Here's another news article about the "problem" of sexting, framed in the context of hackers stealing people's nude selfies from "the cloud". It almost sounds like it wants to confront the "problem" from the right perspective, but gets bogged down with trying to replace warning people not to sext with understanding the social psychology that makes people want to sext (i.e., because they think everyone else is doing it). But it, like everyone else, comes from the wrong direction of believing that people engaging in sexting is a problem in the first place, and not simply a benign aspect of human behavior.
"One group says something like, 'Enough, children. Want to stop nude photos from getting hacked? Keep your clothes on in selfies and the problem will go away by itself.'"
Clearly, there is a problem with hacking going on here. But focusing on the sexting seems an awful lot like blaming the victim. Don't want your photos hacked? Stop taking them. Then there'll be nothing to hack. (Except, there will still be other things to hack, like your credit card numbers).
"Those on the other side of the debate insist we must not blame the victim and instead should demand better privacy protections for iCloud and other digital storage accounts."
This gets closer to the real issue - the hacking. Why the whole issue of sexting is even brought up I don't know.
"Why, then, do people keep taking naked digital pictures of themselves and store them in places that could be hacked?"
Um, because it's human nature? Because the threat of getting hacked isn't strong enough to quell mankind's most singularly powerful impulse - to relate sexually with other humans? What I can't understand is why so many people are so surprised that there's so much demand for seeing other people's naked pictures. If it weren't such a taboo to be seen naked by other people (who are not your intimate partners or relatives), there would be more naked pictures out there, and the demand wouldn't be quite so stretched as to resort to stealing naked pictures from the people who'd still prefer to keep them private.
But regardless, the bottom line is that, aside from a little embarrassment, if somebody steals your naked selfies, it's seriously not a big deal. Blackmail only works if you're ashamed of what you did. And people (read: employers) will have less grounds to discriminate against those whose naked pictures "get out" when all of us have naked pictures out there. So, from that perspective, these naked selfie "hacks" are kind of a good thing. They're just laying out on the table what we all try so hard to deny - that we have naked bodies under our clothes, and that we think sharing them with others can be exciting. It's time to fess up, people. Start being honest with yourself.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Nudist Erection Anxiety
I had a bit of a minor epiphany as I was lying awake in bed this morning. Admittedly, I have some fairly non-mainstream views on nudity, but my base line goal for society is simply a more natural approach towards the human body - a compromise that would strip away all the neuroticism and permit, as I like to say, "responsible nudity in reasonable contexts".
Consider, for example, the way the average person feels about "underwear". Nobody (for the most part) is showing up to work, or picking up groceries, in their underwear. People dress up to go out and do their daily business - that's normal. At the same time, if you stopped over at somebody's house, and they hadn't had time to get dressed, and they, say, answer the door in their underwear, nobody is going to scream bloody murder. Some may consider it a social gaffe, but that's largely a matter of taste and opinion, and only the most uptight of persons would make a serious case out of it. And what's more, if they did make a case out of it, I think the majority of the population would shrug and say, "no big deal".
That's what I call being reasonable. It's not that people aren't allowed to be offended by something like that. And there's no problem with preferring to see a person dressed rather than in their underwear. The point is that, regardless of your views, there are times when being in your underwear just makes more sense (just as there are other times when being fully dressed makes more sense), and I seriously doubt anybody would make a federal case out of seeing somebody in their underwear, even if they happened to be picking up the newspaper at the end of their driveway one morning.
All I'm saying is that we should have a similar approach to nudity. There are times when nudity makes perfect sense (swimming, for example), and if it weren't for all the puritanical modesty bullshit, and the absolute fear of discovering what Homo sapiens' genitalia looks like (despite the ironic fact that every person with this fear possesses at least one set of those genitalia that s/he can't possibly avoid looking at, at some point during their day-to-day life), I think we all could survive (thrive, even) with a more reasonable attitude toward nudity - much like the nudists already do.
