A Xmas Blues Tradition

I have these blue xmas lights in my old bedroom, that I probably put up back when I was in high school. I only plug them in one day a year - on Christmas. I'm not sure what exactly motivated me, but in 2009 (the year following my daily nude project, and my first year with a dSLR), I got up early on Christmas morning (I've always had trouble sleeping the night before Christmas), and I took a nude self-portrait (seen above) under those lights. Apart from the moody lighting, it wasn't a spectacular picture. But two years later, I took a similar picture (seen below), again on Christmas morning (it must have been a little bit later, judging from the morning light coming into the room). It wasn't nude - I took one picture in my pajamas, and another stripping them halfway off, but it had the same spirit to it - me in my bedroom, in the antsy hours before the holiday festivities begin.

The following year (2012), I had moved out of state, so the picture (taken with my new cell phone camera) served as a naughty greeting to my living partner back home. I posed nude and hard, wearing nothing but a Santa hat, with alternatives of me in my panties, and in my robe. From there it became an annual tradition. The next year's picture was a pretty straightforward nude selfie, and the year after that featured a near duplicate, albeit with an additional naughtier alternative. 2015 was the year that I began to get creative. I brought back the Santa hat that I had used in 2012's picture, posing with it front, back, and hard; then I posed for a couple pictures (front and back) in my new, sexy Santa outfit. Which brings us to 2016. I brought along my fancy camera this year, in anticipation of taking some decent quality photos for a change. Here they are:

Just out of bed on Christmas morning.

Sexy Santa in his festive red underwear.

Mrs. Clause - who is all hair and legs.

Time to open presents! Are you excited?

Home For The Holidays

(A nudist holiday album)

"There's no place like home for the holidays."

Happy Holidays

Since I didn't do xmas cards this year, here's a festive scene from Christmas morning. Hope your holidays are more fun than they are stressful!

Idle Hands

"Idle hands are the devil's plaything."

Sometimes when I'm bored, I like to make pornographic pictures. And why not? The devil gets a bad rap. After all, he's a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

If Tantalus' punishment in Hell was to have satisfaction ever just out of reach, then what kind of God is it that would put such a fun toy at our very fingertips, and then expect us not to play with it? Huh? Think about it. Because I've known some sadists like that...

Cell Phone Porn

No thinking for today. Just some porn. Enjoy!

Public Nudity, Civil Liberty, and Community Standards

Expanding on an issue I addressed last March, I believe that in a nation that values individual liberty, the right to appear nude in public should be a guaranteed freedom.

Before you construct your arguments against me, let me make a few points clear. I have no issue with business establishments and private citizens designating dress code rules on their own property - punishable by refusal of service or ejection from the premises. Nor do I have an issue with safety or health code regulations requiring minimum standards of dress under certain circumstances, such as food preparation/handling and construction. A right to public nudity does not, necessarily, mean that you can get naked anywhere you want without repercussion. It only means that, within reasonable expectations, a citizen should have the freedom to dress him/herself - including the freedom to not dress him/herself - as s/he sees fit. Mainly, this would apply to publicly-shared outdoor locations like streets and parks, as well as indoor pools (provided the owners are okay with it), and private yards (regardless of who can see them from the street) - basically, places where, in a less neurotic society, nudity would make sense.

I still think there could be rules in place restricting so-called "lewd" (i.e., sexually suggestive or explicit) behavior, with penalties (fines, perhaps) for anyone violating basic sanitary measures (such as sitting on a park bench without putting a towel down first). Maybe these would be hard rules to enforce, but I don't believe the solution is to take away a citizen's freedom to be bare. Although, frankly, in our modern society, I think these things would pretty much police themselves - as anyone's misbehavior could easily be recorded on somebody's mobile phone, to be used as evidence. And, gradually, the public would learn how to behave properly (and how not to behave) while nude in public.

