The Visual Appreciation of Nudity

This is one of those contradictions about nudism - like not being shy about being naked in front of strangers, but being extremely paranoid that somebody will take a picture of them, or advocating for public nudity and then erecting tall fences to keep their nude recreation private. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for these contradictions, but you have to admit it makes for a confusing public image. In that same vein, nudists love to advertise their lifestyle using images (the iconic "naked paradise" resort photo - picture a family walking hand-in-hand on the beach), yet at the same time they love to complain about the "legitimacy" and "motivations" of anyone appreciating those images. Is everyone that looks at a nudist image an "innocent" nudist? Of course not. Does it matter? Not really.

This is something I tend to take for granted, because it's practically my every day reality (especially this year, with the daily photography project I'm doing). But it occurs to me that it may not be obvious for some. So let's assume for a moment that I'm a normal, average person. And I find out that you like to do yard work in the buff. Because you're a nudist, and it's more comfortable. You think the sunshine is healthy for you, or you don't want any tan lines, or whatever. Fine. I guess I can understand that. I may not want to do it myself, but it's fine if that's what you like. What's that? You like to take pictures of yourself doing naked yard work? And then share those pictures with strangers on the internet? Okay, but how could that not involve a sexual motivation? It's a fetish, right? Exhibitionism?

Here's the thing (I'm back to being me now): yeah, there could be an erotic element involved. Absolutely. It could be intended on my part, or it could be incidentally interpreted that way by others - you can't help that. But it's not just a matter of, "oh, I'm turned on by other people seeing me naked." I'm not saying that's not a part of it, necessarily, but it's not all there is. I'm not just anybody. I'm a model. I try to keep myself fit and trim and well-groomed. I don't know how to say this without sounding conceited (that's just inevitable when you're playing both the roles of scout and talent), but I'm at least moderately attractive. And I have a fascination for the human body - its form as well as its function (that is, not just what it does, but what it looks like while doing those things).

That may include an erotic element, and it may not. I don't necessarily want to watch just anybody mowing the lawn naked - I'm no different from you on that count. But an attractive person doing it? Hell yes! I appreciate that sort of thing. Whether it's for erotic reasons, or aesthetic reasons (erotic or otherwise, beauty is beauty, and it demands to be noticed). Whether you consider it thinly veiled porn or art. (The important thing is that it can be both, which means that even if you think it's the former, that doesn't mean it's not also the latter).

"For I must tell you that we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide."
- Thomas Mann

That's all I'm saying. Partly as a nudist, and partly as a sex-positive activist. The human body is an amazing machine, and a beautiful work of art. And I like to appreciate attractive bodies in the buff. I don't understand the leaps of moral guilt necessary to deny this basic human truth. It's not just an obscure fetish. I've gone out of my way to deny the excuse that there is no erotic element involved, but once again it's also a legitimate, artistic interest (these two things can be simultaneously true). And there's nothing abnormal or shameful about it. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand that, but I guess they see sin and corruption in anything beautiful that exists in the world, the way the Puritans taught us to.

It's not up to me to determine whether the possibility for erotic interpretation of the aesthetic appreciation of the unclothed human body renders it on the level of pornography. (Although that sounds an awful lot like thoughtcrime to me). What I'm saying is, it can be erotic, but still not porn. And if it's not porn, there's no reason to treat it as porn - to censor it and censure it without mercy. A little bit of eroticism in life is not harmful - in fact, it's healthy. And we shouldn't be scared of it. Saying it's okay to be inundated with sexually suggestive stimuli in our culture - that it's a natural, and normal, and healthy part of what is at its most fundamental level a sexual existence - is not equivalent to tearing down the barrier that prevents orgies from developing in the streets.

We can have the one without the other. It just requires a little bit of civility. Excising the sexual impulse from life is not what makes us civilized beings - a villain without temptation will have no reason to offend. It's being able to conduct ourselves civilly in the presence of those temptations - and learning to indulge our pleasures in ways that are neither self-destructive, nor soul-deadeningly self-limiting - that makes us evolved agents. Neither extreme (total abandon versus total abstention) is superior to or more sophisticated than the other. Contrary to what any shriveled-up monk or hypocritical priest might tell you - based on their ironically egotistical, holier-than-thou religious philosophies. Perfection, I declare, lies in the happy medium.