The nudists are awesome in that regard. They are far more enlightened than mainstream society. They are not, however, perfect. I think that, on an individual level, nudists are in a good position to have a healthier approach toward human sexuality (and a lot of them probably do, although attitudes will vary just as much as in any group) than the mainstream. However, the limited acceptance that society gives nudists to practice their lifestyle (i.e., in isolated communities where they won't spook the normies), pretty much depends on debunking the popular misconception that nudism is a front for swinging sex orgies. As a result, nudists like to err on the side of promoting a "clean" image, since they have much, much more to lose from allegations of sexual misconduct (or any sexual conduct, really) than just about any other subset of the population.
I have no desire to turn nudism into a sexual utopia. While, again, I have pretty radical views on human sexuality, I think the majority of the population is, unfortunately, unprepared to act in a more evolved way toward one another sexually (although unlike most, I'd be willing to put that to the test, in the interest of science); and, besides, even if some of us were ready, the forces of chastity are far too powerful to allow such a thing to succeed. In any case, adding any kind of element of overt sexuality at all to the practice of nudism would be a surefire and fast track method of destroying pretty much everything that's good about nudism in this social climate. There's a reason I'm a nudist, but not a swinger (in spite of how sexually open an attitude I have).
And so we come to the issue of erections. Most guys (understandably) have questions about how erections are dealt with in a nudist situation, and most nudists say that it's not a big deal. Because in truth - it isn't. Men's anxieties are certainly not unfounded, but experience tends to show, and rather quickly, that the problem of unintended erections is much less than it's made out to be. They do occasionally have a tendency to pop up - and any reading of male sexuality that presupposes that an erection is always the direct result and guaranteed precedent of specifically sexual stimulation is woefully inadequate. But most nudists profess to be reasonable in the case of unexpected tumescence, so long as the "victim" of said tumescence discourages any further development, in as discreet a manner as possible.
And I believe them - it's just that it's the sort of situation where if everything works out right, you'll never notice it's happened. And I honestly can't remember a single time I've ever seen a man at a nudist resort with an erection. Of course, with some guys (especially the ones who are overweight), you might not be able to tell the difference. And there was that one black guy I remember seeing flopping around, but I'm sure he was just exceptionally endowed (I know, stereotypes are bad - especially when they're true :p). To be fair, this situation works out pretty well, as far as compromises go. There are other problems in nudism I would address first before complaining about the lack of erections (bear with me, for a moment) - like the obstacle of access to nudist environments (having to drive to the middle of nowhere, and then having to pay admission just to enjoy some outdoor, social nude recreation), or the fear and paranoia surrounding the use of cameras at nudist resorts (except the security kind), and nudists' reliance on keeping their lifestyle secret from their friends, families, and coworkers.
So, unless you're some kind of sex pervert (like me - and I'm not even generally attracted to men), you're probably wondering what exactly the problem is with keeping erections under wraps in a nudist context (as with everywhere else, except bedrooms and the sets of porno films). Well, as hinted at above, it breeds anxiety about our bodies, above and beyond the social imperative to encourage people to behave in an appropriate manner. It's a subtle thing, but as I mentioned before, erections are not simply and always about direct sexual stimulation. Sometimes they really do pop up, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are entirely random, but the trigger could be something benign, such as a certain tactile sensation (the wind or sun), or pressure (lying on one's stomach, which is, ironically, often cited as a solution to the erection problem - it keeps it hidden, yes, but I find that the pressure is anything but discouraging to the erection), or motion (like the slapping of one's member against the thigh during athletic activity) that is entirely unpremeditated and wholly nonsexual in nature.