Regarding privacy concerns, as is already the case, people in public would have no expectation of privacy in terms of any restrictions on the possibility of having their picture taken by strangers. I imagine that taking such pictures without asking first would continue to be considered impolite, but I do not believe it should be raised to the level of a crime. If you're going to go nude in public, you have to expect the possibility that you will be seen. If you don't want someone snapping a photo of you in your altogether, then don't go out in public undressed - it's that simple. In time, I think that society will get more or less used to the sight of naked bodies, and sharing pictures of them (to the extent that this practice will never go away completely, as any voyeuristic street photographer knows) will come to be recognized as the mostly innocuous activity it is (barring the levels of harassment the paparazzi employ), once the stigma is removed - which will be a direct consequence of codifying the right to bare one's body in sight of God and man into law.

Ultimately, I believe this will be a positive evolution for society, as it will reduce the taboo on nudity, and improve people's relationships with their bodies, as a counter to the unrealistic (literally, insofar as Photoshop is a contributing factor) images of perfection we are bombarded with in the media. Practically speaking, while it may be the case in our current society that a minority of people have any interest in going nude in public (and many of them may have questionable motives - a factor that I think the normalization of this behavior would go a long way in mitigating, coupled with the self-policing I described above), this is not a justification for the restriction of what should be a citizen's inalienable right to walk the streets unashamed of the way God made him (or nature, if you're not religious), rather than feeding the neurosis of a population afraid of its own bodies. If you're among the majority, and don't relish the possibility of encountering nude people in public, you should be able to rest assured in the fact that if it were allowed, very few people would actually do it (at least at first), and it would be at most a minor inconvenience to you. Is eliminating this minor inconvenience, then, worth the cost of restricting people's (all people's, including yours) basic freedoms?

Perhaps it's apparent that I am very confident in my point of view here, but I don't actually enjoy being in the minority on something that I feel so strongly about. I'm genuinely interested in what counterarguments people have to make, in the possibility that I could be convinced that I'm wrong - seeing as the alternative is to believe that most of the world is wrong. And that's something that a person should feel strongly justified in believing, at the risk of otherwise stroking one's own ego. I'd be happy to discuss the practical implications of legalizing/decriminalizing public nudity that might lead to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea - because I think those issues are valid and important to discuss. But, as an idealist, the core of my belief is that there is no argument that could undermine the theory that the right to opt out of covering one's self with clothing while in "the public square" (i.e., non-specialized publicly-owned spaces shared by equal people of diverse beliefs and opinions which may clash) is a critical component of civil liberty.

To summarize: in my view, in a free country, I should be permitted to - as an example - walk my dog (which we have no problem allowing to be nude) in a public, outdoor park while nude, regardless of other citizens' personal opinions on my nudity, provided I am not engaging in lewd or harassing behavior, nor posing an unreasonable sanitary risk to others. Am I wrong? And if so, why?

*Postscript: After finishing this write-up, I came to an illuminating realization about a difference of opinion I have (with respect to the majority) on an underlying principle fundamental to people's conclusions as to what should and should not be considered "appropriate" in public spaces. Namely, it's the concept of "community standards" - which, frankly, I find outdated in today's global culture. I have, in the past, boiled my approach down to a pithy statement that I am rather fond of - "in a free society, you will be challenged, not comforted, by what you encounter in the public square" - but perhaps it deserves closer inspection, now that I've hit on the motivation behind people's adoption of an opposing stance (compared to mine) on what the purpose of "the public square" really is.

In short, the freedom to assemble dictates that citizens should be allowed to form communities of like-minded people - as in study groups or clubs or what have you - but, in my opinion, those public spaces that are open for all to use should not be "safe spaces" where everybody gets along, but rather a stimulating forum for at-times challenging (yet hopefully civil) interaction between diverse populations. This is not the world we currently live in, exactly - although in the case of protests and such, it sometimes approaches it. But it's the one I want to be a citizen of, as opposed to the world we do live in, where you can only truly be yourself behind walls and closed doors, because people prefer to close their eyes and their minds to alternative possibilities, and revel instead in the relative safety and comfort of familiarity and tradition. I guess we're just two kinds of people. The question is, how do we coexist? Do you have to live by my rules, or do I have to live by yours?

