Every time New Year's Eve rolls around, I inevitably think about streaking. As an exhibitionist, it's an activity that seems appealing to me, but it's not something I get a lot of opportunities to do. And it's not just about being naked, or even being naked in front of other people - because I've done a lot of that. So I was thinking about what makes streaking in particular so exciting, and how it touches on the issues of taboo and consent.
One of the things that I would say defines the activity of streaking is the violation of a taboo - going somewhere you're not expected to be naked, (usually) in front of an unsuspecting crowd. You could run around a nudist camp without incident, but that wouldn't really be streaking, would it? It's missing the violation of the taboo on nudity - a taboo that nudists don't have.
But what about consent? It irritates me when people assume that exhibitionists don't care about consent. I get where that comes from, but there is a world of exhibitionism beyond public flashing, and it's frankly insulting for someone to assume that having a particular kind of sexual interest trumps all other concerns, turning you into a mindless pervert who will attempt to get his rocks off at any cost (essentially objectifying fetishism).
I'm an exhibitionist, but I don't expose myself to random strangers. The thought that I could be bothering somebody is enough to completely turn me off of the idea. I do find the juxtaposition of nudity in locations and situations where it's not usually encountered to be enticing. But I restrict myself to remote areas and nudist company, out of deference to the feelings of others, as well as my own safety. This is hardly the picture of a horny beast who will do anything for sexual gratification.
And yet, streaking seems exciting to me. But in my head, people aren't horrified by the sudden and unexpected appearance of a naked streaker - they're delighted! As I would be, if I unexpectedly encountered a naked person in my day to day life (especially if they had the body of a model). In principle, I'm an exhibitionist because I enjoy giving the "gift" of nudity to people who appreciate it. This has nothing to do with forcing it on people who don't want it.
But there is something in the violation of the taboo that makes streaking particularly enticing. The problem is, in order to obtain consent, you have to ruin the surprise. And if people are expecting it, it doesn't really feel like streaking. You could handpick an audience who has expressed comfort with nudity, but this is a lot like streaking in front of nudists. Ideally, you would have an audience of people who appreciate it, without knowing that beforehand. Unfortunately, it's the pre-confirmation of acceptance that eliminates the taboo appeal.
How bad, really, is streaking without consent, though? It's not actually a sex act. And as far as public exposure goes, you're not singling individuals out. You're not hanging around long enough to compound people's discomfort. There needn't be any physical contact involved. You're pretty much on the move, and you're gone in a flash (even if it's mainly to evade authorities). I don't see how it's substantially different, from an ethical consideration, from a World Naked Bike Ride.
So, is streaking wrong? I feel like it's pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things, but I want to know if I'm just rationalizing my desires here. Is it wrong to even find the fantasy appealing? I was downtown a couple of years ago when the ball dropped. I was naked underneath my heavy winter jacket and boots, and I flashed my partner at midnight, right there in the middle of the crowd. I positioned myself with consideration to the fact that everybody was watching the stage, so that my partner was the only one who saw me (knowing that she would appreciate the sight).
It was fun, but I can't help thinking that it would have been even more fun to be weaving through that crowd in my birthday suit, from one end to the other, hearing the excitement of the people as they gradually figured out what was going on. Is there harm in that? Or is this something that's better left to fantasy? It's not something I would do without assurance that things would turn out okay for everyone involved, but I can't help thinking in my head that it sounds exciting. Surely that doesn't make me a bad person.
Friday, December 31, 2021
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Fitness vs. Body Acceptance
Topic: Is nudism a salve for poor body image, or would a fitter population be more enthusiastic about nudism?
My Take: Is nudism's emphasis on body acceptance putting the cart before the horse? Is it even possible for nudism to thrive among a statistically obese population? Aren't people who are physically fit more likely to be willing to take off their clothes in front of strangers?
I'm an experienced nudist, so I have the advantage of knowing that regular exposure to normal bodies tends to lead to improved acceptance of the physical flaws we all carry. It's tempting to want to believe that nudism can be a salve for a population that struggles to cultivate a positive body image. But this can only happen if people actually try nudism, and we can't force them to try it if they don't want to.
Confronted with the idea of people appearing nude in public, "nobody wants to see that" has been a perennial argument against nudism. But it's one that I'm seeing more and more frequently as I interact with people online as a nudist outside of traditional nudist circles.
Look, I can sympathize. I may be a nudist, but it's not that I don't think human bodies can be gross sometimes. I'm a nudist in spite of that feeling, not because I don't get it. But I also view nudity from the perspective of an artist. I do legitimately believe that the human body can be a work of art. That's the thing about bodies: there are a lot of them, and they come in all shapes and sizes.
I know that it's important to a person's self-esteem to feel good about the body they inhabit - but that's a reason to embrace fitness, not an excuse to ignore it. Denying that some people's bodies look better than others (albeit with a heavy dose of subjectivity involved) is denying a fundamental truth.
And I can't help thinking that if, statistically, the population were fitter, there would be more people more comfortable with the idea of seeing more of people's bodies on a regular basis. I know this runs contrary to the nudist philosophy that seeks to de-emphasize the importance of looks*, but it's acknowledging the reality of human behavior and psychology.
*To be fair, some of the best arguments for nudism have nothing to do with looks, but if this is a reason for people to reject nudism, then it's an issue that deserves to be considered.
Nudist philosophy also insists that nudity is not intrinsically sexual, but while it would be folly to ignore the inevitable ubiquity of human sexuality, a consideration for looks doesn't necessarily embrace a sexual connotation. Yes, people are more likely to view attractive bodies in a sexual light, but even now, a person's body doesn't become a sex object the instant somebody considers them attractive. Besides, it is possible to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the human body in a way that is not explicitly sexual. Do you consider Michelangelo's David to be pornographic?
I suspect that there are nudists who hold in their heads an image of a utopia in which everybody lets it all hang out, and nobody cares what anybody looks like.** But this is an unrealistic fantasy, and an actual dystopia for anyone who appreciates the virtue of beauty. Maybe people with poor body image would enjoy being in such a world. Or, maybe they prefer this world, in which they can cover up (while still admiring those who look better than they do).
**I think that when nudists insist that "all bodies are beautiful", they are acknowledging the importance of self-esteem in the decision to doff one's clothing in public. I simply wonder whether warping our minds into seeing all bodies as beautiful is a more effective strategy than molding our bodies to become more beautiful. I think the healthiest approach is a balance of the two - grounding our expectations while fostering a positive attitude toward self-improvement.
Maybe nudism isn't a salve for poor body image, after all; maybe nudism is a lifestyle that can only really thrive among a population that takes pride in its appearance. And maybe nudists who want nudism to go mainstream should focus less on convincing the world (and themselves) that looks don't matter, and more on health initiatives to improve people's bodies, so they'll be more enthusiastic about seeing them. Then, interest in nudism will grow organically as a result.
My Take: Is nudism's emphasis on body acceptance putting the cart before the horse? Is it even possible for nudism to thrive among a statistically obese population? Aren't people who are physically fit more likely to be willing to take off their clothes in front of strangers?
I'm an experienced nudist, so I have the advantage of knowing that regular exposure to normal bodies tends to lead to improved acceptance of the physical flaws we all carry. It's tempting to want to believe that nudism can be a salve for a population that struggles to cultivate a positive body image. But this can only happen if people actually try nudism, and we can't force them to try it if they don't want to.
Confronted with the idea of people appearing nude in public, "nobody wants to see that" has been a perennial argument against nudism. But it's one that I'm seeing more and more frequently as I interact with people online as a nudist outside of traditional nudist circles.
Look, I can sympathize. I may be a nudist, but it's not that I don't think human bodies can be gross sometimes. I'm a nudist in spite of that feeling, not because I don't get it. But I also view nudity from the perspective of an artist. I do legitimately believe that the human body can be a work of art. That's the thing about bodies: there are a lot of them, and they come in all shapes and sizes.
I know that it's important to a person's self-esteem to feel good about the body they inhabit - but that's a reason to embrace fitness, not an excuse to ignore it. Denying that some people's bodies look better than others (albeit with a heavy dose of subjectivity involved) is denying a fundamental truth.
And I can't help thinking that if, statistically, the population were fitter, there would be more people more comfortable with the idea of seeing more of people's bodies on a regular basis. I know this runs contrary to the nudist philosophy that seeks to de-emphasize the importance of looks*, but it's acknowledging the reality of human behavior and psychology.
*To be fair, some of the best arguments for nudism have nothing to do with looks, but if this is a reason for people to reject nudism, then it's an issue that deserves to be considered.
Nudist philosophy also insists that nudity is not intrinsically sexual, but while it would be folly to ignore the inevitable ubiquity of human sexuality, a consideration for looks doesn't necessarily embrace a sexual connotation. Yes, people are more likely to view attractive bodies in a sexual light, but even now, a person's body doesn't become a sex object the instant somebody considers them attractive. Besides, it is possible to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the human body in a way that is not explicitly sexual. Do you consider Michelangelo's David to be pornographic?
I suspect that there are nudists who hold in their heads an image of a utopia in which everybody lets it all hang out, and nobody cares what anybody looks like.** But this is an unrealistic fantasy, and an actual dystopia for anyone who appreciates the virtue of beauty. Maybe people with poor body image would enjoy being in such a world. Or, maybe they prefer this world, in which they can cover up (while still admiring those who look better than they do).
**I think that when nudists insist that "all bodies are beautiful", they are acknowledging the importance of self-esteem in the decision to doff one's clothing in public. I simply wonder whether warping our minds into seeing all bodies as beautiful is a more effective strategy than molding our bodies to become more beautiful. I think the healthiest approach is a balance of the two - grounding our expectations while fostering a positive attitude toward self-improvement.
Maybe nudism isn't a salve for poor body image, after all; maybe nudism is a lifestyle that can only really thrive among a population that takes pride in its appearance. And maybe nudists who want nudism to go mainstream should focus less on convincing the world (and themselves) that looks don't matter, and more on health initiatives to improve people's bodies, so they'll be more enthusiastic about seeing them. Then, interest in nudism will grow organically as a result.
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Sexualizing Clothing
Topic: Clothing is sexier than nudity.
My Take: It's a foregone conclusion among nudists that people are sexier when dressed than they are when nude. But I wonder if this is a symptom of the fact that nudists are statistically less attractive than the people you meet in clothed society.
People talk about "leaving something to the imagination." No doubt humans have powerful imaginations, but this doesn't explain the popularity of hardcore pornography. We didn't survive the process of natural selection and evolve from naked apes without having the ability to become aroused by the sight of exposed genitalia.
I have no doubt that clothing has been sexualized, as the human mind has the unique ability to sexualize literally anything. But my view on fashion has always been that clothing is flattered by the body that wears it, and not vice versa. That's why my favorite clothes are the ones that show the most skin.
One thing clothing does accomplish is that it hides flaws. There are certainly people who look better dressed than they do naked. If nothing else, nudists understand that most people's bodies do not resemble the perfect ideal that's marketed to us in advertisements and in our entertainment.
But then, the function of clothes, in conjunction with the human imagination, is to let people imagine that perfect body beneath the fabric, which would only be spoiled by seeing the real body unclothed. It's not the clothes, then, that are attractive. It's still the human body. Just an idealized image of the perfect body that exists in our heads, in contrast to what most people actually look like undressed.
But at the end of the day, the sexiest thing alive is that person with the perfect body, showing it all off. Putting clothes on doesn't improve the view.
My Take: It's a foregone conclusion among nudists that people are sexier when dressed than they are when nude. But I wonder if this is a symptom of the fact that nudists are statistically less attractive than the people you meet in clothed society.
People talk about "leaving something to the imagination." No doubt humans have powerful imaginations, but this doesn't explain the popularity of hardcore pornography. We didn't survive the process of natural selection and evolve from naked apes without having the ability to become aroused by the sight of exposed genitalia.
I have no doubt that clothing has been sexualized, as the human mind has the unique ability to sexualize literally anything. But my view on fashion has always been that clothing is flattered by the body that wears it, and not vice versa. That's why my favorite clothes are the ones that show the most skin.
One thing clothing does accomplish is that it hides flaws. There are certainly people who look better dressed than they do naked. If nothing else, nudists understand that most people's bodies do not resemble the perfect ideal that's marketed to us in advertisements and in our entertainment.
But then, the function of clothes, in conjunction with the human imagination, is to let people imagine that perfect body beneath the fabric, which would only be spoiled by seeing the real body unclothed. It's not the clothes, then, that are attractive. It's still the human body. Just an idealized image of the perfect body that exists in our heads, in contrast to what most people actually look like undressed.
But at the end of the day, the sexiest thing alive is that person with the perfect body, showing it all off. Putting clothes on doesn't improve the view.
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Simple Nudity
Topic: The sexualization of nudity
My Take: As a nudist and as a photographer, I like the poeticism of the phrase "simple nudity". But the reality is that nudity is complex. That's why we keep having these discussions about what nudity means and what it entails.
My belief, and my approach as an artist, is that we should just let nudes be nudes. If somebody interprets them in a nonsexual way, that's fine. If somebody else interprets them in a sexual way - well, that's fine, too.
Trying to interpret the artist's intent can be interesting as an academic exercise, but I think that trying to regulate images based on something so nebulous is a fool's errand. That's why I prefer the mechanical approach to content filtering that you more often encounter on photo sharing sites, to the more subjective approach that social media sites often use.
Forget whether there is a sexual "context", or what the intent of an instance of nudity might be. Either you can see certain body parts or not - implied nudity does not warrant censorship, in my view - and either there are sexual acts depicted or there are not.
I'm not saying it's always straightforward to answer these questions (e.g., should visible arousal be considered a sex act?, and should men and women have to follow different rules?), but it's a far more effective (and fairer) methodology than trying to govern people's thoughts.
My Take: As a nudist and as a photographer, I like the poeticism of the phrase "simple nudity". But the reality is that nudity is complex. That's why we keep having these discussions about what nudity means and what it entails.