Even something psychological, like being unexpectedly treated to the sight of a beautiful specimen of humanity in the buff - which may actually include an element of sexuality - is still very much harmless, in my opinion, so long as it is permitted to run its course unaided and not progress to any kind of behavior or activity that would be inappropriate in such a semi-public, social context. That's just the thing, and it's something that's easily overlooked when people have clothes on, since the erection can literally just be ignored (as it is already covered up). Physical arousal is an entirely involuntary response, to use a scientific term. Though you can do things to deliberately stimulate arousal, tumescence is not a muscle you can simply flex by will alone, like your biceps. (This was the topic of a huge debate between a student and my biology teacher in my high school class, and the teacher, unsurprisingly, had the right of it).
The point is that you cannot consciously control erections (if you could, the distributors of Viagra would go bankrupt). You can do things to encourage or discourage them, but if some unplanned-for trigger unexpectedly starts the ball rolling, there may be some level of visible tumescence that just cannot be avoided. Sure, we can cover it up to spare others the sight, but I don't see the point. Nudists believe that nudity is a state of being, not a state of doing. Well, sexual arousal is the same. We can do things to incite arousal, and we can do things while aroused that would be explicitly sexual and, thus, inappropriate in most settings (especially nudist environments). But sometimes we feel some level of arousal independent of our deliberate intentions, and when that happens, it's as natural and innocuous as simply being nude. Erect - like nudity - is a state of being, not doing. People should be held responsible for what they do with erections, and even what they do to encourage or discourage them, but they should not be held responsible for simply having them.
I know, this is probably one of my radical positions, and I respect that. But my point stands. (Not literally - at least, not at this moment :p). Tumescence is just a natural feature of the human penis. Yes, it's connected to human sexuality, but it, in and of itself, is not sexually explicit. The very same argument comes up in the art vs. porn debate, on websites like deviantART, for example, where artistic nudity is permitted, but erections are treated as porn and disallowed. I don't think erections should be treated as porn. Being erect is not the same thing as sticking that erection somewhere or otherwise doing something with it. Being aroused is not the same thing as being engaged in sexual activity (whether intercourse, or masturbation, or what have you), and, wherever nudity is allowed, women are (discriminatorily) permitted to be photographed in an aroused state with immunity. I don't understand why if a person is permitted to view the penis in its unerect state, there's something wrong, then, with that person seeing it erect. It's just one of those things that penises do, and if you've advanced to the point where you're not specifically offended by the mere sight of them, then you should be able to handle them whether flaccid or erect.
Again, I'm not saying this is a big deal that needs to be made a priority in terms of social reconditioning. But it's one of those subtle, straightforward things that I think demonstrates how much human beings jump through hoops just to hide the reality of life - the fact that we're sexual beings, and the way in which our bodies work. Sure, plenty of people are offended by sex - and they're entitled to make their best efforts to try and avoid it in their daily lives - but it goes deeper than that, because we're actually legally mandated to hush up about the reality of sex, lest kids find out the reason they exist before we, as a culture, are comfortable letting them know about it (i.e., on their 18th birthday, and even then, only begrudgingly, since restricting the sexual rights of adults is impossible - so we just make sure they don't enjoy it as much, by undermining education, discounting facts, and instilling a strong sense of shame and self-loathing surrounding people's bodies and their sexual experiences from a very young age).
Bottom line? If I wake up in the morning, and my roommate has a guest over, I should be able to get up out of bed - having slept nude, and with my morning stiffy (that has nothing to do with sex) - and walk to the bathroom without needing to feign modesty and scrounge around for some form of coverup, in my own home. I'm not unreasonable - I'm willing to cover up when I go out, to protect the modesty of others, even though I don't agree with them. I'll even put something on to answer the door, since you never know who it might be. But one thing I really hate is feeling trapped in my own home, and being forced to act the part of embarrassment and modesty, which not only do I not feel, but am actively against, just because I know the other person is (probably) uncomfortable with my nudity. It's insincere, and there's nothing I hate more than not acting honest and truthful with people. If they're upset with my nudity, then let them react to it. I'm not going to express their reaction for them, just to save them the opportunity to be offended or uncomfortable. In my own home. And if they really don't like it so much, maybe they'll just stop coming over. No skin off my back.
