude, but not always for nudism. If a nudist takes off his clothes to have sex with his girlfriend, he's not engaging in nudism, even though he's nude. The fact that I have an interest in exhibitionism doesn't mean that every time I'm naked in front of people it's because I'm trying to get a sexual thrill out of it.

Why do nudists get naked? Because it's relaxing. Because it's more comfortable than wearing clothes. Because it's cooler when the temperature's warm. Why do exhibitionists or sex freaks in general get naked? Because it's arousing. Because when they're naked they feel exposed, and they think about sex. Why do I get naked? For the first reasons or the second? The answer is, both, at different times (and sometimes, yes, even at the same time). Let me give you a live example:

I've been sitting here at my computer for the past few hours. I'm not wearing a stitch of clothing, and I haven't since I sat down hours ago. I took my clothes off before I sat down after coming from dinner. I was only wearing clothes during dinner because that's what is socially acceptable - I would have preferred to have been nude. But why did I take my clothes off? Was it for sexual reasons, or nudist reasons? It was for nudist reasons. I just wanted to be comfortable, and I took them off because I spend most of my time in my room naked. Because it's comfortable, and because I am a nudist.

Now, during the course of the few hours I've been sitting at my computer, let's say that at one point I get distracted and start looking at some porn (unintentionally, I swear :p). Naturally, I am aroused. Suddenly, I become conscious of my naked condition not simply as being free from the restriction of clothes, but also as being exposed, and this turns me on. At this point, I am not acting as a nudist, I am acting in a sexual manner. Eventually, I finish looking at porn, and I go back to doing whatever other nonsexual things I was doing at the computer. My arousal subsides, and my thoughts of sex vanish. I am once again a nudist, sitting at my computer naked because it's more comfortable that way.

Does my session of looking at porn change the whole period of sitting at my computer from being a nudist activity to a sexual activity? No. I was engaged in sexual activity while I was looking at porn, yet I was engaged in nudist activity during the other periods when I was not doing anything sexual in nature. The mere presence of that sexual activity does not change the nature of the rest of my nudist activity, nor does it change my justification for being naked during my nudist activity. The reason I was nude during my nudist activity is not because I intended to engage in sexual activity and was getting prepared for it. I was naked for purely nudist reasons.

In fact, in a similar case, my state of undress may be unrelated to my sexual activity. Were I clothed during the whole period of sitting at my computer, then during the period where I looked at porn, I might not have the urge to take off my clothes for sexual reasons. I might enjoy myself sexually without taking my clothes off. In yet another case, closer in detail to the first, I might have been naked during the sexual activity, but I might not have been conscious of my nudity as a sexual thing during that period. In that case, I may be engaged in sexual activity, yet the reason for my nudity would be the same nonsexual, nudist reasons that I had for being nude during the period when I was engaged in nonsexual activities. Indeed, in that case, I would be simultaneously engaged in a nudist activity and a sexual activity.

Nudists don't want you to know this, but it's possible to have sex while engaging in nudism. The point that too many people pass up, though, is the fact that even if one does have sex while engaging in nudism, this does not indicate that nudism itself is a sexual activity, anymore than being clothed is a sexual activity because you happened to watch porn once while you were fully dressed.

Unfortunately, the way the world is, nudists have to be extra careful to unnaturally extricate their sexual urges and activities from nudism, for the sake of their image. For a person like me, who believes that life is by and large a sensual - and in some sense, sexual - experience, it can be frustrating to have to pay lip service to this asexual model. Know that I am willing to do so, because I understand the reasons for it - and more importantly, the repercussions for not doing it - but understand that my enlightened views are what allow me to be a highly sexual creature otherwise while not, in my mind, compromising my own personal dedication to nudism.