Free Society

If you believe, for example, that fornication is a sin, that the human body is indecent, that boys should be boys and girls should be girls, that men should only mate with women and vice versa, that modern medicine interferes with God's plan - I salute you, because we live in a free society. But if you want the law to assist you in forcing other people to live by these beliefs, or to pay lip service to them so you don't have to be exposed to anything that might offend your sensibilities, or to reduce your child's options, and limit their ability to consider beliefs and lifestyles alternative to the ones you've raised them with - because your own aren't strong enough to withstand scrutiny - then you are a threat to the principles of liberty and equality that democracy is founded upon.

Selling Nudist Fantasy vs. Reality

The issue: should nudism be presented to the world as a sunshiny utopia filled with beautiful people, or a casual getaway for more normal types? Is there room and utility for both?

(I considered titling this discussion "Nudist Poster Children", but it occurred to me that that could be construed as a lead-in to a discussion of whether it is appropriate to feature children in nudist promotional materials - a heated topic I'm not sure the community has the maturity to address in this country).

In days gone by, nudism (or naturism) was associated with "health & efficiency" - a generalized philosophy incorporating fitness and taking good care of one's body. So it's not surprising to find relatively fit and attractive people in vintage depictions of the nudist lifestyle - lots of young people playing sports out in the sun. Somewhere along the way, however, nudism (along with the rest of our society) adopted a more politically correct approach, and became a "safe space" for people with body image issues. This isn't a bad thing, of course - in and of itself. But I've talked before about my mixed feelings on the move away from a "body-healthy" to a more "body-positive" image of nudism. (Hell, even the allegedly "sex-positive" community insists on being critical of human sexuality; so why can't a person include a critical appraisal of one's physical state under the practice of "body acceptance"? If we can't uncritically accept all sexual encounters as unproblematic (as they are not), then why do we have to pretend that every body is perfect just the way it is? I know this isn't an easy concept, but accepting your body means accepting its flaws and limitations - not ignoring them).

The lingering question that rests on my mind is this: should the nudist lifestyle be depicted (e.g., in promotional materials like websites and magazines) using "models" (i.e., persons of exceptional beauty) or "real people" (i.e., persons of average appearance)? From an advertising perspective, the classical approach would be to use the most attractive models you could find, so as to make the lifestyle look appealing. Lately, though, public opinion has been shifting, and it seems that a segment of the population believes that these images of "perfection" we are inundated with in the media are doing more harm than good to our psychological wellbeing. It's not entirely unlikely that a so-called "normal" person of average appearance (let alone the beautifically-challenged) might be discouraged from trying nudism if they were led to believe that it would involve getting naked amidst a crowd of beautiful people conscious of the way they look - as opposed to a welcoming and uncritical environment that is very accepting of diverse body types. After all, the end goal of nudism - which is to relax and have fun, free from the societal taboo on nudity - doesn't depend at all on what the participants look like.

That's the reality. So tell me, is it wrong if I have a fantasy of nudism - not public sex orgies, but nudism - wherein the participants are in consistently excellent shape and are exceptionally attractive? And would it be wrong, as an artist, to want to create images of this fantasy to share with others? To what extent would that be undermining the goal of the nudist "movement", in trying to demonstrate to the world that it is not vain, and is, rather, accepting of all body types? To what extent would I have to explicitly distance my fantasy representation of "nudism" from the reality of nudism, to avoid courting confusion? I don't want to hurt nudism. I support nudism. Wholeheartedly. But I also enjoy creating photographic fantasies that reflect (and, yes, exaggerate the prevalence of) the upper echelons of beauty that exist in this world. And I want to do so through (at least superficially) nudist environments. It's one thing to shoot a beautiful model in a studio setting. But the fantasy I'm interested in is the idea that you could (hypothetically) find these beautiful people in normal, everyday situations. And the fact that they're nude makes those situations quite similar to nudist ones.

