I talk a lot about nudism and exhibitionism, but what about voyeurism? After all, voyeurism is just the flip side of exhibitionism. I've said before that nudism and voyeurism have a naturally symbiotic relationship - pairing people who like to be naked with people who like to see people naked. But that pisses a lot of nudists off (not entirely unjustly, to be fair), because looking misses the point of nudism, and being looked at can easily make people uncomfortable. The relationship often becomes parasitic, when in my view, it should be commensalistic - which means that one party benefits while the other is neither helped nor harmed. Although the relationship could easily become mutualistic by offering a financial incentive to enterprising nudists.
I recognize that our culture has an issue with over-sexualizing nudity. People shouldn't assume that an instance of nudity has a sexual context, and nude recreation shouldn't be treated as a sex act. But you can accept that fact, and still acknowledge that human beings (especially in a textile society) have a sexual curiosity about the human body. I argue that it's possible to recognize that nudism is non-sexual, but still take advantage of the erotic potential of seeing naked human bodies - especially in action, or in novel situations, or engaged in visually interesting activities (such as athletics).
This is most practical where a degree of separation distances the erotic appreciation from the nudist activity, to avoid giving that nudist activity a sexual context as it is occurring. The best way to create this separation is through video or photographic recording - which nudists are unfortunately allergic to. Speaking purely hypothetically, I could imagine a nudist resort rigged with a live web feed (visitors would of course be informed, and provide consent before being recorded), in a kind of nude version of a Big Brother-type reality show. This strategy raises two potential issues, however.
One is whether the nudist "models" understand the purpose (or potential) of their being recorded. If they don't, this raises ethical concerns. But if they do, then that colors the activity by consciously giving it a sexual context. It is no longer truly nudism. Naturally, it is best to do everything above board, but then we'd be entering the territory of pornography. An argument could be made that where pornography is available, giving non-sexual nudity a sexual context is unnecessary. All I can offer is my own gymnophilic perspective, from which I can find erotic excitement in nudity distinct from its involvement in sexual activity. I think there is value in this kind of "eroticization" of nudity separate from explicit porn. You may disagree, but if as an artist this is a subject I desire to explore with likeminded individuals, then I should have the freedom to do so.
The other issue, which is a possibility (or even likelihood) regardless of the intent of the producers and knowledge of the participants, is that this material will be [mis-]interpreted by third parties as evidence that there IS an unspoken sexual context to nudism. This is collateral damage that I would prefer to avoid, but at the end of the day, you can't be responsible for the misinterpretations of others; all you can do is perform your due diligence in correcting these misinterpretations. I make a conscious effort never to label anything as nudism that is not, and to always clearly define what nudism is. The fact that I depict things other than nudism (some of which involve nudity) shouldn't impact my ability to continue depicting nudism. But this is where I think a lot of "low-hanging fruit" providers of "nudist" material re-marketed as porn fail miserably at respecting the lifestyle they're shamelessly exploiting.
However, the fact that a lot of people do a bad job of this isn't an argument against those who do a good job of it. And while you're not likely to be convinced of this if you're not part of the small minority who enjoys this kind of "erotic non-sexual nudity", the value of presenting it - handled properly by someone with respect for nudism - is worth the risk of misinterpretation that may arise. At least so long as we live in a free country and possess the unalienable right to pursue happiness. All of this is to say that even though the erotic appreciation of nudist media may stand on shaky ground, I am not bothered if people derive erotic enjoyment from the nudist media I produce, so long as they display an adequate understanding of the line between nudism and their sexual fantasies (something about which I have no qualms correcting people - if in a friendly and non-judgmental manner).
As for when other people share images that are not intended, but end up being intrepreted, in a sexual way, I will say the following. I respect the desire to maintain an environment of polite decorum, e.g., in comments, as well as the wishes of the owner in terms of resharing that image in different environments (within the bounds of fair use). That's policing people's behaviors, which is reasonable. But sometimes I see people criticizing others for finding an image sexually appealing in the first place, as if they aren't entitled to their own interpretation. This is attempting to punish people for thoughts and feelings that maybe ought to have been kept private, but that - unlike behavior - a person is not able to prevent oneself from having.