P.S. You might think the fact that I (and others) bring the topics of sex and nudism together frequently reveals that there is some kind of connection between them. The reason I bring them up often is because I am both a nudist, and I am interested in sex. So I enjoy talking about them. But the reason the two often get talked about together is precisely because they are frequently mistaken to be connected. People love to talk about sex, and to many people, groups of naked people make them think about sex. So there you have the "connection". Tons of people speculating that nudism is sexual, and tons of nudists proclaiming just the opposite. As soon as we all grow up and stop making such a big fuss about whether or not nudism has anything to do with sexuality, then I'll no longer have a reason to talk about them in the same breath, either. I'm telling you right now, it shouldn't be that important. (But until we get a grip on our collective social sexual dysfunction, I fear that it will be).

The two main pitfalls of amateur pornography

2011-05-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

As an exhibitionist myself, I have a hard time saying this, but from what I see, the two main pitfalls of amateur pornography (including solo exhibitionists) appear to result from the desire to exhibit oneself overcoming any and all considerations for taste or aesthetics.

The first of the two pitfalls on my mind is the belief that people want to see lots of closeups of genitals. I'm willing to believe this is a matter of taste, but if you ask me, the genitals aren't usually the prettiest parts of a person's body. Yes, they carry a strong sexual charge, and in the right context, with appropriate consideration, they can be a potent and even central element of an erotic portrait. But, though it might be exciting to put your private parts out there on display for all the world to see (believe me, I understand - though I think in a saner world, less censorship of those parts in general would reduce the arbitrary thrill of exposing them), it's usually not something a lot of people enjoy looking at.

Again, I'm not saying genitals have no place in an erotic portrait. I'm just saying that an erotic portrait is far more interesting to look at than an anatomical closeup of some stranger's private parts.

The second of the two pitfalls is not unrelated to the first, and it deals with the single-minded exhibitionist's complete disregard for the principle of scaled beauty. That is to say, the fact that not everyone is equally attractive. Some people are prettier than others. A hot girl might be able to get away with posting a bunch of pictures of her snatch, but how many people are interested in seeing a fat man's cock from dozens of angles? Again, maybe it's a matter of taste, but if you're not especially attractive, the chance that people are going to want to look at you drops significantly.

I know, it sounds kinda harsh. But that's the truth about beauty. If you don't have it, it doesn't mean you're a bad person, just that you should try to find something else you're good at, and leave it to the pretty people to cover the modeling gigs. And I know, as an exhibitionist myself, I understand that it's not entirely fair to say that you can't enjoy the thrills of exhibitionism if you're not lucky enough to be attractive. I don't exactly know what to tell ya. I'm not gonna say "give it up", because if I hadn't gone out on a limb years ago, I wouldn't be where I am today. But then, exhibitionist though I am, my goal was never simply to get my jollies from flashing my naughty bits in front of (expecting) strangers, I actually had a passion for erotic pictures. And A desire to make good ones. Getting an exhibitionist thrill out of practicing my craft was merely a job perk that provided some extra motivation to continue.

I'm tempted to say that, even the ugliest subject can make a few adjustments to improve a portrait. In that case it comes down to how much effort you're putting into it. If you're snapping a shot just to get it up there to reap the illicit thrill of shocking (and possibly disgusting) others, well, that tends to show. On the other hand, you might take the time to take a shot that looks better, or even weaves some interesting elements in, perhaps even approaching the realm of art. Of course, it takes some creativity and experience, but you might as well give it a shot. After all, if you can make a good portrait that people will actually like (and not only because it's dirty), that you can still get an exhibitionist thrill off of, not only is it likely to be an even bigger hit, but then you can be a lot more proud (instead of ashamed) of it later on down the line!