Uh-oh. I'm one of those roommates, aren't I? But I just like having a sanctum somewhere, a place where I can be free and feel comfortable just being myself. A place I can retreat to when I don't want to deal with the rules and the compromises of wider society. A place where no other can intrude, without my invitation. Is that so bad? I think it should be one of the fundamental civil rights, along with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the right to an inviolable sanctuary - not a place of total privacy where the law doesn't apply, but simply a place a person can go to be alone and relax, and not deal with the hassle of other people, and their expectations.
Consider, for example, the way the average person feels about "underwear". Nobody (for the most part) is showing up to work, or picking up groceries, in their underwear. People dress up to go out and do their daily business - that's normal. At the same time, if you stopped over at somebody's house, and they hadn't had time to get dressed, and they, say, answer the door in their underwear, nobody is going to scream bloody murder. Some may consider it a social gaffe, but that's largely a matter of taste and opinion, and only the most uptight of persons would make a serious case out of it. And what's more, if they did make a case out of it, I think the majority of the population would shrug and say, "no big deal".
That's what I call being reasonable. It's not that people aren't allowed to be offended by something like that. And there's no problem with preferring to see a person dressed rather than in their underwear. The point is that, regardless of your views, there are times when being in your underwear just makes more sense (just as there are other times when being fully dressed makes more sense), and I seriously doubt anybody would make a federal case out of seeing somebody in their underwear, even if they happened to be picking up the newspaper at the end of their driveway one morning.
All I'm saying is that we should have a similar approach to nudity. There are times when nudity makes perfect sense (swimming, for example), and if it weren't for all the puritanical modesty bullshit, and the absolute fear of discovering what Homo sapiens' genitalia looks like (despite the ironic fact that every person with this fear possesses at least one set of those genitalia that s/he can't possibly avoid looking at, at some point during their day-to-day life), I think we all could survive (thrive, even) with a more reasonable attitude toward nudity - much like the nudists already do.
The nudists are awesome in that regard. They are far more enlightened than mainstream society. They are not, however, perfect. I think that, on an individual level, nudists are in a good position to have a healthier approach toward human sexuality (and a lot of them probably do, although attitudes will vary just as much as in any group) than the mainstream. However, the limited acceptance that society gives nudists to practice their lifestyle (i.e., in isolated communities where they won't spook the normies), pretty much depends on debunking the popular misconception that nudism is a front for swinging sex orgies. As a result, nudists like to err on the side of promoting a "clean" image, since they have much, much more to lose from allegations of sexual misconduct (or any sexual conduct, really) than just about any other subset of the population.
I have no desire to turn nudism into a sexual utopia. While, again, I have pretty radical views on human sexuality, I think the majority of the population is, unfortunately, unprepared to act in a more evolved way toward one another sexually (although unlike most, I'd be willing to put that to the test, in the interest of science); and, besides, even if some of us were ready, the forces of chastity are far too powerful to allow such a thing to succeed. In any case, adding any kind of element of overt sexuality at all to the practice of nudism would be a surefire and fast track method of destroying pretty much everything that's good about nudism in this social climate. There's a reason I'm a nudist, but not a swinger (in spite of how sexually open an attitude I have).
And so we come to the issue of erections. Most guys (understandably) have questions about how erections are dealt with in a nudist situation, and most nudists say that it's not a big deal. Because in truth - it isn't. Men's anxieties are certainly not unfounded, but experience tends to show, and rather quickly, that the problem of unintended erections is much less than it's made out to be. They do occasionally have a tendency to pop up - and any reading of male sexuality that presupposes that an erection is always the direct result and guaranteed precedent of specifically sexual stimulation is woefully inadequate. But most nudists profess to be reasonable in the case of unexpected tumescence, so long as the "victim" of said tumescence discourages any further development, in as discreet a manner as possible.