My belief, and my approach as an artist, is that we should just let nudes be nudes. If somebody interprets them in a nonsexual way, that's fine. If somebody else interprets them in a sexual way - well, that's fine, too.
Trying to interpret the artist's intent can be interesting as an academic exercise, but I think that trying to regulate images based on something so nebulous is a fool's errand. That's why I prefer the mechanical approach to content filtering that you more often encounter on photo sharing sites, to the more subjective approach that social media sites often use.
Forget whether there is a sexual "context", or what the intent of an instance of nudity might be. Either you can see certain body parts or not - implied nudity does not warrant censorship, in my view - and either there are sexual acts depicted or there are not.
I'm not saying it's always straightforward to answer these questions (e.g., should visible arousal be considered a sex act?, and should men and women have to follow different rules?), but it's a far more effective (and fairer) methodology than trying to govern people's thoughts.
Monday, November 8, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Textiles
Topic: 'Textile' is a derogatory term for non-nudists.
My Take: I disagree. 'Textile' is a useful term that is not inherently derogatory.
'Textile' is a term that nudists sometimes use to indicate people who are not nudists. However, I have witnessed a backlash by some in and around the nudist community who interpret the term as an insult. I would argue that a certain amount of condescension towards non-initiates in any minority group is inevitable, but that this doesn't poison the term or rob it of its legitimacy.
Nudism is a lifestyle defined not only by nudity, but by its opposition to one of the fundamentally accepted tenets of modern society - that we wear clothes in front of other people unless we're having sex. It's perfectly natural that nudists would not only come up with a term to describe themselves, but also one to denote those who do not see the world the way they do. There's nothing wrong with that.
Tribalism is part of human nature, and when people find a group to which they feel a sense of belonging, it's natural to develop some prejudice towards outsiders - especially when those outsiders are perceived as a threat to the group (as mainstream society frequently misunderstands and actively restricts the practice of nudism). But the possibility, or even likelihood, for this prejudice is not an argument against using relevant terminology to distinguish the two groups.
It may be somewhat of a taboo to compare nudism to anything to do with the LGBT community, but I am reminded of the term "cisgender", which was coined to differentiate transgender individuals from those who constitute the majority. Just because some extremists may use the term in tones of derision towards cisnormative society doesn't change the meaning of the term, or reduce its practicability when talking about the difference between people who are transgender, and people who are not.
Sometimes people who constitute the majority resent being "re-branded" by alternative communities in this way. But this is really just an organic side effect of shifting perspective to include the existence of the minority group. Non-nudists are not expected to refer to themselves as textiles, just as non-transgender individuals are not required to identify as "cisgender" in ordinary circumstances. These terms merely exist to provide a useful distinction for minorities to differentiate between themselves and the rest of society.
My Take: I disagree. 'Textile' is a useful term that is not inherently derogatory.
'Textile' is a term that nudists sometimes use to indicate people who are not nudists. However, I have witnessed a backlash by some in and around the nudist community who interpret the term as an insult. I would argue that a certain amount of condescension towards non-initiates in any minority group is inevitable, but that this doesn't poison the term or rob it of its legitimacy.
Nudism is a lifestyle defined not only by nudity, but by its opposition to one of the fundamentally accepted tenets of modern society - that we wear clothes in front of other people unless we're having sex. It's perfectly natural that nudists would not only come up with a term to describe themselves, but also one to denote those who do not see the world the way they do. There's nothing wrong with that.
Tribalism is part of human nature, and when people find a group to which they feel a sense of belonging, it's natural to develop some prejudice towards outsiders - especially when those outsiders are perceived as a threat to the group (as mainstream society frequently misunderstands and actively restricts the practice of nudism). But the possibility, or even likelihood, for this prejudice is not an argument against using relevant terminology to distinguish the two groups.
It may be somewhat of a taboo to compare nudism to anything to do with the LGBT community, but I am reminded of the term "cisgender", which was coined to differentiate transgender individuals from those who constitute the majority. Just because some extremists may use the term in tones of derision towards cisnormative society doesn't change the meaning of the term, or reduce its practicability when talking about the difference between people who are transgender, and people who are not.
Sometimes people who constitute the majority resent being "re-branded" by alternative communities in this way. But this is really just an organic side effect of shifting perspective to include the existence of the minority group. Non-nudists are not expected to refer to themselves as textiles, just as non-transgender individuals are not required to identify as "cisgender" in ordinary circumstances. These terms merely exist to provide a useful distinction for minorities to differentiate between themselves and the rest of society.
Sunday, November 7, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: LGBTN
Topic: An 'N' should be added to LGBT for nudists.
My Take: For the record, I do not agree with this proposal. My hot take is that we shouldn't laugh at the people who propose it.
Now, I've seen this suggestion made in nudist communities, and while there is a small garnering of support, more often than not it is met with scorn and derision.
I understand why the suggestion is offensive, and that the people proposing it are probably demonstrating a sheltered naivety that warrants shattering. But they don't deserve to be laughed at.
Bottom line: I feel discriminated against as a nudist. The fact that I can put on clothes and disguise myself as a member of the majority population doesn't change the way I feel or what I believe.
Consider that we are living in times where discriminated minorities are gaining rights and recognition at an unprecedented rate, and "intersectionality" between marginalized groups is a preeminent strategy for social justice. Nudists wanting to be a part of that isn't the punchline to a joke.
Perhaps the notion of grouping nudists in with gays and transpeople does sound like a joke, but the source of that desire is sincere, and I feel like that gets tossed aside when people laugh at the suggestion that nudists face discrimination.
So maybe adding an 'N' to LGBT is an offensive suggestion, but I wish there was a more sympathetic way of rejecting it than telling people who feel oppressed that their feelings are illegitimate, or that one person's suffering is meaningless just because other people have suffered more.
My Take: For the record, I do not agree with this proposal. My hot take is that we shouldn't laugh at the people who propose it.
Now, I've seen this suggestion made in nudist communities, and while there is a small garnering of support, more often than not it is met with scorn and derision.
I understand why the suggestion is offensive, and that the people proposing it are probably demonstrating a sheltered naivety that warrants shattering. But they don't deserve to be laughed at.
Bottom line: I feel discriminated against as a nudist. The fact that I can put on clothes and disguise myself as a member of the majority population doesn't change the way I feel or what I believe.
Consider that we are living in times where discriminated minorities are gaining rights and recognition at an unprecedented rate, and "intersectionality" between marginalized groups is a preeminent strategy for social justice. Nudists wanting to be a part of that isn't the punchline to a joke.
Perhaps the notion of grouping nudists in with gays and transpeople does sound like a joke, but the source of that desire is sincere, and I feel like that gets tossed aside when people laugh at the suggestion that nudists face discrimination.
So maybe adding an 'N' to LGBT is an offensive suggestion, but I wish there was a more sympathetic way of rejecting it than telling people who feel oppressed that their feelings are illegitimate, or that one person's suffering is meaningless just because other people have suffered more.
Monday, November 1, 2021
Naked Immunity
Public nudity is often treated in an all-or-nothing way. Maybe there are good reasons for this; after all, I imagine a society that tolerates nudity in some public instances would become desensitized to it and may then be less uptight about it in other instances (which is good).
That said, many who oppose the decriminalization of public nudity (and even some fervent supporters of the concept) tend to fixate on extreme examples of people being bothered by encountering nudity in some fairly illogical places, like shopping malls or fine restaurants or their kid's elementary school.
Whereas I maintain that, on the issue of public nudity, I do not demand carte blanche to be naked absolutely anywhere I feel like (there's a lot of wiggle room for nudity even without abolishing the standard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). I would be satisfied with a compromise - the freedom to simply be nude in certain instances where the impact of that nudity on others is minimized, and where, quite frankly, it makes a lot of sense for people to have that fundamental freedom.
In other words, responsible nudity in reasonable contexts. And by "responsible" I mean that any kind of inappropriate or indecent behavior would still be forbidden (I think many people fear that bad actors will exploit an acceptance of nudity to engage in this kind of illicit behavior, and I do not wish that to be the case). The law and public sentiment would merely be blind to a person's state of dress (or undress).
Also, on that note, it wouldn't be sufficient merely to have the legal right to be nude in these places (although that would be a step in the right direction), but I would wish for society to be on board with this state of affairs to the point of acknowledging and accepting that other people have the right to choose how to dress themselves, and not get uptight anytime they encounter nudity within these pre-determined bounds. So that not only would you not have criminal liability, but that neither would you be treated like a pariah and become isolated from your friends and family for choosing to go nude.
With that settled, we come to the question of where it would make sense to normalize nudity first. Let me list my top 5 suggestions.
1. Home
This location barely qualifies as "public", which is why I'm listing it first. And it's a shame to waste a spot on such a basic item, but in spite of the temptation to say that we already have the freedom to be nude at home, this is simply not the case. I do spend quite a lot of time at home nude, but that depends on company.
It's not that I am opposed to dressing up for special occasions and planned gatherings. But it would be nice to be able to answer the door without having to scramble for clothes every time a spontaneous visitor comes knocking, and to be able to lounge around in my own home the way I'm most comfortable, regardless of who shows up, without the implicit expectation of changing the way I would prefer to be dressed. Especially with guests staying overnight, during those times - late in the evening and early in the morning - when decorum is typically at its most informal.
That's not to say that I believe I should be able to come over to your house and take off my clothes; that's up to you as the host. I believe in the "king of the castle" doctrine on this matter. And though it's true that even some non-nudists respect this doctrine, it is far from universal, particularly on the subject of nudity. People are still occasionally charged for indecent exposure within their own homes, and, even more frequently, are isolated from their family and friends if they dare to insist upon not covering up.
If, on the other hand, your belief is that you should make your guests comfortable (i.e., "the guest is king"), then how come y'all don't get undressed when I drop by your house for a visit?
2. Garden
By "garden" here I am referring to the external property in the lot where you live (whether or not you grow flowers, or own your house for that matter). This is only the tiniest step beyond the privacy of one's home (literally, starting on the doorstep), but, significantly, introduces a greater potential for public view. Not just anyone will enter your home, but you never know who could be walking (or driving) down your street.
Some people, myself included, are lucky enough to have [more-or-less] private yards where they can be nude outside the house without being seen. Not everyone is so lucky. And I still feel boxed in by the fence in my back yard, unable to tend to the front without changing the way I'm dressed.
It would be nice to be able to mow the whole lawn, step out the front door and grab my mail, roll the trash can to the curb (and back), and wash my car in the driveway, without putting on shorts specifically for the task. If an allowance for being nude within view of the public should start anywhere, it should start on the property where a person lives.
As an extension, since I'm not sure this deserves a separate spot, people living in, e.g., dormitories and apartment complexes should have the same freedom - to enjoy shared spaces around their home (such as hallways, balconies, and the laundromat) in the same level of comfort they enjoy in the privacy of their own separate rooms. Ideally, this freedom would also extend to hotels, which function as temporary domiciles. After all, don't hotels like to offer their guests all the pleasures and conveniences (and then some) of being at home?
3. Car
We're more than halfway through the list, and I feel like I'm still wasting spots on the obvious. But I guess that's kind of the point of the list, isn't it? I've driven nude many times, but only in isolated situations where I feel relatively safe doing so (and more often at night). The reality is, how often do you even notice what somebody in another car is wearing?
Now, you might argue that there's not much point in being nude in the car when you're going to have to be dressed when you get to where you're going, but you might be surprised by the opportunities available - especially once we begin picking out locations where public nudity is tolerated. That way you wouldn't have to get dressed to get there and back.
Even now, though, there are times when I've just been swimming, and I have to drive home, and my skin is still damp, so I don't want to get dressed. Or, I've got a long interstate drive ahead of me, and I figure, I might as well be comfortable!
The fact that I can already get away with this as much as I do is just testament to the fact that it's a natural choice for this list, but it would be nice to take away the fear of being stopped at a stoplight and having someone on the sidewalk peek in, or the added anxiety of wondering how I'm going to explain myself if I happen to see flashing lights in my rearview mirror.
And if we're feeling generous, we could extend that freedom to a larger portion of the driving experience. Imagine stopping off to fuel up without having to get dressed. You barely have to leave your car as it is if you're paying at the pump. And rest stops are already like islands accessible only to highway traffic. What's the harm in designating them nude-friendly zones? You could stretch your legs, relieve yourself, and pick up a snack at the vending machines; no need to cover up!
4. Parks
"Parks" is admittedly a pretty vague designation. I would put the emphasis on wilderness parks, but an argument could be made for the freedom to relax or recreate nude in, e.g., city parks and the like.
I'm tempted to single out state parks, because they seem more likely to be "outdoorsy", but that may not necessarily be the case (and besides, some of them can draw pretty big crowds of tourists).
National parks may be an even better option, and in some cases, there are allowances for a little bit more leniency in dress code (depending on who you ask), but this is not a guarantee, and they are even fewer and farther between.
Ultimately, I think there should be a tolerance for people to get out into nature to enjoy the scenic vistas and recreate (hiking, biking, swimming, camping, etc.) without any more clothes than the animals are wearing.
You can already do this to an extent, as long as you are careful about avoiding other people, but I don't think it should be something that you have to go out of your way to hide (and even doing your due diligence in this respect won't assure your safety if you happen to get caught).
As far as I'm concerned, being naked is the proper way to appreciate nature - that's why it's sometimes referred to as "au naturel", and why "naturism" is a synonym for nudism. It makes more sense than expecting to encounter naked people in crowded stores and buses in the midst of civilization.
5. Pools
It's a well-worn cliché among nudists that swimsuits are the most pointless garment ever invented. And it's a cliché for a reason. But while nudists tend to harbor a disdain for swimsuits - complaining not only about how useless they are, but arguing that they "sexualize" the human body - I actually appreciate them, as it's the closest I can come to being nude while in the company of textiles, without inciting an uproar.