Just so we're clear, I have no interest in censoring whatever it is you'd like to express yourself with. I'm merely encouraging you to reach down and pull out your greater potential. I encourage everyone to experiment, and trial and error inevitably leads to a number of misses - by all means, not everything you produce will be a gem. But if you push yourself for better results, the average quality of work available overall will improve. And who knows what you might be able to achieve! :-)

The Loss of Sexual Innocence

2011-05-18T12:54:00.000-07:00

I am a fan of David Hamilton's photography. His artistic focus encompasses the sensual feminine beauty of young girls on (or more likely trailing) the cusp of puberty. Sexual tastes vary, but there is a long and rich history of men - sometimes even rather old men - experiencing (or maintaining) an instinctual desire for young girls who are only just barely biologically equipped for parenthood. And yet, our modern politically correct consciousness tends to regard this attraction as something to be feared and repressed. I have observed, on multiple occasions, ignorant individuals describing David Hamilton's beautiful photography as trash that ought not to have been created - because it encourages that ages-old attraction between men and girls (who are no more children than they are women).

But what is the reason for this reaction? In truth, it is a highly complex sociological issue, worthy of much research, for those whom the subject interests. As I see it, it is the disastrous result of a lethal mixture of two incompatible chemical compounds. One being our approach towards sex, and the other, our conception of childhood. In my mind, children are often not as innocent as we credit them for, and neither is sex as destructive. But where the issue becomes complicated is not the artificial combination of these two factors, but their natural convergence - i.e., at puberty, where the child transforms into a sexual being. What I see the problem being, is that our legitimate fears of child rape are drifting to cover (and stain) legitimate acts of healthy sexuality - for the sake of being better safe than sorry.

Now if it were a simple case of choosing between safe and sorry, safe would be preferable to sorry. But is safe really safe? Or are we still sorry? What do we lose in adopting an overprotective stance? Whose growth are we stunting, and whose mental health are we tampering with? Think about our approach towards sex. Is it healthy? Does teaching guilt and shame for the sake of repressing sexual urges that might be dangerous accomplish anything worthwhile? Or does it sabotage the sexuality of healthy individuals, while exacerbating the antisocial impulses of the few who are dangerous?

No amount of sexual repression will eliminate sex crime, and I'm not even convinced that it reduces them. If somebody wants to play with fire badly enough, they're going to find some matches. Wouldn't it be better to teach that person how to wield fire safely, than to leave them fumbling in the dark? And after all, fire can be immensely beneficial to us. That it can be used toward destructive ends is no reason to discourage its responsible usage.

This is what I mean when I say that we've lost our sexual innocence: we've lost our ability to see sex for its positive aspects, and we've retrained ourselves to assume everything that can go wrong with sex. We view attraction as insult, fantasy as deviance, desire as unavoidable impulse, imagery as objectification, beauty as discrimination, and sex as obscene. And we're teaching our young these same twisted principles. We're essentially raping their sexual innocence by imposing our morbid, cynical views of sexuality on them.

That a person can look at a beautiful image of a pretty girl - like many of David Hamilton's photographs - and feel disgust is alarming. That such a person is incapable of avoiding the impulse to impose his/her views of deviant sexuality and predatory attraction onto the image, and thereby judging harshly anyone involved in creating the image, as well as anyone who willingly views the image, is to me evidence of a great social evil that has sunk into the hearts of individual citizens. Hamilton himself addressed this issue, but in doing so he condemned pornography, when it is the diseased attitude we have towards pornography (and everything sexual) that the evil originates from. That people call his photography pornography in order to denounce it demonstrates that it is not pornography that is the problem, but the way that sex (no matter where or how it is viewed - or even imagined) makes these people feel - in a word, sick, when they should be feeling elated.

How far has this evil spread? Can you even look at a picture of a naked child - something decidedly nonsexual in nature - and not get an ill feeling in the pit of your stomach? Does your mind then run toward thoughts of evil, faceless predators exploiting, raping, even murdering innocence? Is that healthy? Forget about what could happen in an extremely unlikely scenario. The damage has already been done - and it's inside your own head.