And I believe them - it's just that it's the sort of situation where if everything works out right, you'll never notice it's happened. And I honestly can't remember a single time I've ever seen a man at a nudist resort with an erection. Of course, with some guys (especially the ones who are overweight), you might not be able to tell the difference. And there was that one black guy I remember seeing flopping around, but I'm sure he was just exceptionally endowed (I know, stereotypes are bad - especially when they're true :p). To be fair, this situation works out pretty well, as far as compromises go. There are other problems in nudism I would address first before complaining about the lack of erections (bear with me, for a moment) - like the obstacle of access to nudist environments (having to drive to the middle of nowhere, and then having to pay admission just to enjoy some outdoor, social nude recreation), or the fear and paranoia surrounding the use of cameras at nudist resorts (except the security kind), and nudists' reliance on keeping their lifestyle secret from their friends, families, and coworkers.
So, unless you're some kind of sex pervert (like me - and I'm not even generally attracted to men), you're probably wondering what exactly the problem is with keeping erections under wraps in a nudist context (as with everywhere else, except bedrooms and the sets of porno films). Well, as hinted at above, it breeds anxiety about our bodies, above and beyond the social imperative to encourage people to behave in an appropriate manner. It's a subtle thing, but as I mentioned before, erections are not simply and always about direct sexual stimulation. Sometimes they really do pop up, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are entirely random, but the trigger could be something benign, such as a certain tactile sensation (the wind or sun), or pressure (lying on one's stomach, which is, ironically, often cited as a solution to the erection problem - it keeps it hidden, yes, but I find that the pressure is anything but discouraging to the erection), or motion (like the slapping of one's member against the thigh during athletic activity) that is entirely unpremeditated and wholly nonsexual in nature.
Even something psychological, like being unexpectedly treated to the sight of a beautiful specimen of humanity in the buff - which may actually include an element of sexuality - is still very much harmless, in my opinion, so long as it is permitted to run its course unaided and not progress to any kind of behavior or activity that would be inappropriate in such a semi-public, social context. That's just the thing, and it's something that's easily overlooked when people have clothes on, since the erection can literally just be ignored (as it is already covered up). Physical arousal is an entirely involuntary response, to use a scientific term. Though you can do things to deliberately stimulate arousal, tumescence is not a muscle you can simply flex by will alone, like your biceps. (This was the topic of a huge debate between a student and my biology teacher in my high school class, and the teacher, unsurprisingly, had the right of it).
The point is that you cannot consciously control erections (if you could, the distributors of Viagra would go bankrupt). You can do things to encourage or discourage them, but if some unplanned-for trigger unexpectedly starts the ball rolling, there may be some level of visible tumescence that just cannot be avoided. Sure, we can cover it up to spare others the sight, but I don't see the point. Nudists believe that nudity is a state of being, not a state of doing. Well, sexual arousal is the same. We can do things to incite arousal, and we can do things while aroused that would be explicitly sexual and, thus, inappropriate in most settings (especially nudist environments). But sometimes we feel some level of arousal independent of our deliberate intentions, and when that happens, it's as natural and innocuous as simply being nude. Erect - like nudity - is a state of being, not doing. People should be held responsible for what they do with erections, and even what they do to encourage or discourage them, but they should not be held responsible for simply having them.
I know, this is probably one of my radical positions, and I respect that. But my point stands. (Not literally - at least, not at this moment :p). Tumescence is just a natural feature of the human penis. Yes, it's connected to human sexuality, but it, in and of itself, is not sexually explicit. The very same argument comes up in the art vs. porn debate, on websites like deviantART, for example, where artistic nudity is permitted, but erections are treated as porn and disallowed. I don't think erections should be treated as porn. Being erect is not the same thing as sticking that erection somewhere or otherwise doing something with it. Being aroused is not the same thing as being engaged in sexual activity (whether intercourse, or masturbation, or what have you), and, wherever nudity is allowed, women are (discriminatorily) permitted to be photographed in an aroused state with immunity. I don't understand why if a person is permitted to view the penis in its unerect state, there's something wrong, then, with that person seeing it erect. It's just one of those things that penises do, and if you've advanced to the point where you're not specifically offended by the mere sight of them, then you should be able to handle them whether flaccid or erect.