So, I reiterate the question: should nudism be presented to the world as a sunshiny utopia filled with beautiful people, or a casual getaway for more normal types? And is there room and utility for both in this world?

The Natural Philosopher

The "Gift" of Nudity

You can't tell me you've never looked at someone and thought to yourself, "I wonder what s/he looks like naked." I don't think there'd be anything else in this world that would delight me quite so much as a supernatural ability to look at someone and have them appear to me to be naked. Obviously, the majority of the population would not appeal to me, and I might just learn to my chagrin that that beauty I thought looked incredible has something else going on entirely under her clothes (because some people look better naked, and others look better dressed). I don't actually want to violate anybody's sense of privacy, if they have a reason to cover themselves up, but there are some people in this world that are just a delight to behold in their altogether; and all too frequently, I fear, they are not the ones you get the pleasure of viewing that way. Inevitably, the pretty ones will be subjected to an inordinate amount of attention, and are likely to clam up as a defense mechanism - sadly.

And then you have the religious conservatives with their doctrine of shame and sin, and the average layperson who hypocritically (and self-destructively) degrades and insults the very women he appreciates seeing in porn, because...Madonna-whore complex or some bullshit like that. And that's not to address all the slut-shaming that goes on between women themselves, as well as the fashion industry's agenda to make women feel dissatisfied with their appearance - no matter how beautiful they are - so they'll shell out money on this season's hottest trends; and feminists' insistence that when men compliment your sex appeal, they are reducing you to an unthinking, unfeeling object with only two purposes: to be a sandwich-maker, and cum-receptacle. Tell me we don't have issues...

While I believe that making nudity a strict taboo is downright unhealthy, allow me to humor for a moment one of the explanations people give for keeping the human body under wraps. From a certain perspective, you could consider nudity a gift. Clothes are the wrapping, and what's inside is something you want to save for a special someone - a reward for making a deep social connection with somebody. But the trouble with this view is that it's overly idealistic. Not everyone gets an opportunity to open this gift, despite it being one of the most desirable gifts in human nature. Some people only ever get one gift, feeling that that's not enough. What's more, if you keep the gift under wraps until you take it home, you might not like what's inside. That's like shopping for toys sealed up in unlabeled boxes. By the time you get home and open it up, you might find that it's not the sort of toy you like to play with. And by then, it's too late, because it's immoral to dump one toy for another.

Now, if this analogy makes you feel uncomfortable because it sounds like I'm "objectifying" the human body, that's good. Because that's exactly what's going on in this view. Can nudity be an exciting reward? Absolutely! Does that mean we should restrict people's individual liberties and construct an artificial and massively unhealthy taboo (that everyone must follow, whether they agree with it or not) that leads to neurotic sexual attitudes and body image disorders? Just because some special snowflakes want to go their whole lives without ever seeing more than one or two naked bodies? Uh, I don't think so. And should we punish people who don't have the requisite social skills (or other requirements for scoring a mate) by not letting them indulge in the nudity of consenting strangers, and stigmatize people for an arbitrarily "excessive" interest in and admiration for this gift, and those unfortunates who happen to find that the body(/ies) they desire are not those occupied by the person(/s) they meet in their lives with whom they are compatible and decide to build a life together?