And it seems to me that swimming pools are the closest textile culture ever comes to embodying a nudist mindset. Everyone is walking around with about 90% of their bodies exposed (well, moreso the girls than the guys), and it's not a big deal. You can walk up to the snack bar, order a taco, sit down and eat it, in clothing that would be downright scandalous anywhere else (sometimes covering even less than most people's underwear), and nobody bats an eye.
It's surreal. And I don't see why we can't just go the last ten yards and normalize swimming nude. With acceptance of nudity at home and in the car, you could have an entire day of summer fun without ever having to get dressed! And you wouldn't even have to isolate yourself from family, friends, and the community to do it. Isn't that the dream?
That said, many who oppose the decriminalization of public nudity (and even some fervent supporters of the concept) tend to fixate on extreme examples of people being bothered by encountering nudity in some fairly illogical places, like shopping malls or fine restaurants or their kid's elementary school.
Whereas I maintain that, on the issue of public nudity, I do not demand carte blanche to be naked absolutely anywhere I feel like (there's a lot of wiggle room for nudity even without abolishing the standard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). I would be satisfied with a compromise - the freedom to simply be nude in certain instances where the impact of that nudity on others is minimized, and where, quite frankly, it makes a lot of sense for people to have that fundamental freedom.
In other words, responsible nudity in reasonable contexts. And by "responsible" I mean that any kind of inappropriate or indecent behavior would still be forbidden (I think many people fear that bad actors will exploit an acceptance of nudity to engage in this kind of illicit behavior, and I do not wish that to be the case). The law and public sentiment would merely be blind to a person's state of dress (or undress).
Also, on that note, it wouldn't be sufficient merely to have the legal right to be nude in these places (although that would be a step in the right direction), but I would wish for society to be on board with this state of affairs to the point of acknowledging and accepting that other people have the right to choose how to dress themselves, and not get uptight anytime they encounter nudity within these pre-determined bounds. So that not only would you not have criminal liability, but that neither would you be treated like a pariah and become isolated from your friends and family for choosing to go nude.
With that settled, we come to the question of where it would make sense to normalize nudity first. Let me list my top 5 suggestions.
1. Home
This location barely qualifies as "public", which is why I'm listing it first. And it's a shame to waste a spot on such a basic item, but in spite of the temptation to say that we already have the freedom to be nude at home, this is simply not the case. I do spend quite a lot of time at home nude, but that depends on company.
It's not that I am opposed to dressing up for special occasions and planned gatherings. But it would be nice to be able to answer the door without having to scramble for clothes every time a spontaneous visitor comes knocking, and to be able to lounge around in my own home the way I'm most comfortable, regardless of who shows up, without the implicit expectation of changing the way I would prefer to be dressed. Especially with guests staying overnight, during those times - late in the evening and early in the morning - when decorum is typically at its most informal.
That's not to say that I believe I should be able to come over to your house and take off my clothes; that's up to you as the host. I believe in the "king of the castle" doctrine on this matter. And though it's true that even some non-nudists respect this doctrine, it is far from universal, particularly on the subject of nudity. People are still occasionally charged for indecent exposure within their own homes, and, even more frequently, are isolated from their family and friends if they dare to insist upon not covering up.
If, on the other hand, your belief is that you should make your guests comfortable (i.e., "the guest is king"), then how come y'all don't get undressed when I drop by your house for a visit?
2. Garden
By "garden" here I am referring to the external property in the lot where you live (whether or not you grow flowers, or own your house for that matter). This is only the tiniest step beyond the privacy of one's home (literally, starting on the doorstep), but, significantly, introduces a greater potential for public view. Not just anyone will enter your home, but you never know who could be walking (or driving) down your street.
Some people, myself included, are lucky enough to have [more-or-less] private yards where they can be nude outside the house without being seen. Not everyone is so lucky. And I still feel boxed in by the fence in my back yard, unable to tend to the front without changing the way I'm dressed.
It would be nice to be able to mow the whole lawn, step out the front door and grab my mail, roll the trash can to the curb (and back), and wash my car in the driveway, without putting on shorts specifically for the task. If an allowance for being nude within view of the public should start anywhere, it should start on the property where a person lives.
As an extension, since I'm not sure this deserves a separate spot, people living in, e.g., dormitories and apartment complexes should have the same freedom - to enjoy shared spaces around their home (such as hallways, balconies, and the laundromat) in the same level of comfort they enjoy in the privacy of their own separate rooms. Ideally, this freedom would also extend to hotels, which function as temporary domiciles. After all, don't hotels like to offer their guests all the pleasures and conveniences (and then some) of being at home?
3. Car
We're more than halfway through the list, and I feel like I'm still wasting spots on the obvious. But I guess that's kind of the point of the list, isn't it? I've driven nude many times, but only in isolated situations where I feel relatively safe doing so (and more often at night). The reality is, how often do you even notice what somebody in another car is wearing?
Now, you might argue that there's not much point in being nude in the car when you're going to have to be dressed when you get to where you're going, but you might be surprised by the opportunities available - especially once we begin picking out locations where public nudity is tolerated. That way you wouldn't have to get dressed to get there and back.
Even now, though, there are times when I've just been swimming, and I have to drive home, and my skin is still damp, so I don't want to get dressed. Or, I've got a long interstate drive ahead of me, and I figure, I might as well be comfortable!
The fact that I can already get away with this as much as I do is just testament to the fact that it's a natural choice for this list, but it would be nice to take away the fear of being stopped at a stoplight and having someone on the sidewalk peek in, or the added anxiety of wondering how I'm going to explain myself if I happen to see flashing lights in my rearview mirror.
And if we're feeling generous, we could extend that freedom to a larger portion of the driving experience. Imagine stopping off to fuel up without having to get dressed. You barely have to leave your car as it is if you're paying at the pump. And rest stops are already like islands accessible only to highway traffic. What's the harm in designating them nude-friendly zones? You could stretch your legs, relieve yourself, and pick up a snack at the vending machines; no need to cover up!
4. Parks
"Parks" is admittedly a pretty vague designation. I would put the emphasis on wilderness parks, but an argument could be made for the freedom to relax or recreate nude in, e.g., city parks and the like.
I'm tempted to single out state parks, because they seem more likely to be "outdoorsy", but that may not necessarily be the case (and besides, some of them can draw pretty big crowds of tourists).
National parks may be an even better option, and in some cases, there are allowances for a little bit more leniency in dress code (depending on who you ask), but this is not a guarantee, and they are even fewer and farther between.
Ultimately, I think there should be a tolerance for people to get out into nature to enjoy the scenic vistas and recreate (hiking, biking, swimming, camping, etc.) without any more clothes than the animals are wearing.
You can already do this to an extent, as long as you are careful about avoiding other people, but I don't think it should be something that you have to go out of your way to hide (and even doing your due diligence in this respect won't assure your safety if you happen to get caught).
As far as I'm concerned, being naked is the proper way to appreciate nature - that's why it's sometimes referred to as "au naturel", and why "naturism" is a synonym for nudism. It makes more sense than expecting to encounter naked people in crowded stores and buses in the midst of civilization.
5. Pools
It's a well-worn cliché among nudists that swimsuits are the most pointless garment ever invented. And it's a cliché for a reason. But while nudists tend to harbor a disdain for swimsuits - complaining not only about how useless they are, but arguing that they "sexualize" the human body - I actually appreciate them, as it's the closest I can come to being nude while in the company of textiles, without inciting an uproar.
And it seems to me that swimming pools are the closest textile culture ever comes to embodying a nudist mindset. Everyone is walking around with about 90% of their bodies exposed (well, moreso the girls than the guys), and it's not a big deal. You can walk up to the snack bar, order a taco, sit down and eat it, in clothing that would be downright scandalous anywhere else (sometimes covering even less than most people's underwear), and nobody bats an eye.
It's surreal. And I don't see why we can't just go the last ten yards and normalize swimming nude. With acceptance of nudity at home and in the car, you could have an entire day of summer fun without ever having to get dressed! And you wouldn't even have to isolate yourself from family, friends, and the community to do it. Isn't that the dream?
Monday, October 18, 2021
Elm Street Dreams
or, Re-enacting a Slumber Party Massacre
Two and a half years ago, I spontaneously had the idea to remake my popular Slumber Party image from 2010. That original image inspired two sequels, the first one being an elaborate collection of images documenting a Slumber Party Massacre, inspired by my fandom of the horror genre (and tribute to the slasher film of the same name), in which four girls are stalked by a sexual predator and attacked on the night of their slumber party. When I did the Slumber Party remake in 2019, I had no plans to revisit the sequels in my original Slumber Party trilogy, but just as that remake arose spontaneously, so did I end up turning this year's Halloween shoot in my Freddy Krueger costume into a spiritual remake of the Slumber Party Massacre, complete with establishing shots of the four girls haunted by Freddy, and culminating in one final group image.
The beauty queen brushes her long, blonde hair in the bathroom, wearing a brand new mermaid pajama shirt, while Freddy is visible to us in the reflection of the mirror, creeping around the corner from his hiding spot in the tub.
The athlete enters the kitchen in her comfy pajama shorts and crop top to get a glass of water from the sink, while Freddy advances on her from his unexpected perch on top of the refrigerator.
The gamer plays on her phone in bed in her pink pajamas and knee socks, while Freddy quietly slides out from under her bed where he's been watching her.
The party girl takes a break while doing laundry in her bra and panties, while Freddy crouches behind the dryer waiting for the right moment to strike. (I think this was actually a scene from the original Halloween, but a girl going out half-dressed to do laundry in a separate building is one of those situations that always stuck in my mind).
Finally, the four girls gather for their slumber party and pop in a slasher film, while, unbeknownst to them, Freddy emerges from the kitchen with plans to scare them senseless.
No aftermath shot this time (you can use your imagination), but there are some outtakes as well as an alternate version of the final image which once again takes place in a parallel world where nudism is mainstream.
Now that I'm two titles in to remaking this trilogy, I feel invested enough to say that, this time, I do plan on finishing the trilogy and creating a remake of the final sequel, Slumber Party Campout. It won't be right away, but maybe next year. I've already got an idea for it, but I'm going to keep it under wraps for now. So stay tuned, and I hope you've enjoyed this re-enactment of the Slumber Party Massacre featuring the one and only Freddy Krueger!
Two and a half years ago, I spontaneously had the idea to remake my popular Slumber Party image from 2010. That original image inspired two sequels, the first one being an elaborate collection of images documenting a Slumber Party Massacre, inspired by my fandom of the horror genre (and tribute to the slasher film of the same name), in which four girls are stalked by a sexual predator and attacked on the night of their slumber party. When I did the Slumber Party remake in 2019, I had no plans to revisit the sequels in my original Slumber Party trilogy, but just as that remake arose spontaneously, so did I end up turning this year's Halloween shoot in my Freddy Krueger costume into a spiritual remake of the Slumber Party Massacre, complete with establishing shots of the four girls haunted by Freddy, and culminating in one final group image.
The beauty queen brushes her long, blonde hair in the bathroom, wearing a brand new mermaid pajama shirt, while Freddy is visible to us in the reflection of the mirror, creeping around the corner from his hiding spot in the tub.
The athlete enters the kitchen in her comfy pajama shorts and crop top to get a glass of water from the sink, while Freddy advances on her from his unexpected perch on top of the refrigerator.
The gamer plays on her phone in bed in her pink pajamas and knee socks, while Freddy quietly slides out from under her bed where he's been watching her.
The party girl takes a break while doing laundry in her bra and panties, while Freddy crouches behind the dryer waiting for the right moment to strike. (I think this was actually a scene from the original Halloween, but a girl going out half-dressed to do laundry in a separate building is one of those situations that always stuck in my mind).
Finally, the four girls gather for their slumber party and pop in a slasher film, while, unbeknownst to them, Freddy emerges from the kitchen with plans to scare them senseless.
No aftermath shot this time (you can use your imagination), but there are some outtakes as well as an alternate version of the final image which once again takes place in a parallel world where nudism is mainstream.
Now that I'm two titles in to remaking this trilogy, I feel invested enough to say that, this time, I do plan on finishing the trilogy and creating a remake of the final sequel, Slumber Party Campout. It won't be right away, but maybe next year. I've already got an idea for it, but I'm going to keep it under wraps for now. So stay tuned, and I hope you've enjoyed this re-enactment of the Slumber Party Massacre featuring the one and only Freddy Krueger!
Thursday, September 9, 2021
Speedo FAQ
I'm that one guy on American beaches wearing a speedo, and I want to open a dialogue. I know you're curious, and maybe a little bit confused. I've seen the looks. I've overheard the remarks. My goal isn't to make anyone uncomfortable. I'm just living my truth, wearing what makes me happy. I know you have questions. Let me try to answer a few of them.
But first, a note on terminology. I'm using the term "speedo" in this post because that's what most people are familiar with. I don't usually call my swimsuits "speedos", as that is a brand name, and most of my swimsuits are not Speedo brand (also, Speedo makes a variety of swimsuits, not just the kind most people associate them with). It's like how we call tissues "Kleenex" and colas "Coke". The generic term - and the one that I normally prefer to use - is "swim brief".
Now, on to the questions!
Q: Are you European?
A: No. I was born and raised in the USA (for better or worse). I've never even been to Europe, although I'd like to visit someday. I've heard that speedos are pretty much the norm over there (although reports are varied).
Q: Are you gay?
A: The answer might surprise you! This is, in my experience, the number one assumption people make when they see a guy in a speedo. No, I am not gay. I love and support the gay community, and I'm pretty open-minded; it just so happens that I am predominantly attracted to the female sex. What puzzles me is why so many people think the swimsuit I'm wearing has any bearing whatsoever on my sexual orientation. If a woman puts on a thong bikini, does that make her a lesbian?
Q: Why do you wear speedos, then?
A: You might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of good reasons for a man to wear a speedo. Maybe you're a swimming athlete. Maybe you want less noticeable tan lines. Any single reason would be justification enough for the decision to wear a speedo; I've got three!