Planning A Slumber Party (Massacre) - Part 7: The Morning After

2011-05-14T15:04:00.000-07:00

Finally, we come to the conclusion of Slumber Party Massacre. This shot wraps up the story - the killer is in custody, but it's too late for the poor girls. I shot this last of the entire series, in March, and it was actually a last minute idea. After shooting the slumber party itself, and coming to the end of the project, I felt it needed a conclusion. And so this shot was born. I had to fish out the police cap from some boxes of old Halloween costumes way back in the crawl space of the attic. It came with a uniform, but it was a costume for a 6 year old, so there was no way I'd be able to fit into it. So I doubled up my cheerleader spankies, since they were a nice 'police blue' color, and did a bit of a 'sexy cop' thing - which was appropriate, given the nature of my photography.

Here you see an alternate version of the shot. I moved a couple of the bodies around between some of the shots, but the significant difference here is that the killer is still hard. Looking back, you'll notice that the killer is hard in every single shot. After all, he's a sex-crazed maniac. I took that to be one of his trademarks - that he'd be interminably hard even in the most unexpected situations. But then, I thought that it would make much more sense if the killer was finally soft, after not only finishing his job, but having come to an unfortunate end. The drooping softy seems to mirror the killer's bowed head, reflecting his defeat at having been caught in the end.

And here he succumbs to the cop's personal brand of 'justice':

When I started the original Slumber Party, I was excited because it was the most elaborate shot I'd done, requiring hours of preparation time to change hair and wardrobe, and set up the clones - and it was the first time I'd ever done four clones! This final shot of the Slumber Party Massacre ups the ante with five clones, but the whole project itself, spanning seven themed shots (not including alternates and outtakes), and months of planning and execution, is by far the most elaborate photography project I've helmed so far. It's been fun, and lots of work, and I'm excited to finally be able to share the results with the world.

Fun trivia: Here's your last unexpected outtake! I took this shot at the same time as the shots for The Morning After.

Planning A Slumber Party (Massacre) - Part 6: Slumber Party Massacre

2011-05-13T16:07:00.000-07:00

The Slumber Party Massacre project originally grew from the simple idea of doing a sequel to my Slumber Party clone shot, which I had a lot of fun with, and was received well. A number of weeks or months after I had taken that shot, I started thinking about all the outfits I had used, and the different sorts of pajamas I could feature in a second slumber party shot. So I pitched the idea to my Idea Consultant, and we brainstormed. First we decided on moving the slumber party into the living room, for variety, and then the subject of watching a horror movie came up - a great activity for a sleepover! It just so happens that I had recently watched The Slumber Party Massacre (classic slasher canon, highly recommended, and to which this entire project is dedicated), and so we came upon the inspired idea of adding a previous character from my photography to the slumber party to liven up the shot.

Alternate shot
The easiest outfit was the airhead's, who is nothing but a stripped and molested corpse. After that, there's the killer, wearing nothing but a ski mask and a hard-on. Then we have the athlete, who is decked out in a totally cute pink nightshirt. That nightshirt was one of the original outfits that inspired this project. I also wanted to have one girl in a fluffy pink robe and slippers - this turned out to be the perfect outfit for the beauty queen, who wore a lighter robe for the first slumber party. Finding just the right robe and slippers combo turned out to be a massive challenge, but with help from my Wardrobe Assistant, we found just what I had been looking for at the last minute. Though the slippers turned out to actually be fluffy flip flops, they were too cute to pass up.

Alternate shot - the killer is spotted!
The one other outfit I was determined to use was a bath towel. What's sexier than a girl straight from the shower, wearing only a towel, and presumably nothing underneath? It certainly fits the style of the sex pot, who likes to wear as little as possible. After all, she lounged around in just her underwear at the last slumber party. One other idea I had for her was to put her in some sexy lingerie. The other girls may be a tad too innocent for that, but I wouldn't put it past the sex pot. But this time, the towel won out. Maybe I'll save that idea for the next shot (which is going to have to be a prequel!).

Just for fun - smile for the camera!
Now let's go behind the scenes of the shoot. Credit goes to my assistant, Willow, for recording the following videos. Watch as I transform into each of the characters for the shoot.