This goes beyond guarding a set of community standards (e.g., preventing unexpected and unsolicited sexual comments), and extends to shaming people - for the crime of experiencing sexual desire. I see this a lot (too much, really) when we talk about inappropriate sexual behaviors. Instead of highlighting the importance of context - when and where and how (or if) it is appropriate to express one's sexual feelings - there is an enormous pressure to make people feel bad for even having those sexual feelings in the first place. That's sex-negative. And it's unethical. Not to mention against the founding principle of this blog. It's like substituting abstinence for proper sex education. Getting turned on isn't a crime. It's what you do next that counts.
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Do All Nudists Think The Same?
Intro: This post is a response to the Spectrum series asking the question "do all [people of a certain group] think the same?" In this case, the group is nudists, and you can watch the video here. Below are my own personal responses to the prompts in the video, because you can hardly determine whether all nudists think the same by asking only six of them.
Statement: "I have gotten aroused while being nude"
Response: Strongly Agree
I'm going to make a favorable assumption and guess that there's a lot of context missing from this prompt, because it's perfectly normal and completely common for a person to get aroused while being nude. Not necessarily by the fact of being nude (e.g., you're naked and rolling around with your lover) - although that's normal, too. Sometimes, the very act of stripping off one's clothes can be arousing, in those few moments before one becomes accustomed to the nudity.
I think the aim of this prompt, however, is directed more towards the nudist claim that their enjoyment of nudity is nonsexual. And to that, I will say, while that's true, we're sexual organisms, and even if the intent of the nudity isn't sexual, sometimes arousal occurs regardless. And to answer the question, yes, it has most certainly happened to me - including in social nudist settings (although it's not as frequent an occurrence as some would think). I do what any polite nudist does, and refrain from encouraging it or drawing attention to myself until the arousal subsides. No harm, no foul.
Statement: "The human body is overly sexualized"
Response: Somewhat Agree
This is a tricky one for me. This statement is nudist dogma, but it's also one that I like to give a little pushback on. Is the human body sexualized to a degree in excess of what it ought to be? I think the answer to that question is yes. People look at nudity and they automatically assume a sexual context, when that's not always the case. And so the human body is constantly judged by sexual standards, which isn't fair.
On the other hand, we're sexual organisms, and there's nothing wrong with finding the human body sexually appealing. The extent to which nudists harp on the problem of "sexualization" sometimes overshoots its mark, and it can start to sound like nudists are shaming people for finding the human body sexually appealing. If they would be more careful to use the term over-sexualization, instead of just "sexualization" (or "de-sexualization", which sounds like a total sterilization of erotic potential), maybe this wouldn't be an issue for me.
Hot Take: "I sit with my bare butt on the couch"
Response: Somewhat Agree
I agree with the nudist in the video that asks for more clarification. Nudist etiquette recommends sitting on towels for hygienic purposes, and this is the rule I follow in social nudist settings. But the place I spend the most time nude is in my own home, and I'm not carrying a towel with me constantly through the house. I do use couch and chair covers that get washed periodically, but I also adhere to a high personal standard of hygiene, and avoid sitting on communal surfaces when I'm dirty - e.g., after walking on the treadmill or doing yard work, and before I've taken a shower. So, there's an element of discretion to be applied, and I think people deserve a higher level of privilege in their own homes. But, generally speaking, some kind of cover is usually involved.
Hot Take: "Nudists crave attention"
Response: Somewhat Disagree
I am going to interpret this statement in the sense of the criticism that nudists are engaging in a form of exhibitionism (a subject I am particularly qualified to address). Despite actually being an exhibitionist myself (not instead, but in addition to being a nudist), my response is qualified disagreement because I think that intentions vary depending on who you ask, but most nudists are NOT naked for the attention, and even the extent to which some nudists may seek or enjoy that attention, that's not the part of the activity that makes it nudism.
Even as an exhibitionist who does enjoy that kind of attention (when I'm seeking it) - and that includes some times when I'm in social nudist settings (and this is another example where I applaud the program's word choice, as "craving attention" hints at a form of exhibitionism without requiring a sexual interpretation) - there are still absolutely times when I just want to chillax in the nude and not be bothered by people who think nudity is automatically an invitation to an exhibition.
Hot Take: "Nudists do a lot of psychedelics"
Response: Disagree
Okay, this statement seems to be coming out of left field. I'm not going to speak for all nudists, as there absolutely may be some who are into psychedelics (I have known some nudists that wouldn't be out of place in San Francisco during the Summer of Love), but I hardly think that's something that's characteristic of nudists on the whole. Nor is it something that I'm personally interested in.