God, people can be so uptight. The day we adopted freedom as a guiding principle for society is the day we sacrificed our expectation for other people to humor our personal delusions. You do not have the "freedom" to engage in a lifestyle that requires non-consenting others to behave in a particular way. Freedom means you can live your life the way you want to, but the limitation on your freedom is the restriction of anyone else's freedom. That's where equality comes into play - nobody is "more free" than anybody else. Yet it is human nature to try to expand one's own freedom at the expense of others. At the risk of getting political, this is why in a democracy you will inevitably have a tyranny of the majority - because in a system of majority rule, the largest group of like minds has the power to oppress anyone in the minority on any given issue. Unless we cling to the value of freedom, above and beyond the idea that the largest group of people should be allowed to bully the rest of the population, that freedom will be lost. Freedom is not comfortable; it is challenging. But it's worth it. I just wish it were easier to get that point across.

Moral Crusaders

Q: Are you concerned about the possibility of people (either people you know, or anonymous strangers) looking at pictures of you online and thinking "naughty" thoughts?

A: Why should I be concerned? Is this supposed to be keeping me up at night? By and large, internet voyeurs are completely harmless. And even if I found some moral flaw in this behavior (not saying I do), it's the pervert's responsibility not to succumb to it, not my responsibility not to tempt him.

This is what I hate about imperialistic religions like Christianity. They can't leave well enough alone. It's not enough that they've chosen to follow a path of "righteousness", but they're invested in saving other people's souls as well - which is really just a clever recruitment strategy. Allowing you to wallow in your own moral destitution is out of the question, because they're kind and loving Christians (read: busybodies), who value charity and good will (read: proselytizing). So instead of just accepting that other people have different perspectives on life, and letting them make their own decisions, they're going to do everything in their power to force other people to live "wholesomely" (which they perceive as saving you from the eternal fires of Hell), and take away anything that might "tempt" someone (least of all themselves - ever notice how the most critical are always the ones with the most skeletons in their closet?) to the dark side. All I want to say is, God damn. Can't you just leave us alone?

The Anti-Trenchcoat

It shows off the goods even when closed!

Toweling Around

It seems to have been the theme of this past weekend, in spite of the subfreezing temperatures.

I never do miss an opportunity to wear as little as possible. -_^

The One Finger Challenge

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

Happy Cyber Monday!

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

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

The Inevitability of Nude Selfies

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

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

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

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

Gymnophilia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns vs. Porn

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

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

Bending Back

This may be my best back bend yet!

Erection Day 2016

It's gonna be huge!

Top or Bottom?

Where do you want me?

Motel Leftovers

Ready to mount...

You Said You'd Never Leave Me

Put Me In The Corner

Skeleton Boning

Happy Halloween!

Sex vs. Violence

Now, I'm sure I could be accused of "minimizing" the crime of sexual assault with this photo concept. But I only want to put things into their proper context. We have a twisted conception of sex and violence in our culture. Certainly, the combination that results in violent sexual assault is uniquely heinous, and, even devoid of physical violence, sexual assault can still be psychologically damaging. Nonetheless, I fear that exaggeration of its horrors is not only counterproductive to the goal of supporting those unfortunate victims who need to know that they can rise above it, and that they are not "damaged goods" who cannot even speak openly and honestly about their ordeal, but that it also harms our general relationship towards our sexual natures, which has the effect of sabotaging any attempt to promote a sex-positive attitude.

For any tool can be used toward evil ends, but while weapons were designed to hurt people, sex organs were designed for pleasure - and we should not forget that. This is by no means an excuse to justify any act of sexual assault - for taking one's "pleasure" at the involuntary expense of another's suffering is an unconscionable crime - but merely a plea not to give it more power over us than it needs to have. Surely, no one wants to be sexually assaulted (and those who do the assaulting certainly ought to get the punishment they deserve), but truly, I would rather be "pawed at" than punched; because I give no special meaning to the condition of my sexual "purity", and I'd rather the sanctity of my "holy temple" be violated, than to be the victim of a potentially life-threatening act of violence. For those who hurt in the pursuit of pleasure are in desperate need of guidance, but those who seek to hurt from the outset are the ones that worry me even more. Yet sex offenders carry a stigma in this society unrivaled by that of violent offenders; I fear that our priorities are mixed up.