First, we have the sex pot, straight from the shower:

Then the beauty queen, comfy in her pink robe:

Followed by the airhead, whose role in the shot is simply to lie on the floor naked, playing dead, with her feet sticking out of the shadows:

Now I change into the athlete's cute nightshirt, and then strike some poses:

All that's left now is the killer. Watch as my fluffer enthusiastically does her job while I get into character:

And now, properly prepared, he gets into position:

And our final footage, as the killer awkwardly tries to control the camera from just outside its range...

Fun(?) trivia: The first time I planned this shoot, it fell depressingly through, and I had to reschedule for a couple weeks later. Nevertheless, I did get one [out-of-character] setup shot from that trumped up shoot - you've seen it on my photostream here! I love its candid quality.

And now here's one last treat for you: a setup shot from the second night, when I actually got the shots I needed. Usually, when I do a clone shot, I'll do a preliminary run, where I take a shot with me in each of the spots one of my clones will occupy - real quick, and out of costume - just to make sure the positioning will work out. I put those shots together for this neat out-of-character clone shot!

Planning A Slumber Party (Massacre) - Part 5: Smoking In The Boys' Room

2011-05-12T12:00:00.000-07:00

This was the very first shot I attempted (and completed) in the SPM series, all the way back in January. During the first Slumber Party, the sex pot's erotic proclivities were introduced, but here we get to see them in action. Presumably, she has snuck out of class to engage in some more stimulating lessons in a stall of the nearest boys' room. While I ideally would have loved to have shot this in an actual public restroom (pretty much impossible for me), this toilet turned out to be about as good a substitute as I could want. The important thing is that I was able to put the killer just on the other side of the stall wall, listening in on the action intently.

As for the other two clones, the naughty schoolgirl and her boy toy, getting them into position was a real challenge. Firstly, it's difficult to figure out where and how to stand in relation to the other clone, when the other clone isn't standing there at the same time; and secondly, my photoshopping skills are not so great, so I wanted to minimize the amount of overlap or direct contact between the clones, while trying to make it not look obvious. And after all, the closer the two clones could get, the hotter the resulting image would be. In the end, I think I managed to do a pretty decent job despite my concerns. Take a look at these other shots I got:

I like the feeling of anticipation in this first shot.

In these two shots (above and below), you see some really convincing contact between the girl's hand and the boy's cock. I was really excited at how these came out.

Now you've got the girl on her knees, ready for action. I think these two shots are not quite as good as the one I chose for the main shot, shown up at the top of this post.

Fun trivia: In that top shot, if you look at the boy, you can see that he's not looking at the girl (like he should be), but straight ahead, presumably at the wall of the stall. Instead of thinking about the clone when I took that shot, I made the mistake of staring at my reflection in a mirror that's actually hanging right there on that wall, out of sight of the camera. Oops!

More fun trivia: This photo, which I like a lot, and turned out to be rather popular, was an outtake from the same shoot that produced the above shots. I went back a few days later and recorded a short video of me fooling around with a similar theme, but swapping the innocent flip flops for a pair of sultry heels (at the suggestion of my Wardrobe Assistant):

Planning A Slumber Party (Massacre) - Part 4: Dressing For Dinner

2011-05-04T12:03:00.000-07:00

The beauty queen's shot has the most alternates in this series, due to the difficulties I had to face which changed my vision for it. Initially, I was planning to take this shot in the room I ended up using for the airhead, but when I decided to bring the cheerleader indoors, I had to find a new location for the beauty queen. I had to improvise, because I already had the shot planned in my head, and I was counting on the mirror in that room, and the proper angles. Ultimately, I think the room I used was a better match, as it has more of a traditional 'bedroom' feeling, which suits the beauty queen changing her clothes - and I was happy for the opportunity to stick the killer in the closet (hiding in the closet, how iconic!). But the room was much more cramped, and it didn't have a large mirror. The original plan for the shot was to have the beauty queen holding up a dress in front of her body, while looking at herself in the mirror. The camera would be positioned behind her so that you could see her both from the front (through the mirror) with the dress, and also from the back, where you could see her underwear.