One of the nudists in the video makes an interesting point about hanging out with the artist crowd, and that adds another dimension to this prompt. I could see that being even more prevalent in that demographic, but I've also noticed a kind of antagonism between established nudists and artists who are comfortable with nudity (another group I consider myself a member of), because the artists are a little bit less inhibited than the nudists about the human body's connection to sexuality.
Statement: "Being naked in public should be legal"
Response: Agree
This is a somewhat controversial if popular tenet of the nudist platform. Certainly, not every nudist believes it, but one does get the impression that it's par for the course. As the one nudist in the video does, you can make an argument about respecting other people's sensitivity towards nudity, but I think that ultimately the arguments the other nudists make trump that consideration. And it's not simply a matter of disregarding the feelings of others, as critics like to frame it. If you live in a free society, you must expect to be challenged, rather than comforted, by what you encounter in the public square. That is not an excuse for behaviors like violence and harassment, but a person wearing their skin is not hurting anybody.
We don't make laws about what kind of clothing people can wear, or how they must groom their bodies. I think board shorts and body hair are unappealing, but my taste has no jurisdiction over another person's freedom to dictate their appearance. That extends to simple nudity. I'm not against making certain exceptions - like dress codes in business establishments. It's not illegal to be barefoot and shirtless (if you're a guy) in public, yet shirts and shoes are required in most stores and restaurants. Nudity isn't practical everywhere. But a blanket prohibition on the unclothed human form is neither just nor healthy. I won't support it.
Statement: "It is appropriate to be nude among children and minors"
Response: Agree
I'm agreeing because the popular sentiment (outside of the nudist community) goes in the opposite direction and that really does a disservice to what nudity is and what nudism stands for. But I'm qualifying that agreement with a consideration to context. In principle, children are not harmed by exposure to nudity; in fact, it is healthy. It's mostly the parents that get upset, but their neuroticism is unfortunately transferred, in time, to their children.
That said, the illusion that nudity harms children, especially in a society that over-sexualizes nudity, often makes it dangerous - for both children and nudists - for that exposure to occur naturally, outside of nudist contexts. Within the right context, it is a complete and utter non-issue.
I don't have any qualms about participating in things like the World Naked Bike Ride in which unsuspecting bystanders - potentially including children - may be exposed to nudity. The offended may simply look away; no real harm is done. But in other contexts, one must exercise caution. Because "appropriate" behavior is a matter of agreed-upon etiquette, and if somebody else believes it's inappropriate, they can make a lot of trouble for you, regardless of your intentions.
Statement: "I'm comfortable with anybody seeing me nude"
Response: Somewhat Agree
This is another tricky statement, because there are layers to the issue. I've been nude in front of friends and family. I've been nude in front of complete strangers. As an artist and model, I've appeared nude before countless people across the world through the internet. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. But I also care about other people's feelings (which is - offensively, and infuriatingly - something people assume not to be the case where exhibitionists are concerned). Which is why I do get uncomfortable when I'm afraid that I might be seen nude by somebody who I think may have a negative reaction to it. It's not because I'm not comfortable in my own skin. It's because I'm not comfortable making other people uncomfortable. If I cover up, it's to preserve their feelings, not my own. But, as I like to say, if you're fine with it, then I'm fine with it.
Statement: "In the past, I have been afraid to show my body"
Response: Strongly Agree
Now we're getting personal. I think there is some truth to the claim that nudism is a cure for body image disorders. I wouldn't assume that every nudist came into the lifestyle lacking in confidence, but it does seem to be very common for people to have issues with their body image in our society. In my case, that was true. When I say that I am attractive, that is not something I always believed - it's something that I had to be convinced of. When I was younger, I was very self-conscious - of myself and others. I remember not liking to wear sandals in public, and giving my brother grief for showing up to the dinner table without a shirt on.
I feel ashamed looking back on it, because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. But it's a testament to the human capacity for growth. I've grown a lot. Partially due to the accepting nature of the nudist community, but also from the positive attention I received as a nude artist. These days, I'm completely confident in my skin. Even when I'm not engaged in nude recreation, I frequently wear clothing that reveals a lot. You wouldn't think it to look at me now, but there was a time in my life when I was afraid to draw attention to my body.