Again, I'm not saying this is a big deal that needs to be made a priority in terms of social reconditioning. But it's one of those subtle, straightforward things that I think demonstrates how much human beings jump through hoops just to hide the reality of life - the fact that we're sexual beings, and the way in which our bodies work. Sure, plenty of people are offended by sex - and they're entitled to make their best efforts to try and avoid it in their daily lives - but it goes deeper than that, because we're actually legally mandated to hush up about the reality of sex, lest kids find out the reason they exist before we, as a culture, are comfortable letting them know about it (i.e., on their 18th birthday, and even then, only begrudgingly, since restricting the sexual rights of adults is impossible - so we just make sure they don't enjoy it as much, by undermining education, discounting facts, and instilling a strong sense of shame and self-loathing surrounding people's bodies and their sexual experiences from a very young age).
Bottom line? If I wake up in the morning, and my roommate has a guest over, I should be able to get up out of bed - having slept nude, and with my morning stiffy (that has nothing to do with sex) - and walk to the bathroom without needing to feign modesty and scrounge around for some form of coverup, in my own home. I'm not unreasonable - I'm willing to cover up when I go out, to protect the modesty of others, even though I don't agree with them. I'll even put something on to answer the door, since you never know who it might be. But one thing I really hate is feeling trapped in my own home, and being forced to act the part of embarrassment and modesty, which not only do I not feel, but am actively against, just because I know the other person is (probably) uncomfortable with my nudity. It's insincere, and there's nothing I hate more than not acting honest and truthful with people. If they're upset with my nudity, then let them react to it. I'm not going to express their reaction for them, just to save them the opportunity to be offended or uncomfortable. In my own home. And if they really don't like it so much, maybe they'll just stop coming over. No skin off my back.
Uh-oh. I'm one of those roommates, aren't I? But I just like having a sanctum somewhere, a place where I can be free and feel comfortable just being myself. A place I can retreat to when I don't want to deal with the rules and the compromises of wider society. A place where no other can intrude, without my invitation. Is that so bad? I think it should be one of the fundamental civil rights, along with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the right to an inviolable sanctuary - not a place of total privacy where the law doesn't apply, but simply a place a person can go to be alone and relax, and not deal with the hassle of other people, and their expectations.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Cyber Monday
I must be a pervert, because whenever I hear the word "cyber", I think of cybersex. Naturally, it cracks me up when I hear people talking about Cyber Monday every year. But, following in line with my perversion of Election Day, this seems like a perfect holiday to celebrate everything to do with internet sex! Even if you don't have somebody to chat up (x-rated style) on the internet today, or aren't keen on hunting for a willing stranger, this would still be a fine opportunity to masturbate to some internet porn. I know, you probably do that every other day of the week (:p), but this time, if somebody catches you, you can just tell them you're celebrating Cyber(sex) Monday!
And before you ask, I must confess that I don't really enjoy cybersex, personally. I'd much rather watch or do than narrate sex. Cybering is too socially-oriented, and I am a very visual person. I would prefer, instead, to swap sexting pictures with some attractive exhibitionists. And I say that having some experience cybering in the past. When I was a teenager, in the days when "chat rooms" were still a thing, I had an ephemeral relationship with a particular girl, and we spent much of our time chatting together engaged in cybersex. Inexperienced as I was in the realm of sex, it was very exciting for me, and was the catalyst for my own true sexual awakening, as before that I had no idea how to "take care of myself" whenever I felt horny.
Not much later, during the course of a tumultuous long distance relationship with a girl I had paired up with before my high school graduation, I had the opportunity once or twice to engage in some phone sex (presumably the pre-digital age version of cybering). That relationship also involved some picture trading, which gave birth to my interest in erotic self-portraiture, as I have described before. But it wasn't until several years later, after graduating from college, that I got the bulk of my experience engaging in cybersex, in the realm of Second Life.