1. I'm a nudist. I realize this puts me in the minority, but I am actually more comfortable the less I am wearing. Especially when my clothes are going to be getting wet. I would prefer to be swimming nude. So although a speedo is less than you would expect me to wear, it's more than I want to be wearing. It's a compromise.
2. My gender identity is complicated. I go back and forth on what to call myself, but suffice to say, I am gender non-conforming, and my gender presentation is predominantly feminine (on the other hand, I am not interested at this time in chemical or surgical intervention). Wearing men's swimwear - the baggy, knee-length shorts that are ubiquitous in this culture - gives me gender dysphoria. But I can't wear women's swimsuits because they are obviously not practical for my anatomy. So, once again, speedos are a compromise. Also, as a gender non-conforming person, I'd like to mention that I do not appreciate the double standard whereby it's considered perfectly normal for women to wear skimpy swimsuits, but scandalous when a man does it. That doesn't really seem fair.
3. I'm a model. Contrary to stereotype, I am not old and fat. Although I am not quite as young as I look, I am not that old, either. I'm pretty skinny, and try to keep in good shape. I model, so you can bet I'm pretty confident in my skin. I like to show off what I've got. Women do it all the time. Why not give them something to look at, too? If just looking at a man's body makes you uncomfortable, then I don't know what to say. It's not my responsibility to prevent you from having gay thoughts.
And while we're on the subject of appearance, I don't understand people who say "nobody looks good in a speedo." For a subjective opinion, this is one that is demonstrably untrue. Just because men aren't typically held to the same grooming standards as women doesn't mean that there aren't men with bodies worth drooling over. I put effort into my appearance because I want to look good.
At the same time, I'm a nudist, and I believe that people have the right to feel comfortable in their skin, no matter what they look like. Do you think everyone at the beach looks good, and that the ones who don't should leave? Why does anyone need your approval on their fashion choices, and why is your approval more important than anyone else's? I dress to satisfy myself, not to impress some random stranger I don't know.
Q: Where do you wear speedos?
A: Wherever I go swimming, unless there's an explicit rule forbidding them. I've worn speedos on the beach and at lakes. I've worn them in hotel pools, and even waterparks. In beach towns, I've walked through the streets, shopped in stores, eaten at restaurants, and played minigolf, all while wearing just a speedo. I've worn them around family and friends, young and old, and complete strangers, too.
Q: Isn't it indecent to walk around in public with the outline of your genitals visible?
A: Is it? Ask all the women wearing bikinis. Outlines will vary depending on the suit (including color - black is pretty discreet) and conditions (e.g., lighting, wet vs. dry), but this is also true of many women's swimsuits. I know the sexes have different anatomy, but I'm not sure they should have different rules about visibility and what is or is not acceptable. The suits I wear are not "fetish wear" that emphasizes or enhances my manhood (there's a whole rabbit hole of those that it's easy to tumble down when searching for non-traditional men's swimwear online). They're just basic swim briefs - the kind you might see on Olympic athletes, or your local high school swim team. In fact, they're actually modest compared to what a lot of women wear.
Q: What about children and abuse survivors? Even the suggestion of the sight of a penis can be traumatizing to some people.
A: I believe that phalliphobia (fear of the penis) is not a healthy mindset, and that it is not good for society to coddle it. In order to change my mind, you would have to convince me first that men and women are not equal, and deserve to follow different standards of public decorum (unless you are arguing that women shouldn't wear bikinis either, which is not the common stance I'm addressing here), and second that innocent people deserve to have their freedoms restricted due to the behavior of criminals and scoundrels, purely on the basis of having similar anatomy.
In this culture, there is typically a lot of skin on display wherever swimming is involved. If you are someone who is bothered by this, then I would suggest you try to avoid public pools and beaches in lieu of demanding that everyone else cover up. Nudism teaches us that the sight of the human body does not carry an inherently sexual context. (Whether or not you think someone has "sex appeal" is beside the point - that's a thought in your head, not a behavior of their body). Nor are children intrinsically harmed by exposure to the human body. That's something they have to learn - and frequently do learn, from their parents, their peers, and from society. And we're not even talking about nudity, here - we're talking about swimsuits!
It's not that I don't think you can make an argument that I'm prioritizing my own comfort over the comfort of others. You can. But I'm arguing that fear of the human body (although really just the male body in this instance) isn't more valuable to us as a society than the freedom of individuals to wear different styles of swimsuits (some more revealing than others, perhaps, but without breaching the legal standard for indecency). What's more, considering that women already have this freedom (nearly uncontested, except by fringe minorities) makes the argument rather moot.
Q: Do you have a large penis? If not, are you worried about people making fun of you? Or do you get off on the humiliation?
A: I understand that many men have anxiety about their penis size. Thankfully, I have been insulated from this toxic form of competition for most of my life. The truth is, some men are showers, and some are growers. What you see is often not what you get. I have been called both "tiny" and "massive", depending on the state of arousal, and I've never had trouble satisfying a woman. So what somebody else thinks about my size is inconsequential to me. In a similar vein, I know that lots of women have anxiety about their chest size. But that doesn't mean that a woman with A cups can't rock a bikini and look damn fine doing it.
Q: What are some good brands of non-Speedo swim briefs?
A: I'm not brand-loyal. Men's swim briefs are hard to come by, so I tend to search online, and try out whatever looks good. I have owned actual Speedos. One of their top competitors is TYR, atlhough I had a TYR swim brief that didn't last as long as some of my others. My favorites are by a company called Sporti. They have a low-rise brief that better approximates the look of a bikini bottom. I have a black one that I like so much, I bought matching pairs in blue, green, and red. I also like Kiniki brand tan-through suits. They have a variety of styles, including classic briefs. They're composed of a thinner, mesh-like material, so they're a bit less modest (personally, I find the coverage to be perfectly adequate unless you're deliberately scrutinizing it), but I love how quickly they dry.
Q: What's the worst thing that's happened while wearing a speedo?
A: Two incidents come to mind. One time I was kayaking near a busy marina, and I got chewed out by a park ranger for not wearing a life jacket, because he literally thought I was twelve years old! (I can only guess why, but I imagine the fact that I'm scrawny, hairless, and was riding a kid-sized kayak were all contributing factors). On the positive side, I took his lack of comment on my swimwear as tacit approval (or at least allowance), him being an authority figure and all.
Another time, I left the beach wearing my speedo, and on the way to my car, I turned a corner only to stumble upon a group of twenty or more kids sitting in a circle having class outdoors on the lawn. They all started pointing and whispering, even as their teacher droned on. Children are naturally curious, and there is, of course, no harm in them seeing a man in a swimsuit within sight of the shore. But I can appreciate how it might have looked to an outside observer, taken out of context. I didn't want to draw any more attention to myself or make a production out of covering up, so I tried my best to ignore them and kept walking casually to my car.
Q: What's the best thing that's happened while wearing a speedo?
A: If this hadn't actually happened to me, I wouldn't believe it myself, but I was lying out on the beach one day when a group of college girls came over and invited me to play volleyball with them. Afterward, we went skinny dipping. That alone makes up for every disparaging look and dismissive comment I've ever received while wearing a speedo. =D
But first, a note on terminology. I'm using the term "speedo" in this post because that's what most people are familiar with. I don't usually call my swimsuits "speedos", as that is a brand name, and most of my swimsuits are not Speedo brand (also, Speedo makes a variety of swimsuits, not just the kind most people associate them with). It's like how we call tissues "Kleenex" and colas "Coke". The generic term - and the one that I normally prefer to use - is "swim brief".
Now, on to the questions!
Q: Are you European?
A: No. I was born and raised in the USA (for better or worse). I've never even been to Europe, although I'd like to visit someday. I've heard that speedos are pretty much the norm over there (although reports are varied).
Q: Are you gay?
A: The answer might surprise you! This is, in my experience, the number one assumption people make when they see a guy in a speedo. No, I am not gay. I love and support the gay community, and I'm pretty open-minded; it just so happens that I am predominantly attracted to the female sex. What puzzles me is why so many people think the swimsuit I'm wearing has any bearing whatsoever on my sexual orientation. If a woman puts on a thong bikini, does that make her a lesbian?
Q: Why do you wear speedos, then?
A: You might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of good reasons for a man to wear a speedo. Maybe you're a swimming athlete. Maybe you want less noticeable tan lines. Any single reason would be justification enough for the decision to wear a speedo; I've got three!
1. I'm a nudist. I realize this puts me in the minority, but I am actually more comfortable the less I am wearing. Especially when my clothes are going to be getting wet. I would prefer to be swimming nude. So although a speedo is less than you would expect me to wear, it's more than I want to be wearing. It's a compromise.
2. My gender identity is complicated. I go back and forth on what to call myself, but suffice to say, I am gender non-conforming, and my gender presentation is predominantly feminine (on the other hand, I am not interested at this time in chemical or surgical intervention). Wearing men's swimwear - the baggy, knee-length shorts that are ubiquitous in this culture - gives me gender dysphoria. But I can't wear women's swimsuits because they are obviously not practical for my anatomy. So, once again, speedos are a compromise. Also, as a gender non-conforming person, I'd like to mention that I do not appreciate the double standard whereby it's considered perfectly normal for women to wear skimpy swimsuits, but scandalous when a man does it. That doesn't really seem fair.
3. I'm a model. Contrary to stereotype, I am not old and fat. Although I am not quite as young as I look, I am not that old, either. I'm pretty skinny, and try to keep in good shape. I model, so you can bet I'm pretty confident in my skin. I like to show off what I've got. Women do it all the time. Why not give them something to look at, too? If just looking at a man's body makes you uncomfortable, then I don't know what to say. It's not my responsibility to prevent you from having gay thoughts.
And while we're on the subject of appearance, I don't understand people who say "nobody looks good in a speedo." For a subjective opinion, this is one that is demonstrably untrue. Just because men aren't typically held to the same grooming standards as women doesn't mean that there aren't men with bodies worth drooling over. I put effort into my appearance because I want to look good.
At the same time, I'm a nudist, and I believe that people have the right to feel comfortable in their skin, no matter what they look like. Do you think everyone at the beach looks good, and that the ones who don't should leave? Why does anyone need your approval on their fashion choices, and why is your approval more important than anyone else's? I dress to satisfy myself, not to impress some random stranger I don't know.
Q: Where do you wear speedos?
A: Wherever I go swimming, unless there's an explicit rule forbidding them. I've worn speedos on the beach and at lakes. I've worn them in hotel pools, and even waterparks. In beach towns, I've walked through the streets, shopped in stores, eaten at restaurants, and played minigolf, all while wearing just a speedo. I've worn them around family and friends, young and old, and complete strangers, too.
Q: Isn't it indecent to walk around in public with the outline of your genitals visible?
A: Is it? Ask all the women wearing bikinis. Outlines will vary depending on the suit (including color - black is pretty discreet) and conditions (e.g., lighting, wet vs. dry), but this is also true of many women's swimsuits. I know the sexes have different anatomy, but I'm not sure they should have different rules about visibility and what is or is not acceptable. The suits I wear are not "fetish wear" that emphasizes or enhances my manhood (there's a whole rabbit hole of those that it's easy to tumble down when searching for non-traditional men's swimwear online). They're just basic swim briefs - the kind you might see on Olympic athletes, or your local high school swim team. In fact, they're actually modest compared to what a lot of women wear.
Q: What about children and abuse survivors? Even the suggestion of the sight of a penis can be traumatizing to some people.
A: I believe that phalliphobia (fear of the penis) is not a healthy mindset, and that it is not good for society to coddle it. In order to change my mind, you would have to convince me first that men and women are not equal, and deserve to follow different standards of public decorum (unless you are arguing that women shouldn't wear bikinis either, which is not the common stance I'm addressing here), and second that innocent people deserve to have their freedoms restricted due to the behavior of criminals and scoundrels, purely on the basis of having similar anatomy.
In this culture, there is typically a lot of skin on display wherever swimming is involved. If you are someone who is bothered by this, then I would suggest you try to avoid public pools and beaches in lieu of demanding that everyone else cover up. Nudism teaches us that the sight of the human body does not carry an inherently sexual context. (Whether or not you think someone has "sex appeal" is beside the point - that's a thought in your head, not a behavior of their body). Nor are children intrinsically harmed by exposure to the human body. That's something they have to learn - and frequently do learn, from their parents, their peers, and from society. And we're not even talking about nudity, here - we're talking about swimsuits!
It's not that I don't think you can make an argument that I'm prioritizing my own comfort over the comfort of others. You can. But I'm arguing that fear of the human body (although really just the male body in this instance) isn't more valuable to us as a society than the freedom of individuals to wear different styles of swimsuits (some more revealing than others, perhaps, but without breaching the legal standard for indecency). What's more, considering that women already have this freedom (nearly uncontested, except by fringe minorities) makes the argument rather moot.
Q: Do you have a large penis? If not, are you worried about people making fun of you? Or do you get off on the humiliation?
A: I understand that many men have anxiety about their penis size. Thankfully, I have been insulated from this toxic form of competition for most of my life. The truth is, some men are showers, and some are growers. What you see is often not what you get. I have been called both "tiny" and "massive", depending on the state of arousal, and I've never had trouble satisfying a woman. So what somebody else thinks about my size is inconsequential to me. In a similar vein, I know that lots of women have anxiety about their chest size. But that doesn't mean that a woman with A cups can't rock a bikini and look damn fine doing it.
Q: What are some good brands of non-Speedo swim briefs?
A: I'm not brand-loyal. Men's swim briefs are hard to come by, so I tend to search online, and try out whatever looks good. I have owned actual Speedos. One of their top competitors is TYR, atlhough I had a TYR swim brief that didn't last as long as some of my others. My favorites are by a company called Sporti. They have a low-rise brief that better approximates the look of a bikini bottom. I have a black one that I like so much, I bought matching pairs in blue, green, and red. I also like Kiniki brand tan-through suits. They have a variety of styles, including classic briefs. They're composed of a thinner, mesh-like material, so they're a bit less modest (personally, I find the coverage to be perfectly adequate unless you're deliberately scrutinizing it), but I love how quickly they dry.