Basically, like this:

There were two problems. First, the mirror is pretty small, so it doesn't make much of an impression. But more importantly, it just didn't seem right to put the killer directly in the beauty queen's line of sight. So I ultimately decided against the series of shots I took with this setup. Here are the rest:

I shot these with the camera actually pointing into a smaller on-the-wall mirror, in order to get just a little bit more distance from the action, to improve the framing (a trick I like to sometimes use in really cramped spaces) - and that's what the odd foreground object on the left frame of the images is.

That's also why, in these behind-the-scenes videos, the room looks reversed (that's the way it actually is, the photos are all mirror-images). In the first one, I'm testing out the positions and some of the poses before going ahead and starting the shoot.

In the next video, you can actually see me controlling the camera by remote to take some of the shots from the second series. For that series, I decided to throw out the idea of using the mirror in the shot, and just put the beauty queen next to her wardrobe, facing away from where the killer would be hiding (and towards the camera). Since I already had the dress on, I decided to shoot while taking it off, with the expectation of just putting the shots in reverse to make it look like I was putting on the dress (although, in hindsight, it doesn't really matter whether the beauty queen was getting dressed or undressed).

Here are the rest of the shots from that series, omitting the second one which I chose for the main shot, featured above (can you recognize the poses from the video? ^^):

In this last video, you can see me playing the part of the killer, getting a little bit too familiar with the beauty queen's wardrobe. If you look closely, you can see my camera set up on the dresser, reflected in the edge of the mirror.

I also took some shots of the killer, just for fun, snooping around the beauty queen's bedroom before finally picking out his hiding spot behind the clothes and in the closet.

Fun trivia: By now, you might have guessed that the 'project' I mentioned in this outtake was none other than the Slumber Party Massacre!

Planning A Slumber Party (Massacre) - Part 3: Swim Meet

2011-05-03T12:11:00.000-07:00

In this shot, you can see the athlete peeling off her swimsuit, presumably after a swim meet, in what is supposed to be a locker room, as the killer-to-be peers around the corner. Of course, it's actually a garage, because that's the closest I could get, since I couldn't imagine being able to get permission to shoot the kind of thing I was going to shoot in a real locker room! You'll notice that this is a theme of this series (as well as my photography in general) - making do with what I have, in lieu of what I really want. After all, if I could have my way, I'd have cast real girls in the roles of the slumber party attendants.

It was more or less decided that I would use the garage for this shot, since I was looking for a nice variety in the locations (as well as the wardrobe) for the different shots in the series, so they didn't all look the same. Earlier ideas for the athlete's shot was to have her working on a bike, presumably wearing some sort of exercise or workout clothes. Though at the time, I wasn't sure I'd be able to get my hands on a cheerleader uniform, which meant the airhead would have to be wearing something similar - workout clothes. So when I came across the idea of having one girl in a swimsuit, I knew it was an opportunity I couldn't pass up. It would both be sexy, and provide a nice departure from the other girls' outfits. Finding the suit was tricky, but my Wardrobe Assistant pulled through (swimmingly ;-) at the last minute.

One thing I can say for this shot is that it was very cold. I took this back in January, and while not as cold as the outdoors, it was very chilly in that garage. What's worse, I was soaking wet! Of course, I had to be wet, for the shot. I had squeezed into the swimsuit and then hopped in the shower real quick, before rushing down to the garage (dripping water everywhere), to get the shots I needed (I had already set the camera up). But, in the end, it turned out to be a lot of fun peeling out of that wet swimsuit. Sexy fun, that is. Here's a video I recorded separately from the same day:

The alternate shots I have are pretty straightforward, as they depict a linear series in which the athlete successively gets closer and closer to being naked, with the chosen shot above being the middle shot in the series. I probably like the last one the best, but it doesn't really show off the swimsuit I was so determined to get!

Fun trivia: You might remember this shot, uploaded in January. It's an outtake from this shoot.