And what that experience taught me was that I don't really like cybersex all that much. I created an avatar in Second Life and, pervert that I am, delighted in watching her engage in sex on screen on the various sexual position poseballs. For me, finding someone to "cyber" with was really just a matter of finding someone who would pose with me, but, to my disappointment, most people could care less about the posing, and would even go so far as to cyber completely by chat, as if the avatars didn't make a difference. And, frankly, I wasn't interested in getting a stranger off through chat, I wanted to watch my avatar having sex!
But, in the process of learning all this, I had to engage in a lot of more and less satisfying cybersex with people whose real world appearance (or even gender - though I suspect many of them were men, both those with male avatars and otherwise) I would never discover. All the time, I should mention, I presented myself as female which, entirely aside from any motivation to trick people, provided me great insight into how women are treated by men (especially sexually), and was also a catalyst in my real life transformation from male-presenting to female-presenting.
Obviously, I was propositioned a lot, since I designed my avatar after what I myself desire in women - she was a hot, young, skinny, flirty blonde (although I occasionally mixed up her appearance) who dressed like a slut, and loved to take her clothes off. Yes, a lot of the attention was single-minded, and not all of it respectful, but on the other hand, I had some men who would satisfy themselves just for the chance to sit and chat with me (not about sex) for an hour, some even willing to give me gifts without expectation of anything in return - even getting to see me again! Experiencing how men treat women while also understanding the male psychology behind that treatment is enlightening, although it doesn't inspire any more positive a reaction to the petty whining you hear so much of these days by so-called "feminists", who merely lack a critical understanding of human sexual interaction.
Some of my more "colorful" cyber experiences in Second Life involve: a lesbian threesome (albeit one girl was a hermaphrodite with a retractable penis) resulting in a daisy chain that resembled Neapolitan ice cream; a sisterly romance with another faerie (I would often put wings on and spend time being a faerie), whose keeper would also flirt with me; a kindly gentleman who gave me a sensual massage and finished our sexual encounter by placing a finger in my anus (which, at the time, still relatively inexperienced in real world sexual encounters, I didn't quite understand the point of); and a brute of a man that I don't think spoke much English, who took me to a dank warehouse at the back of some dirty alley, shackled me to a bare, blood-spattered mattress, and demanded that I scream while he fucked me raw. I remind you that all of these experiences were virtual in nature and didn't involve my actual, physical body.
A lot has changed since those days, although I would still enjoy logging in every now and then if the program a) had better graphics b) that don't take so long to load, and c) gave you something to do in-world beyond socializing with other players and simply exploring (although I do like exploring). I'm also a little bit concerned about censorship creep, since this is a virtual world that exists in people's imaginations, where you should be able to get your freak on without discrimination, yet there are still people insisting upon acting as the moral police. But I stopped paying attention to that news years ago.
Nowadays I'm more or less content to dress and groom myself like a girl, and reap the exhibitionist thrill of posting sexy pictures of myself on the internet. Although one of my deepest fantasy desires is still to have the ability to mold my body into any shape I want, like you can in some games and virtual worlds (like Second Life), so I could be a true girl down to every last detail. But until technology reaches that point (and I'm not holding my breath), I'm sure I'll be spending a lot more time indulging my sexual interests on the internet. A wonderful invention, no? And today - Cyber Monday - is the day to celebrate its most pleasurable application!
And before you ask, I must confess that I don't really enjoy cybersex, personally. I'd much rather watch or do than narrate sex. Cybering is too socially-oriented, and I am a very visual person. I would prefer, instead, to swap sexting pictures with some attractive exhibitionists. And I say that having some experience cybering in the past. When I was a teenager, in the days when "chat rooms" were still a thing, I had an ephemeral relationship with a particular girl, and we spent much of our time chatting together engaged in cybersex. Inexperienced as I was in the realm of sex, it was very exciting for me, and was the catalyst for my own true sexual awakening, as before that I had no idea how to "take care of myself" whenever I felt horny.