Q: What's the worst thing that's happened while wearing a speedo?
A: Two incidents come to mind. One time I was kayaking near a busy marina, and I got chewed out by a park ranger for not wearing a life jacket, because he literally thought I was twelve years old! (I can only guess why, but I imagine the fact that I'm scrawny, hairless, and was riding a kid-sized kayak were all contributing factors). On the positive side, I took his lack of comment on my swimwear as tacit approval (or at least allowance), him being an authority figure and all.
Another time, I left the beach wearing my speedo, and on the way to my car, I turned a corner only to stumble upon a group of twenty or more kids sitting in a circle having class outdoors on the lawn. They all started pointing and whispering, even as their teacher droned on. Children are naturally curious, and there is, of course, no harm in them seeing a man in a swimsuit within sight of the shore. But I can appreciate how it might have looked to an outside observer, taken out of context. I didn't want to draw any more attention to myself or make a production out of covering up, so I tried my best to ignore them and kept walking casually to my car.
Q: What's the best thing that's happened while wearing a speedo?
A: If this hadn't actually happened to me, I wouldn't believe it myself, but I was lying out on the beach one day when a group of college girls came over and invited me to play volleyball with them. Afterward, we went skinny dipping. That alone makes up for every disparaging look and dismissive comment I've ever received while wearing a speedo. =D
Monday, August 23, 2021
Tops and Bottoms
(Apologies to those expecting a discussion of BDSM - this post is about clothing =p).
It seems to me that the only good thing, fashion-wise, about being a biological male is being allowed to walk around (sometimes) without a shirt on. I like to wear things like bras and bikini tops on occasion, because it gives me a more feminine look, but since I don't actually have breasts, they're really not practical for my anatomy. They don't stay in place, they often don't even fit right, and it's just more clothes that I don't actually need to wear - and if you know anything about me, you should know that I like to wear as little as possible. I think the worst thing would be to be a girl with a flat chest. Not that I don't appreciate women with smaller chests (because I do - double D's are so overrated; I've always been more of an A student ;-p). But to not really have the need for upper support yet still be forced by law (in most cases) to wear a top... Yeah, I totally support topfreedom.
And bottomfreedom, too, but total freedom aside, what about bottom equality? It's true that women are more restricted from the waist up, but what often gets overlooked is the inequality between what men and women are socially permitted to expose below the waist. Not only are women's shorts shorter (and they have the option to wear free-flowing skirts), but if you compare underwear and especially swimwear - since it's expected to be worn in public - there is a huge stigma against the exposure of men's lower buttocks and upper thighs that is not at all present for women. Even though, like nipples, these parts of the human anatomy are not actually classified as sexual organs.
Though it may be true that this fashion asymmetry is an organic product of the anatomical differences between men and women (women's more fully developed breasts versus men's external genitalia), the fact remains that a woman may be comfortable going topless, while a man may comfortably wear a pair of briefs. We should strive to hold all human beings regardless of sex, gender, or anatomy to the same rules of public decorum. Though if we are to insist on discriminating based on anatomy, I daresay the argument for covering women's breasts is stronger than that for covering men's buttocks and thighs (which, unlike their chests, are effectively no different than women's). The reason the former is the larger issue is due to the demand informed by gendered stereotypes on men's and women's bodies.
Poignantly, in this era of gender experimentation and increasing tolerance of diversity, strict adherence to such gendered stereotypes disproportionately affects gender and sexual minorities. Women who wish to are welcome to continue wearing supportive tops, just as men who wish it may continue covering their thighs and buttocks. But those who wish to be held to the same standard that the other half of the population is held to ought to be permitted the freedom to do so. Anything less would be unjust. Not to mention transphobic.
In the interest, then, of highlighting this asymmetry, and promoting fashion equality, I propose a visibility protest in which men and women swap their swimwear, with women going topless in knee-length board shorts, and men wearing revealing bikinis. The following recommendations are optional, depending on whether you're willing to risk engaging in civil disobedience, but 1) the protest may be staged in an area where topfreedom has already been achieved to keep female protestors safer, and 2) men are advised to choose their swimwear carefully, as most women's bikini bottoms are not designed to hold cargo, and it would be helpful to demonstrate to the public (as I know from experience can be done) that men can wear bikini briefs without exposing themselves.
So, who's in?
It seems to me that the only good thing, fashion-wise, about being a biological male is being allowed to walk around (sometimes) without a shirt on. I like to wear things like bras and bikini tops on occasion, because it gives me a more feminine look, but since I don't actually have breasts, they're really not practical for my anatomy. They don't stay in place, they often don't even fit right, and it's just more clothes that I don't actually need to wear - and if you know anything about me, you should know that I like to wear as little as possible. I think the worst thing would be to be a girl with a flat chest. Not that I don't appreciate women with smaller chests (because I do - double D's are so overrated; I've always been more of an A student ;-p). But to not really have the need for upper support yet still be forced by law (in most cases) to wear a top... Yeah, I totally support topfreedom.
And bottomfreedom, too, but total freedom aside, what about bottom equality? It's true that women are more restricted from the waist up, but what often gets overlooked is the inequality between what men and women are socially permitted to expose below the waist. Not only are women's shorts shorter (and they have the option to wear free-flowing skirts), but if you compare underwear and especially swimwear - since it's expected to be worn in public - there is a huge stigma against the exposure of men's lower buttocks and upper thighs that is not at all present for women. Even though, like nipples, these parts of the human anatomy are not actually classified as sexual organs.
Though it may be true that this fashion asymmetry is an organic product of the anatomical differences between men and women (women's more fully developed breasts versus men's external genitalia), the fact remains that a woman may be comfortable going topless, while a man may comfortably wear a pair of briefs. We should strive to hold all human beings regardless of sex, gender, or anatomy to the same rules of public decorum. Though if we are to insist on discriminating based on anatomy, I daresay the argument for covering women's breasts is stronger than that for covering men's buttocks and thighs (which, unlike their chests, are effectively no different than women's). The reason the former is the larger issue is due to the demand informed by gendered stereotypes on men's and women's bodies.
Poignantly, in this era of gender experimentation and increasing tolerance of diversity, strict adherence to such gendered stereotypes disproportionately affects gender and sexual minorities. Women who wish to are welcome to continue wearing supportive tops, just as men who wish it may continue covering their thighs and buttocks. But those who wish to be held to the same standard that the other half of the population is held to ought to be permitted the freedom to do so. Anything less would be unjust. Not to mention transphobic.
In the interest, then, of highlighting this asymmetry, and promoting fashion equality, I propose a visibility protest in which men and women swap their swimwear, with women going topless in knee-length board shorts, and men wearing revealing bikinis. The following recommendations are optional, depending on whether you're willing to risk engaging in civil disobedience, but 1) the protest may be staged in an area where topfreedom has already been achieved to keep female protestors safer, and 2) men are advised to choose their swimwear carefully, as most women's bikini bottoms are not designed to hold cargo, and it would be helpful to demonstrate to the public (as I know from experience can be done) that men can wear bikini briefs without exposing themselves.
So, who's in?
Saturday, August 14, 2021
Skinny Dip Rant
What would you say if I told you that I went skinny dipping? Would you share in my excitement, or would you chastise me for tempting the fates and risking public indecency? What if I told you that I left my swimsuit at the car, instead of wearing it to the shore and stripping off there? Why? Because doing so extends my naked time (hiking through the woods plus swimming, instead of just swimming).
But what if I also told you that being stuck without an escape route makes the experience all the more thrilling? Does that mean there's something wrong with me? It's not that I WANT to get caught, or to expose myself to anyone involuntarily, but being further away from my clothes enhances the purity and the enjoyment of my nudity.
I wish I knew more people who understood this, that I could share these experiences with. I know it's not the safest or perhaps the smartest plan of action (although at the same time, I think the "danger" of being inadvertently spotted while enjoying what is supposed to be clandestine nude recreation - which means you're not conspicuously brandishing your genitals in front of strangers - is over-exaggerated), but it's a calculated risk with a verified personal reward.
And I want to be able to tell the story of how I couldn't get back to my car because somebody else had pulled in, and how I had to hide in the bushes until they followed the trail down to the lake and I could sneak past them*, to someone who can appreciate the humor and the excitement of the situation, instead of judging me and criticizing me for engaging in "reckless behavior".
Because, of all the vices people regularly indulge in (both legal and illegal - as all the beer cans callously littered across this nature preserve will attest to), is a little bit of naked mischief really such a horrible way to add a little spice and adventure to your life?
----------------
*I know opinions among nudists are divided on how to handle encountering textiles while engaging in so-called "secret naturism" outside of approved boundaries, and that many idealistically support the approach to stand proud and act like nothing's out of the ordinary. In theory, I too like that approach, as the only way to normalize nudity is to expose people to it. But in practice, it may actually do more harm than good, and everyone has to consider their own safety above the goals of "the lifestyle".
In any case, although hiding in the bushes means tacitly acknowledging that what you're doing is wrong, it also lends evidence to the case that you're not trying to be seen and thus cause a disturbance, which is often taken into consideration on the subject of indecent exposure. Although it may undermine the ideals of nudism, it shows an understanding and respect for those (who happen to make up the majority of the population) who are not nudists.
But what if I also told you that being stuck without an escape route makes the experience all the more thrilling? Does that mean there's something wrong with me? It's not that I WANT to get caught, or to expose myself to anyone involuntarily, but being further away from my clothes enhances the purity and the enjoyment of my nudity.
I wish I knew more people who understood this, that I could share these experiences with. I know it's not the safest or perhaps the smartest plan of action (although at the same time, I think the "danger" of being inadvertently spotted while enjoying what is supposed to be clandestine nude recreation - which means you're not conspicuously brandishing your genitals in front of strangers - is over-exaggerated), but it's a calculated risk with a verified personal reward.
And I want to be able to tell the story of how I couldn't get back to my car because somebody else had pulled in, and how I had to hide in the bushes until they followed the trail down to the lake and I could sneak past them*, to someone who can appreciate the humor and the excitement of the situation, instead of judging me and criticizing me for engaging in "reckless behavior".
Because, of all the vices people regularly indulge in (both legal and illegal - as all the beer cans callously littered across this nature preserve will attest to), is a little bit of naked mischief really such a horrible way to add a little spice and adventure to your life?
----------------
*I know opinions among nudists are divided on how to handle encountering textiles while engaging in so-called "secret naturism" outside of approved boundaries, and that many idealistically support the approach to stand proud and act like nothing's out of the ordinary. In theory, I too like that approach, as the only way to normalize nudity is to expose people to it. But in practice, it may actually do more harm than good, and everyone has to consider their own safety above the goals of "the lifestyle".
In any case, although hiding in the bushes means tacitly acknowledging that what you're doing is wrong, it also lends evidence to the case that you're not trying to be seen and thus cause a disturbance, which is often taken into consideration on the subject of indecent exposure. Although it may undermine the ideals of nudism, it shows an understanding and respect for those (who happen to make up the majority of the population) who are not nudists.
Friday, August 6, 2021
Teasing and Eroticism
The word "tease" is sometimes used to describe the erotic arts. My philosophy is this: not all of us will be lucky enough to bed a supermodel at some point in our lives. But we can still fantasize. If you're the kind of person who can't appreciate beauty without possessing it, then look away; my art is not intended for you. Although it is true that, as a photographer, whenever I spy beauty, I experience the very human desire to capture it (albeit in the form of a photograph, not as a pet), I am also able to admire it from afar; such views brighten my life. If I were limited to only seeing the beauty I can grasp in the palm of my hand, the world would be a much darker place. 'Tis better to be teased and have one's desire go unsatisfied, than to never experience desire at all.
And besides, masturbation can be fun, too. ;-p
And besides, masturbation can be fun, too. ;-p
Thursday, August 5, 2021
A Prudist Brief
The thing about prudism (prudish nudism) is, it creates this dichotomy where nudity is either monastic, ostensibly practiced by erotophobic asexuals (the prudist ideal), or else it's laced with primal sexuality, in the context of hardcore pornography (the prudist's worst nightmare).
It doesn't leave any space for people who appreciate the human form both artistically and erotically, who aren't interested in lying to themselves about their feelings of attraction, and want to be involved in activities where naked (or nearly naked) people congregate, yet without it being a hunting ground for sexual partners.
Nudism professes that people can be naked and still behave civilly toward one another. Well, I profess that people can appreciate the eroticism of other people's bodies, and STILL behave civilly toward one another.
THOSE are the people I want to congregate with - and they are more likely to be nudists (who have a grounded attitude toward the human body) than textiles, who aren't accustomed to nudity outside of an explicitly sexual context.
I'm just saying, we can have that kind of nudism, without creating an atmosphere of sexual predation, yet still without pretending that we're not animals who appreciate the erotic appeal of the human form (heaven forbid!).
It doesn't leave any space for people who appreciate the human form both artistically and erotically, who aren't interested in lying to themselves about their feelings of attraction, and want to be involved in activities where naked (or nearly naked) people congregate, yet without it being a hunting ground for sexual partners.
Nudism professes that people can be naked and still behave civilly toward one another. Well, I profess that people can appreciate the eroticism of other people's bodies, and STILL behave civilly toward one another.
THOSE are the people I want to congregate with - and they are more likely to be nudists (who have a grounded attitude toward the human body) than textiles, who aren't accustomed to nudity outside of an explicitly sexual context.
I'm just saying, we can have that kind of nudism, without creating an atmosphere of sexual predation, yet still without pretending that we're not animals who appreciate the erotic appeal of the human form (heaven forbid!).
Friday, June 18, 2021
Nude, But Never Exposed
That said, appreciating nudity isn't always about sex. This is true whether or not eroticism is involved. "Eroticism" is an evocative term, but I use it in the broad sense that we are sexual organisms, and much of what we do - even outside of sexual foreplay and intercourse - relates to our instinctive desire to mate and procreate, especially when we take into consideration the aesthetics of physical beauty as perceived in the human form (in contrast to a sunset or a pretty flower). There are indeed times when the broad category of eroticism is uninvolved in the appreciation of nudity, but even when it is, it's not necessarily an invitation for the censor. Like glamour or fashion photographers who deal in physical attraction, but not in an explicit way - except that the models happen to be undressed. It is textile culture that automatically assumes that the presence of nudity implies explicit sexuality; nudists ought to know better.
I just wish I didn't have to tiptoe around my genuine and passionate interest in the human body - both as an artist, and as a nudist; that more people would understand that nude recreation, as well as the production of nude art, is not a sex act; that less people would have so many hangups about their own and others' bodies; and that it wasn't such a taboo to have an appreciation for the aesthetics of the human form that goes above and beyond the average feelings of physical attraction to one's intimate [or prospective] partner(s) that most people are familiar with.
None of this is to disparage any part of the natural and healthy human sexual instinct. The fact that I don't want my interest in nudity reduced to a sexual fetish doesn't justify a sex-negative platform. I just wish I could more freely share this aspect of my life without it being tied up with all the baggage that sex brings. Whatever my sexual activities might involve, my interest in nudity is not limited to intimate encounters - isn't that the definition of nudism? It's a lifestyle. It's a hobby and a passion, and to a growing extent, a career. I don't feel it should be wrapped up and hidden away, spoken of only in hushed whispers, kept private, like the details of my sex life are - which, outside of my additional involvement in pornography (which occupies its own separate space in my life), I have no compelling interest to share with anyone outside of my circle of intimacy. In other words, I don't need my friends and family to know what I do on OnlyFans, in order to want to be open about my passion for nude photography, and my interest in casual nude recreation, without being judged a pervert or a loony.
It's just that it's really hard to explain to dyed-in-the-womb textiles (the kind that were born with their clothes on) why I go to the woods (or anywhere, really) and take pictures of myself with my clothes off, when I feel that the art should speak for itself. But they don't just see a beautiful human form (assuming they see that at all - I'm not trying to boost my ego, here, it's just that I AM a professional model), they see a person naked in the woods and they wonder what strange and possibly perverted activities they might be up to. Which is not to say that I can't enjoy the eroticism of being naked in nature (because I do, when the appropriate conditions arise), but to boil all of my art, as well as my appreciation for nude recreation, down to a kind of sex play (and to censor it accordingly) is totally unfair.
And I realize this argument would be more convincing if I wasn't constantly making concessions to human sexuality - which is exactly the official stance that nudists take. I'm just trying to express myself as honestly as I can, because we ARE all sexual organisms, and it's not helpful to pretend that we don't have these feelings, and that these behaviors aren't also an aspect of our lives. (Also, I tailor my lecture to the metaphorical conference room, and this just happens to be the place where I'm free to speak openly about sexuality). That just leaves you guessing at what nudists are hiding from the conversation. I'm trying to put it all out in the open, which is part of what I believe nudism stands for - not "anything goes", but a dedication to authenticity. Many prefer to go for a more political approach, oversimplifying the subject for an unsophisticated audience. It's plausible that this strategy could be more effective, but I have a natural aversion to hypocrisy, and I don't have it in me to lie for profit. Even if it would be pragmatic for me to do so. Alas, I am an idealist at heart.
Thursday, May 13, 2021
Freedom of Arousal
Scene: I'm lounging around the house in the evening. Of course, I'm nude. I decide to check the trail cam that we put up to see the animals that visit our back yard. I bring in the memory card and transfer the videos to the computer, then go back out to replace the memory card.
I'm three steps across the porch before I notice there are two wild rabbits not ten feet in front of me, and I stop dead in my tracks. I'm surprised that they haven't darted away. So I stand still and watch them for a while, and they continue to graze in the grass, not overly concerned by my presence. I even manage to take a few steps closer.
Since they seem pretty comfortable, I figure I can go in and grab my camera, hopefully without scaring them away. So I do, and I start snapping photos of these rabbits up close and personal.
At this point, the idea pops into my head that I can record a video of me watching and photographing these rabbits - both to document this rare occurrence, and because, as a content creator, I am always thinking about what kind of new and interesting content I can create (that involves me being naked on camera).
So I go back in and grab my phone (which I use to record videos) and a tripod, come back out, set it up, and begin recording. I'm thrilled by the opportunity to get this close to these wild rabbits; I'm tickled by the notion of photographing wildlife while in the natural state of being nude; and above all, as an exhibitionist, being naked on camera triggers certain synapses in my brain. So I start to develop a semi-erection.
I'm conscious of this fact. I don't want it to happen - it's turning this innocent and beautiful naturist moment into something slightly lurid. I'm not into bestiality. I don't find anything sexual about wildlife photography. But I am naked on camera. I can avoid doing anything to encourage further arousal, but I can't stop the tumescence completely.
So, I guess it is what it is. It's not a big deal. It's not even rigid. I'm not brandishing it or playing with it. I just happen to have an enthusiastic appreciation for the sensual experience of being nude in nature. I don't want to be judged for it. And I don't want to believe that that alone, all by itself, makes me a bad nudist.
People should be judged by their behaviors, not the state of their genitals. You cannot control what causes arousal. It's common, even natural, to be turned on by nudity (even a primitive culture without clothes can have an erotic appreciation for the human body; after all, animals frequently use visual cues for mating).
Being able to appreciate the non-sexual value of nudity - which is the goal of nudism - is not exclusive of that. You can be turned on by nudity sometimes, and not other times. And even when you are turned on by nudity, you can still understand when sexual behavior is not appropriate, and restrain yourself from engaging in it. A man cannot control his erections. But that does not mean he is controlled by them.
You can hold a man accountable for his behaviors without condemning the feelings he can't control. Sexual misconduct is not caused by an involuntary physiological response, it is caused by the voluntary decisions that some people make. Don't blame sex for causing some people to act out - blame the people who act out for choosing to act out. The rest of us can handle our sexual feelings just fine. Don't condemn us for simply having them.
I'm three steps across the porch before I notice there are two wild rabbits not ten feet in front of me, and I stop dead in my tracks. I'm surprised that they haven't darted away. So I stand still and watch them for a while, and they continue to graze in the grass, not overly concerned by my presence. I even manage to take a few steps closer.
Since they seem pretty comfortable, I figure I can go in and grab my camera, hopefully without scaring them away. So I do, and I start snapping photos of these rabbits up close and personal.
At this point, the idea pops into my head that I can record a video of me watching and photographing these rabbits - both to document this rare occurrence, and because, as a content creator, I am always thinking about what kind of new and interesting content I can create (that involves me being naked on camera).
So I go back in and grab my phone (which I use to record videos) and a tripod, come back out, set it up, and begin recording. I'm thrilled by the opportunity to get this close to these wild rabbits; I'm tickled by the notion of photographing wildlife while in the natural state of being nude; and above all, as an exhibitionist, being naked on camera triggers certain synapses in my brain. So I start to develop a semi-erection.
I'm conscious of this fact. I don't want it to happen - it's turning this innocent and beautiful naturist moment into something slightly lurid. I'm not into bestiality. I don't find anything sexual about wildlife photography. But I am naked on camera. I can avoid doing anything to encourage further arousal, but I can't stop the tumescence completely.
So, I guess it is what it is. It's not a big deal. It's not even rigid. I'm not brandishing it or playing with it. I just happen to have an enthusiastic appreciation for the sensual experience of being nude in nature. I don't want to be judged for it. And I don't want to believe that that alone, all by itself, makes me a bad nudist.
People should be judged by their behaviors, not the state of their genitals. You cannot control what causes arousal. It's common, even natural, to be turned on by nudity (even a primitive culture without clothes can have an erotic appreciation for the human body; after all, animals frequently use visual cues for mating).
Being able to appreciate the non-sexual value of nudity - which is the goal of nudism - is not exclusive of that. You can be turned on by nudity sometimes, and not other times. And even when you are turned on by nudity, you can still understand when sexual behavior is not appropriate, and restrain yourself from engaging in it. A man cannot control his erections. But that does not mean he is controlled by them.
You can hold a man accountable for his behaviors without condemning the feelings he can't control. Sexual misconduct is not caused by an involuntary physiological response, it is caused by the voluntary decisions that some people make. Don't blame sex for causing some people to act out - blame the people who act out for choosing to act out. The rest of us can handle our sexual feelings just fine. Don't condemn us for simply having them.
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
Simple Sexuality
Nudism brings a certain innocence to nudity - an innocence that is defined in stark contrast to any conception of our fundamental sexual natures. Indeed, one often gets the impression, browsing nudist communities online, that a certain subset of the nudist population would rejoice if mankind became completely asexual overnight (although, I suspect that they would soon grow bored, no longer having a preponderance of perverts and pornographers to criticize and campaign against day in and day out). But something that I enjoy is bringing a certain innocence to sexuality itself (which is not to be confused with ignorance or naïveté).
I dislike the categorization of sex as a vice - a mature discipline, like drinking and smoking and gambling and piercing and tattoos, practiced mainly by the rougher edges of society (or so the stereotype goes). Everybody has a sexuality, and sexuality in the human animal extends far beyond the narrow confines of mating and procreation. But neither is it only about going at it like dogs in a back alley with a different stranger each night.
It's about the tingling sensations of our physical bodies, and how they trigger the erotic potential of our imaginations. It's about taking sensual delight in being a product (and interconnected part) of the natural world. It's about self-pleasure in masturbation, but also in sharing these feelings (voyeuristically and exhibitionistically) with other like-minded humans, without necessarily requiring a gross exchange of bodily fluids.
It's about dancing in the spring rain with an erection, unselfconsciously, not thinking about the magnetism of relationships and the process of making babies, but just the sheer electricity of a material existence. It's about pleasure, and joy, and satisfaction, and happiness, and all the positive emotions that make life beautiful. I resent the way that our culture insists on casting a looming shadow over all these things, and coding "physical pleasure" as "potential predation" (like living in a society with a cannibal problem, where suspicions arise every time the topic of eating is brought up, and people harbor shame about their own appetites). My sexuality is an innocent sexuality, free from the corruption of a jaded society.
I dislike the categorization of sex as a vice - a mature discipline, like drinking and smoking and gambling and piercing and tattoos, practiced mainly by the rougher edges of society (or so the stereotype goes). Everybody has a sexuality, and sexuality in the human animal extends far beyond the narrow confines of mating and procreation. But neither is it only about going at it like dogs in a back alley with a different stranger each night.
It's about the tingling sensations of our physical bodies, and how they trigger the erotic potential of our imaginations. It's about taking sensual delight in being a product (and interconnected part) of the natural world. It's about self-pleasure in masturbation, but also in sharing these feelings (voyeuristically and exhibitionistically) with other like-minded humans, without necessarily requiring a gross exchange of bodily fluids.
It's about dancing in the spring rain with an erection, unselfconsciously, not thinking about the magnetism of relationships and the process of making babies, but just the sheer electricity of a material existence. It's about pleasure, and joy, and satisfaction, and happiness, and all the positive emotions that make life beautiful. I resent the way that our culture insists on casting a looming shadow over all these things, and coding "physical pleasure" as "potential predation" (like living in a society with a cannibal problem, where suspicions arise every time the topic of eating is brought up, and people harbor shame about their own appetites). My sexuality is an innocent sexuality, free from the corruption of a jaded society.
Friday, April 23, 2021
Truth in Beauty
The genesis of this blog was founded on the proposition that we should be truthful about the things that we find beautiful (in particular, from an erotic perspective). I've spent these last 10+ years exploring what I find attractive through my photography (within the limits of self-reflection), and discussing it unselfconsciously on this blog. But in my years of shooting self-portraits for adoring fans, I've come to realize that it's also important to trust in the truth of what others find beautiful. Especially when that beauty is in you.
We all have hang-ups and insecurities about our appearance. While it can be a selective profession, modeling has taught me how to view myself from another's perspective. (Having an adoring partner that you trust can also have this effect, but I find that being admired, repeatedly, by complete strangers who have nothing to gain from flattering me - except seeing more to admire - is pretty compelling evidence).
Nobody's perfect, and people can sometimes be cruel, but it's often true that we are ourselves our own harshest critics. So be kind to yourself, and when somebody tells you you're beautiful, don't contradict them. I feel like our culture makes self-confidence out to be a personality flaw, but honestly, I think self-deprecation is unattractive. If you don't believe in yourself, then why should anyone else believe in you?
"Oh beautiful, why are you so blue?
If you could only see the way I see you."
- Joe Bonamassa
We all have hang-ups and insecurities about our appearance. While it can be a selective profession, modeling has taught me how to view myself from another's perspective. (Having an adoring partner that you trust can also have this effect, but I find that being admired, repeatedly, by complete strangers who have nothing to gain from flattering me - except seeing more to admire - is pretty compelling evidence).
Nobody's perfect, and people can sometimes be cruel, but it's often true that we are ourselves our own harshest critics. So be kind to yourself, and when somebody tells you you're beautiful, don't contradict them. I feel like our culture makes self-confidence out to be a personality flaw, but honestly, I think self-deprecation is unattractive. If you don't believe in yourself, then why should anyone else believe in you?
"Oh beautiful, why are you so blue?
If you could only see the way I see you."
- Joe Bonamassa
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
Understanding Exhibitionism (in a Consent Culture)
Perhaps I am too critical of those who misunderstand exhibitionism, because I am still trying to understand it myself. Though to be fair, the least I expect is patience, and to be given the benefit of the doubt, while most people would rather just plug their ears and go on judging people by their ignorant stereotypes. I know this much: standing naked in the garage with the side door open may turn me on, but I don't actually want my elderly neighbor across the street, or the visitor she's talking to on her porch, to see me like this. I really don't. That would be as traumatizing to me as I can only presume* it would be to them.