Me at 18, and ten years later.
Not much later, during the course of a tumultuous long distance relationship with a girl I had paired up with before my high school graduation, I had the opportunity once or twice to engage in some phone sex (presumably the pre-digital age version of cybering). That relationship also involved some picture trading, which gave birth to my interest in erotic self-portraiture, as I have described before. But it wasn't until several years later, after graduating from college, that I got the bulk of my experience engaging in cybersex, in the realm of Second Life.
And what that experience taught me was that I don't really like cybersex all that much. I created an avatar in Second Life and, pervert that I am, delighted in watching her engage in sex on screen on the various sexual position poseballs. For me, finding someone to "cyber" with was really just a matter of finding someone who would pose with me, but, to my disappointment, most people could care less about the posing, and would even go so far as to cyber completely by chat, as if the avatars didn't make a difference. And, frankly, I wasn't interested in getting a stranger off through chat, I wanted to watch my avatar having sex!
But, in the process of learning all this, I had to engage in a lot of more and less satisfying cybersex with people whose real world appearance (or even gender - though I suspect many of them were men, both those with male avatars and otherwise) I would never discover. All the time, I should mention, I presented myself as female which, entirely aside from any motivation to trick people, provided me great insight into how women are treated by men (especially sexually), and was also a catalyst in my real life transformation from male-presenting to female-presenting.
Obviously, I was propositioned a lot, since I designed my avatar after what I myself desire in women - she was a hot, young, skinny, flirty blonde (although I occasionally mixed up her appearance) who dressed like a slut, and loved to take her clothes off. Yes, a lot of the attention was single-minded, and not all of it respectful, but on the other hand, I had some men who would satisfy themselves just for the chance to sit and chat with me (not about sex) for an hour, some even willing to give me gifts without expectation of anything in return - even getting to see me again! Experiencing how men treat women while also understanding the male psychology behind that treatment is enlightening, although it doesn't inspire any more positive a reaction to the petty whining you hear so much of these days by so-called "feminists", who merely lack a critical understanding of human sexual interaction.
Some of my more "colorful" cyber experiences in Second Life involve: a lesbian threesome (albeit one girl was a hermaphrodite with a retractable penis) resulting in a daisy chain that resembled Neapolitan ice cream; a sisterly romance with another faerie (I would often put wings on and spend time being a faerie), whose keeper would also flirt with me; a kindly gentleman who gave me a sensual massage and finished our sexual encounter by placing a finger in my anus (which, at the time, still relatively inexperienced in real world sexual encounters, I didn't quite understand the point of); and a brute of a man that I don't think spoke much English, who took me to a dank warehouse at the back of some dirty alley, shackled me to a bare, blood-spattered mattress, and demanded that I scream while he fucked me raw. I remind you that all of these experiences were virtual in nature and didn't involve my actual, physical body.
A lot has changed since those days, although I would still enjoy logging in every now and then if the program a) had better graphics b) that don't take so long to load, and c) gave you something to do in-world beyond socializing with other players and simply exploring (although I do like exploring). I'm also a little bit concerned about censorship creep, since this is a virtual world that exists in people's imaginations, where you should be able to get your freak on without discrimination, yet there are still people insisting upon acting as the moral police. But I stopped paying attention to that news years ago.
Nowadays I'm more or less content to dress and groom myself like a girl, and reap the exhibitionist thrill of posting sexy pictures of myself on the internet. Although one of my deepest fantasy desires is still to have the ability to mold my body into any shape I want, like you can in some games and virtual worlds (like Second Life), so I could be a true girl down to every last detail. But until technology reaches that point (and I'm not holding my breath), I'm sure I'll be spending a lot more time indulging my sexual interests on the internet. A wonderful invention, no? And today - Cyber Monday - is the day to celebrate its most pleasurable application!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)