I might have some fantasy in my head of a world where public displays of sex are accepted and everybody is attractive (because I don't know about you, but being a voyeur doesn't mean I want to see just ANYONE "getting nasty" - and maybe that's the whole point of keeping these things private?). But I know that's a fantasy and not the way the world is. And I don't want anyone to "catch" me except those who I know are looking for it (which is why I do it in online environments that are vetted for consenting viewers (although I don't believe that tasteful depictions of nudity and even sexual acts ought to be considered inappropriate for public view, that's the world we currently live in)) but also won't be likely to harass me - whether it's in the form of negative or positive attention (which is why I do it anonymously online and not with people I know and interact with regularly in person - so I don't have to be a "sex idol" 24/7).
An Aside
*I may be projecting by even considering the possibility that anyone would NOT be traumatized by the sight of their neighbor engaged in sex play**, but the fact is, if our roles were reversed in this instance, I would not mind. (I can only dream of living next to an attractive exhibitionist when I grow old - it would truly brighten my life). And so it's really not fair to eliminate the possibility, however rare it may be.
Furthermore, I know that, in consent culture, asking is preferable to making assumptions, but would you really have me initiate a conversation about sexual fetishism with my [elderly, I remind you] neighbor? Even if I weren't a social recluse (who doesn't keep a running conversation with my neighbors), that would still seem inappropriate.
Anyway, the question is moot, because even if they would be interested, I myself probably wouldn't be comfortable with that. The ideal approach would be total indifference, so I could just do my thing without interference (one way or another). Although, even that would present issues, as (ironic though it is for an exhibitionist) I become very self-conscious in situations in which I know that at any time somebody could be watching me. (I suppose it's not a coincidence that this makes staying out of sight, as well as performing on camera instead of in front of people, much more appealing to me).
**On second thought, what has this world come to that this is not at least a natural consideration? Of course it is understood that there are people who would love to see their neighbors naked, but the difference is that nowadays they are considered dangerous and not simply mischievous. But can we not separate the willingness to circumvent the law and privacy (antisocial criminal behaviors) from the appreciation of erotic stimuli? Why are voyeurs so summarily dismissed without considering the existence of exhibitionists (and vice versa)?
Back on Track
Getting back to the subject at hand, there is the fact that, psychologically, when I encounter a liminal space (such as a window or a door or a gateway) - a space where I can be in proximity to public view but still safely out of sight - even (or perhaps especially, provided I know I am not in immediate danger of being spotted) when there are people blissfully unaware on the other side...I say, occasionally (which is to say, certainly not every time), when I am in the right frame of mind and I encounter such a space, the thought or the act of being naked and/or naughty in that space can really turn me on. It's not that I WANT it to. It just does. And it feels great. And as long as nobody else gets involved - or even knows that it has happened - then is there any harm?
I don't actually want to step out and surprise anybody (I'm not saying I wouldn't necessarily enjoy the experience of performing in front of an adoring audience, but that's hardly the sort of situation one commonly encounters in everyday life). But there is a thrill in the taboo - the naughtiness of juxtaposing sexual and non-sexual life. Coming as close to that boundary as is safe without going so far as to actually get caught* (it's safer than autoerotic asphyxiation, after all).
Getting Caught
*Now, I know, there are voyeurs and exhibitionists that think getting caught is part of the appeal. And it can certainly be a thrilling experience (in a similar way that staring death in the face can be "thrilling"). I think I can understand that. In a world where the person catching you is, at worst, a little shocked and dismayed but not otherwise harmed, and at best, appreciative of the unexpected view - then yeah, that can be exciting, in a way that it wouldn't be in a world where this sort of thing were commonplace. But in a world where people complain about the trauma of being "nonconsensually exposed" to nudity and/or sex, and make anyone resposonible for that sort of thing out to be a dangerous predator**, it loses a lot of its appeal.
**I'm not gonna lie, the fact that people suffer instead of appreciate this kind of light-hearted sexual mischief disappoints and confuses me. I know there are people out there who misbehave and hurt others in the process, and that's tragic. They hurt conscientious perverts as well as the victims they target, but it's much harder for the perverts to disassociate themselves because the predators are using the same tools as they do, albeit for more nefarious purposes. But why do we give abusers the power to ruin sex for everyone? As Lola from Big Mouth so eloquently put it, "touching boobs and rubbing fronts doesn't make you feel shitty; mean jerks make you feel shitty. If there weren't any mean jerks, it would be fine."
Being Seen
For some people, there is an intrinsic appeal in being seen while engaged in sexual behavior. Certainly not everyone would agree, but this is the basis for exhibitionism. Sex is such a secret, compartmentalized aspect of our lives. To be completely open about it can be a liberating feeling. So "getting caught" is just a form of letting go and allowing oneself to be totally uninhibited. Ideally, one would be seen by somebody who enjoys the view, but as hard as it is to find such an audience in a sexually-repressed culture* (the internet helps, but it's more visceral when it happens in person), one often has little recourse other than the occasional, not-so-unintentioned "oops" moment.
If this sort of exhibitionist mentality (i.e., "if people occasionally get caught having sex, it's no big deal") encroaches on the decorum of polite society, that's not an indictment of the exhibitionist impulse, or proof that exhibitionism is motivated by sinister intentions (e.g., "exhibitionists get off on disgusting other people"). It just means that we're neglecting exhibitionists, in the sense of not giving them sufficient opportunities to satisfy themselves in ways that don't disrupt society. It's not that society owes it to them, but it's in their interest to collaborate, rather than antagonize.
Besides, exhibitionists would be perfectly capable of applying their own imagination to the problem - it's not that we have to come up with a solution for them. We just have to give them the freedom to think of one, and the space to implement it - without cornering them and judging them, and burdening them with the shame of their feelings. Imagine what kind of a safe and consensual outlet virtual reality could provide to exhibitionists, yet we waste our energy condemning the application of entertainment technologies to addressing the human animal's natural and healthy sexual urges. A person that visits a "sex club" (or even just watches porn at home) should be considered a responsible citizen attending to his physiological needs, and not a filthy deviant. Sexual indulgence (within healthy limits) shouldn't be considered a "vice" alongside things like gambling, drug abuse, and violence.
*Do we live in a sexually-repressed culture? I think this is a hard question to answer, because in many ways we do, while in other ways we don't. It all depends on what segment of society you're canvassing, and what types of behaviors you're talking about. Pornography is a huge industry, yet sex work is still criminalized. Erotic stimuli pervades society (critics deem this "pornification"), yet innocent nudity is deemed inappropriate for public view. Casual sex and hetero-non-normative couplings are more tolerated than ever, yet we still cling to the medically-dubious diagnosis of "sex addiction". Consent culture promises to reduce the negative experiences that hinder many people's ability to achieve sexual satisfaction, and yet #metoo is training a whole generation to mistrust the value of their sexual feelings.
Conclusion
I'm not asking for permission to have sex in public. I suspect that wouldn't work out as well in reality as it might seem in fantasy. I'm just asking for exhibitionism to receive the respect of not being assumed to be an inherently predatory ("nonconsensual") class of desire - which places it in the category of unsupported kinks and fetishes even among otherwise sexually liberated and tolerant communities. I'm all for constructing a concept of "ethical exhibitionism". I just don't want to feel like an outcast even among sex-positive progressives, because nature dialed up for me desires from one bin instead of another. It reminds me a lot of the arbitrariness of determining that some people must wear skirts and others must wear pants, just because of the anatomy they were born with (and didn't get to choose).
I don't judge people for what turns them on, I judge them only for what they do with those feelings. But when we push marginalized communities into the corner, and withhold support for them in lieu of shame and judgment, that's on us, too. We're afraid of encouraging "deviant" desires, but the fact is, people will have those feelings whether they're encouraged to or not. The best thing we can do is keep an open dialogue about how one can manage those feelings in healthy ways, so they don't begin to manifest in unhealthy ways. People need to feel that society is on their side (which is not the same thing as giving them carte blanche), otherwise they will grow resentful and become more likely to turn to antisocial outlets.
I might have some fantasy in my head of a world where public displays of sex are accepted and everybody is attractive (because I don't know about you, but being a voyeur doesn't mean I want to see just ANYONE "getting nasty" - and maybe that's the whole point of keeping these things private?). But I know that's a fantasy and not the way the world is. And I don't want anyone to "catch" me except those who I know are looking for it (which is why I do it in online environments that are vetted for consenting viewers (although I don't believe that tasteful depictions of nudity and even sexual acts ought to be considered inappropriate for public view, that's the world we currently live in)) but also won't be likely to harass me - whether it's in the form of negative or positive attention (which is why I do it anonymously online and not with people I know and interact with regularly in person - so I don't have to be a "sex idol" 24/7).
An Aside
*I may be projecting by even considering the possibility that anyone would NOT be traumatized by the sight of their neighbor engaged in sex play**, but the fact is, if our roles were reversed in this instance, I would not mind. (I can only dream of living next to an attractive exhibitionist when I grow old - it would truly brighten my life). And so it's really not fair to eliminate the possibility, however rare it may be.
Furthermore, I know that, in consent culture, asking is preferable to making assumptions, but would you really have me initiate a conversation about sexual fetishism with my [elderly, I remind you] neighbor? Even if I weren't a social recluse (who doesn't keep a running conversation with my neighbors), that would still seem inappropriate.
Anyway, the question is moot, because even if they would be interested, I myself probably wouldn't be comfortable with that. The ideal approach would be total indifference, so I could just do my thing without interference (one way or another). Although, even that would present issues, as (ironic though it is for an exhibitionist) I become very self-conscious in situations in which I know that at any time somebody could be watching me. (I suppose it's not a coincidence that this makes staying out of sight, as well as performing on camera instead of in front of people, much more appealing to me).
**On second thought, what has this world come to that this is not at least a natural consideration? Of course it is understood that there are people who would love to see their neighbors naked, but the difference is that nowadays they are considered dangerous and not simply mischievous. But can we not separate the willingness to circumvent the law and privacy (antisocial criminal behaviors) from the appreciation of erotic stimuli? Why are voyeurs so summarily dismissed without considering the existence of exhibitionists (and vice versa)?
Back on Track
Getting back to the subject at hand, there is the fact that, psychologically, when I encounter a liminal space (such as a window or a door or a gateway) - a space where I can be in proximity to public view but still safely out of sight - even (or perhaps especially, provided I know I am not in immediate danger of being spotted) when there are people blissfully unaware on the other side...I say, occasionally (which is to say, certainly not every time), when I am in the right frame of mind and I encounter such a space, the thought or the act of being naked and/or naughty in that space can really turn me on. It's not that I WANT it to. It just does. And it feels great. And as long as nobody else gets involved - or even knows that it has happened - then is there any harm?
I don't actually want to step out and surprise anybody (I'm not saying I wouldn't necessarily enjoy the experience of performing in front of an adoring audience, but that's hardly the sort of situation one commonly encounters in everyday life). But there is a thrill in the taboo - the naughtiness of juxtaposing sexual and non-sexual life. Coming as close to that boundary as is safe without going so far as to actually get caught* (it's safer than autoerotic asphyxiation, after all).
Getting Caught
*Now, I know, there are voyeurs and exhibitionists that think getting caught is part of the appeal. And it can certainly be a thrilling experience (in a similar way that staring death in the face can be "thrilling"). I think I can understand that. In a world where the person catching you is, at worst, a little shocked and dismayed but not otherwise harmed, and at best, appreciative of the unexpected view - then yeah, that can be exciting, in a way that it wouldn't be in a world where this sort of thing were commonplace. But in a world where people complain about the trauma of being "nonconsensually exposed" to nudity and/or sex, and make anyone resposonible for that sort of thing out to be a dangerous predator**, it loses a lot of its appeal.
**I'm not gonna lie, the fact that people suffer instead of appreciate this kind of light-hearted sexual mischief disappoints and confuses me. I know there are people out there who misbehave and hurt others in the process, and that's tragic. They hurt conscientious perverts as well as the victims they target, but it's much harder for the perverts to disassociate themselves because the predators are using the same tools as they do, albeit for more nefarious purposes. But why do we give abusers the power to ruin sex for everyone? As Lola from Big Mouth so eloquently put it, "touching boobs and rubbing fronts doesn't make you feel shitty; mean jerks make you feel shitty. If there weren't any mean jerks, it would be fine."
Being Seen
For some people, there is an intrinsic appeal in being seen while engaged in sexual behavior. Certainly not everyone would agree, but this is the basis for exhibitionism. Sex is such a secret, compartmentalized aspect of our lives. To be completely open about it can be a liberating feeling. So "getting caught" is just a form of letting go and allowing oneself to be totally uninhibited. Ideally, one would be seen by somebody who enjoys the view, but as hard as it is to find such an audience in a sexually-repressed culture* (the internet helps, but it's more visceral when it happens in person), one often has little recourse other than the occasional, not-so-unintentioned "oops" moment.
If this sort of exhibitionist mentality (i.e., "if people occasionally get caught having sex, it's no big deal") encroaches on the decorum of polite society, that's not an indictment of the exhibitionist impulse, or proof that exhibitionism is motivated by sinister intentions (e.g., "exhibitionists get off on disgusting other people"). It just means that we're neglecting exhibitionists, in the sense of not giving them sufficient opportunities to satisfy themselves in ways that don't disrupt society. It's not that society owes it to them, but it's in their interest to collaborate, rather than antagonize.
Besides, exhibitionists would be perfectly capable of applying their own imagination to the problem - it's not that we have to come up with a solution for them. We just have to give them the freedom to think of one, and the space to implement it - without cornering them and judging them, and burdening them with the shame of their feelings. Imagine what kind of a safe and consensual outlet virtual reality could provide to exhibitionists, yet we waste our energy condemning the application of entertainment technologies to addressing the human animal's natural and healthy sexual urges. A person that visits a "sex club" (or even just watches porn at home) should be considered a responsible citizen attending to his physiological needs, and not a filthy deviant. Sexual indulgence (within healthy limits) shouldn't be considered a "vice" alongside things like gambling, drug abuse, and violence.
*Do we live in a sexually-repressed culture? I think this is a hard question to answer, because in many ways we do, while in other ways we don't. It all depends on what segment of society you're canvassing, and what types of behaviors you're talking about. Pornography is a huge industry, yet sex work is still criminalized. Erotic stimuli pervades society (critics deem this "pornification"), yet innocent nudity is deemed inappropriate for public view. Casual sex and hetero-non-normative couplings are more tolerated than ever, yet we still cling to the medically-dubious diagnosis of "sex addiction". Consent culture promises to reduce the negative experiences that hinder many people's ability to achieve sexual satisfaction, and yet #metoo is training a whole generation to mistrust the value of their sexual feelings.
Conclusion
I'm not asking for permission to have sex in public. I suspect that wouldn't work out as well in reality as it might seem in fantasy. I'm just asking for exhibitionism to receive the respect of not being assumed to be an inherently predatory ("nonconsensual") class of desire - which places it in the category of unsupported kinks and fetishes even among otherwise sexually liberated and tolerant communities. I'm all for constructing a concept of "ethical exhibitionism". I just don't want to feel like an outcast even among sex-positive progressives, because nature dialed up for me desires from one bin instead of another. It reminds me a lot of the arbitrariness of determining that some people must wear skirts and others must wear pants, just because of the anatomy they were born with (and didn't get to choose).
I don't judge people for what turns them on, I judge them only for what they do with those feelings. But when we push marginalized communities into the corner, and withhold support for them in lieu of shame and judgment, that's on us, too. We're afraid of encouraging "deviant" desires, but the fact is, people will have those feelings whether they're encouraged to or not. The best thing we can do is keep an open dialogue about how one can manage those feelings in healthy ways, so they don't begin to manifest in unhealthy ways. People need to feel that society is on their side (which is not the same thing as giving them carte blanche), otherwise they will grow resentful and become more likely to turn to antisocial outlets.
Saturday, April 17, 2021
Best of Both Worlds
This is the issue I have with nudism: I know that sex and nudity are two separate things. But performing naked on camera turns me on. Perhaps that makes me a bad model for nudism (despite the fact that I'm photogenic, I have skills and experience as a photographer, I'm willing to be photographed naked, I believe in nudism, and I'm passionate enough to spend time and effort advocating for it - but none of that matters if you bear the scarlet letter "P" for "Pervert"). But what's wrong with that, really? (Besides the fact that it makes it hard for me to focus on the song I'm playing :-p). It's a beautiful affirmation of life, after all. A penis pointing toward heaven should be a divine symbol, really. What have generations of boorish men done to besmirch this holy appendage, and why do I have to pay for their sins?
Sunday, March 21, 2021
Are OnlyFans Models Being Deprived of Fresh Air?
OnlyFans Bans Public Sex
It's sad that sex workers (and erotic content creators in particular) have to live like beaten dogs, humbly accepting every petty restriction placed on them by society and the platforms through which they try against the odds to earn a living. But that's the way things are. So when OnlyFans decides (I was going to say "announces", but they haven't announced anything, it sounds like they've just secretly amended the rules and started punishing the new rulebreakers without warning) to ban "public sex" my reaction is, "well, that makes sense". Public sex is, technically, illegal, and these sites usually forbid illegal content (or they wouldn't be around for long), not out of any sort of moral judgment, but just to cover their asses.
(A separate question, though, is why banks get to determine society's decorum. I mean, it's because money is power, but who's got the money, and do they really deserve it, based on how they're wielding that power? If money is power, and power corrupts, then is it inevitable that a society can only ever be run via corruption? Or is this just more evidence that socialism is superior to capitalism?).
But the part that really concerns me is the fear, enhanced by some reports I've been reading, that OnlyFans is starting to outlaw any and all erotic media shot outdoors - because that's easier than determining what's public and what's private (like how it's easier to ban the sight of genitalia than to determine whether somebody is doing something with it that ought to be considered "indecent"). So, the language of the rule itself is difficult to criticize - banning anything that "was recorded in or is being broadcast from a public place where members of the public are reasonably likely to see the activities being illustrated." But how it's enforced is of more concern. Will I no longer be able to shoot erotic material in my own backyard, because there's a chance that my neighbors could see me? What about a remote hiking trail - who can say how remote it really is, how many regular hikers that trail gets, and what potential cityscape view could be seen if the camera were to be rotated 180 degrees?
Once again, sex workers are being marginalized and pushed into the corners, swept under the rug, and locked up inside our own homes where there's no chance that we'll "bother" anybody. How long will it be before I can no longer even stand naked in front of a window, because we live in a society that's terrified of its own fundamentally sexual nature? I guess I'll find out soon enough, since I shoot a lot of outdoor content, and I'm not about to stop without a direct confirmation that it's not allowed (because it's an artist's duty to push the boundaries and not succumb to a chilling effect which is essentially a muzzle on free speech).
It's sad that sex workers (and erotic content creators in particular) have to live like beaten dogs, humbly accepting every petty restriction placed on them by society and the platforms through which they try against the odds to earn a living. But that's the way things are. So when OnlyFans decides (I was going to say "announces", but they haven't announced anything, it sounds like they've just secretly amended the rules and started punishing the new rulebreakers without warning) to ban "public sex" my reaction is, "well, that makes sense". Public sex is, technically, illegal, and these sites usually forbid illegal content (or they wouldn't be around for long), not out of any sort of moral judgment, but just to cover their asses.
(A separate question, though, is why banks get to determine society's decorum. I mean, it's because money is power, but who's got the money, and do they really deserve it, based on how they're wielding that power? If money is power, and power corrupts, then is it inevitable that a society can only ever be run via corruption? Or is this just more evidence that socialism is superior to capitalism?).
But the part that really concerns me is the fear, enhanced by some reports I've been reading, that OnlyFans is starting to outlaw any and all erotic media shot outdoors - because that's easier than determining what's public and what's private (like how it's easier to ban the sight of genitalia than to determine whether somebody is doing something with it that ought to be considered "indecent"). So, the language of the rule itself is difficult to criticize - banning anything that "was recorded in or is being broadcast from a public place where members of the public are reasonably likely to see the activities being illustrated." But how it's enforced is of more concern. Will I no longer be able to shoot erotic material in my own backyard, because there's a chance that my neighbors could see me? What about a remote hiking trail - who can say how remote it really is, how many regular hikers that trail gets, and what potential cityscape view could be seen if the camera were to be rotated 180 degrees?
Once again, sex workers are being marginalized and pushed into the corners, swept under the rug, and locked up inside our own homes where there's no chance that we'll "bother" anybody. How long will it be before I can no longer even stand naked in front of a window, because we live in a society that's terrified of its own fundamentally sexual nature? I guess I'll find out soon enough, since I shoot a lot of outdoor content, and I'm not about to stop without a direct confirmation that it's not allowed (because it's an artist's duty to push the boundaries and not succumb to a chilling effect which is essentially a muzzle on free speech).
Friday, March 12, 2021
Subject vs. Artist
I sometimes wonder whether I'm a better photographer or a better model. As an artist, I strive to be good at both. It was photography - and not modeling - that got me started. I discovered I was an exhibitionist along the way, but the reason I started taking pictures was because I had an appreciation not for being naked on camera, but for seeing others naked on camera. I had envisioned shooting other models, but I've never had the people skills to make that happen. So instead of just practice, self-portraiture eventually became my everything.
When people appreciate my work, I sense that they view me centrally as an attractive model. But I view the value of what I do a little more broadly than that. I AM an attractive model, and no doubt that's important. But there are a lot of attractive people who don't share themselves with the world like I do. But it's not just willingness, it's the interest and the appreciation that all mixes together to create the intention and the opportunity where I recognize that erotic nude art is valuable and desirable, I have practiced it for years to improve my craft, and I am here to spend time and effort to create it and share it with others.
It's good that I am attractive, and I never would have gotten anywhere if I hadn't had the opportunity to be a successful self-portrait artist, but I feel like my fans are totally caught up in their attraction to me specifically, that all they must think about coming from me in the future is more sexy pictures of me, because I've rarely heard anyone make any comment to the effect of, "boy, I would love to see you apply your camera to other models".
And it's not like I get a lot of attention (that I am aware of) from people who see my art, and may not specifically be attracted to me, but see the value in what I'm doing and what it could do for other models. I've always wanted to create art that doesn't eschew but transcends the erotic value of "a sexy picture", so that it is still sexy but also artistic beyond that in a way that a person can recognize without being specifically attracted to the model featured.
I don't want to disparage in any way the fans that have carried me along, without which I wouldn't be where I am today, joining me with enthusiasm in an activity that I genuinely love. I just want to be more than someone people follow because they think I'm hot (or even that I'm hot and a good artist, but only follow to the extent that they get to continue to view good art that showcases my hotness). I'd like to believe that in my 10+ years of doing this, I am something more than your average 18 year old hottie casually sexting selfies online (who are, nevertheless, a lot more popular than I am).
If I had the opportunity to shoot another model (not just a fellow pervert who thinks having me take pictures of them naked sounds thrilling), I don't know if I could even do it, but that's not the point. I want people to recognize the value of my skills as they could be applied to other models besides myself. Imagine the kinds of pictures I could take of that 18 year old hottie! (But I guess there's no shortage of people willing to fill that role; that's why so much porn is trash). With the combination of my artistic eye and perverted mind, unhindered by the many limitations of self-portrait photography. I don't want to be the only person that imagines these things.
For I am not just the subject of my photography, I am also its author. When you see a picture of me, you see me primarily as the model - the attractive figure central to the work. What you can't usually see, and is easy to acknowledge but harder to keep at the forefront of your mind, is that I am also the architect of that image. The image exists not just because my body looks good, but because my mind conceived of that image, determined that its existence would have value, and put forth both the physical and mental effort to create it from pure imagination. Given the opportunity (and a willing subject), I could do that with any body that looks good - not just my own.
When people appreciate my work, I sense that they view me centrally as an attractive model. But I view the value of what I do a little more broadly than that. I AM an attractive model, and no doubt that's important. But there are a lot of attractive people who don't share themselves with the world like I do. But it's not just willingness, it's the interest and the appreciation that all mixes together to create the intention and the opportunity where I recognize that erotic nude art is valuable and desirable, I have practiced it for years to improve my craft, and I am here to spend time and effort to create it and share it with others.
It's good that I am attractive, and I never would have gotten anywhere if I hadn't had the opportunity to be a successful self-portrait artist, but I feel like my fans are totally caught up in their attraction to me specifically, that all they must think about coming from me in the future is more sexy pictures of me, because I've rarely heard anyone make any comment to the effect of, "boy, I would love to see you apply your camera to other models".
And it's not like I get a lot of attention (that I am aware of) from people who see my art, and may not specifically be attracted to me, but see the value in what I'm doing and what it could do for other models. I've always wanted to create art that doesn't eschew but transcends the erotic value of "a sexy picture", so that it is still sexy but also artistic beyond that in a way that a person can recognize without being specifically attracted to the model featured.
I don't want to disparage in any way the fans that have carried me along, without which I wouldn't be where I am today, joining me with enthusiasm in an activity that I genuinely love. I just want to be more than someone people follow because they think I'm hot (or even that I'm hot and a good artist, but only follow to the extent that they get to continue to view good art that showcases my hotness). I'd like to believe that in my 10+ years of doing this, I am something more than your average 18 year old hottie casually sexting selfies online (who are, nevertheless, a lot more popular than I am).
If I had the opportunity to shoot another model (not just a fellow pervert who thinks having me take pictures of them naked sounds thrilling), I don't know if I could even do it, but that's not the point. I want people to recognize the value of my skills as they could be applied to other models besides myself. Imagine the kinds of pictures I could take of that 18 year old hottie! (But I guess there's no shortage of people willing to fill that role; that's why so much porn is trash). With the combination of my artistic eye and perverted mind, unhindered by the many limitations of self-portrait photography. I don't want to be the only person that imagines these things.
For I am not just the subject of my photography, I am also its author. When you see a picture of me, you see me primarily as the model - the attractive figure central to the work. What you can't usually see, and is easy to acknowledge but harder to keep at the forefront of your mind, is that I am also the architect of that image. The image exists not just because my body looks good, but because my mind conceived of that image, determined that its existence would have value, and put forth both the physical and mental effort to create it from pure imagination. Given the opportunity (and a willing subject), I could do that with any body that looks good - not just my own.
Monday, March 1, 2021
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 6)
Each time I post one of these I wonder, how long will this series go on? And, inevitably, I end up with more Tweets to share before too long. But this time, I'm taking a break from the toxic drama of social media, in order to focus instead on sharing naked, sexy, girly art with my fans on OnlyFans. I have a strong desire to defend myself and what I do in the court of public opinion, but sometimes it's easier to just do it and not worry about making an argument for it. Because you can construct arguments in support of erotic imagery all day long (and I have), but, as I have stated in the past, the best defense against the influence of prudishness is simply to flood the internet with more sexy pics and videos. Spread it faster than they can censor it. -_^
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?
Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.
I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.
The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.
I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.
Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.
I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.
Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.
Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.
P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.
I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.
Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.
Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.
I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".
Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.
I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.
I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.
More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?
It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.
Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.
I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.
I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.
Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?
A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.
Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.
Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?
Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.
People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.
You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.
There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.
Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.
Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".
A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.
So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.
Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.
People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.
I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.
Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.
What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?
I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.
Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.
We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.
Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.
(Volume 7)
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?
Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.
I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.
The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.
I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.
Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.
I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.
Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.
Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.
P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.
I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.
Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.
Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.
I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".
Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.
I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.
I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.
More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?
It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.
Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.
I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.
I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.
Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?
A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.
Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.
Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?
Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.
People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.
You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.
There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.
Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.
Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".
A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.
So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.
Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.
People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.
I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.
Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.
What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?
I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.
Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.
We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.
Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.
(Volume 7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)