Statement: "I am not bothered by what other people think of my body"
Response: Somewhat Disagree
Is anybody that confident? It's like saying you don't care about what others think. Inside, I am fiercely independent. I'm going to be me, and nobody else's opinion is going to change that. At the same time, of course I care about what other people think. Sometimes the passing comments of internet strangers affects me emotionally on a level that I worry is unhealthy. And let's get real: I'm a model. I thrive on people telling me I look good. But I also look good, so I have to worry less about people making unkind comments. Yet it still happens. I challenge people's expectations of gender, and sometimes that discomfort causes them to lash out. I'd be lying if I said it didn't hurt me.
But at the end of the day, it's not going to change the way I feel about myself. If they can't see the beauty in my body, it's their loss, not mine. But I also have the privilege of having enough people telling me that I'm beautiful to give me that confidence. I wouldn't have that otherwise; I didn't have it until I went out on a limb and started modeling. All that said, I feel comforted by the knowledge that I can always fall back on the nudist community's unconditional (at least in theory) acceptance of people for who they are and not what they look like.
Statement: "I have gotten aroused while being nude"
Response: Strongly Agree
I'm going to make a favorable assumption and guess that there's a lot of context missing from this prompt, because it's perfectly normal and completely common for a person to get aroused while being nude. Not necessarily by the fact of being nude (e.g., you're naked and rolling around with your lover) - although that's normal, too. Sometimes, the very act of stripping off one's clothes can be arousing, in those few moments before one becomes accustomed to the nudity.
I think the aim of this prompt, however, is directed more towards the nudist claim that their enjoyment of nudity is nonsexual. And to that, I will say, while that's true, we're sexual organisms, and even if the intent of the nudity isn't sexual, sometimes arousal occurs regardless. And to answer the question, yes, it has most certainly happened to me - including in social nudist settings (although it's not as frequent an occurrence as some would think). I do what any polite nudist does, and refrain from encouraging it or drawing attention to myself until the arousal subsides. No harm, no foul.
Statement: "The human body is overly sexualized"
Response: Somewhat Agree
This is a tricky one for me. This statement is nudist dogma, but it's also one that I like to give a little pushback on. Is the human body sexualized to a degree in excess of what it ought to be? I think the answer to that question is yes. People look at nudity and they automatically assume a sexual context, when that's not always the case. And so the human body is constantly judged by sexual standards, which isn't fair.
On the other hand, we're sexual organisms, and there's nothing wrong with finding the human body sexually appealing. The extent to which nudists harp on the problem of "sexualization" sometimes overshoots its mark, and it can start to sound like nudists are shaming people for finding the human body sexually appealing. If they would be more careful to use the term over-sexualization, instead of just "sexualization" (or "de-sexualization", which sounds like a total sterilization of erotic potential), maybe this wouldn't be an issue for me.
Hot Take: "I sit with my bare butt on the couch"
Response: Somewhat Agree
I agree with the nudist in the video that asks for more clarification. Nudist etiquette recommends sitting on towels for hygienic purposes, and this is the rule I follow in social nudist settings. But the place I spend the most time nude is in my own home, and I'm not carrying a towel with me constantly through the house. I do use couch and chair covers that get washed periodically, but I also adhere to a high personal standard of hygiene, and avoid sitting on communal surfaces when I'm dirty - e.g., after walking on the treadmill or doing yard work, and before I've taken a shower. So, there's an element of discretion to be applied, and I think people deserve a higher level of privilege in their own homes. But, generally speaking, some kind of cover is usually involved.
Hot Take: "Nudists crave attention"
Response: Somewhat Disagree
I am going to interpret this statement in the sense of the criticism that nudists are engaging in a form of exhibitionism (a subject I am particularly qualified to address). Despite actually being an exhibitionist myself (not instead, but in addition to being a nudist), my response is qualified disagreement because I think that intentions vary depending on who you ask, but most nudists are NOT naked for the attention, and even the extent to which some nudists may seek or enjoy that attention, that's not the part of the activity that makes it nudism.
Even as an exhibitionist who does enjoy that kind of attention (when I'm seeking it) - and that includes some times when I'm in social nudist settings (and this is another example where I applaud the program's word choice, as "craving attention" hints at a form of exhibitionism without requiring a sexual interpretation) - there are still absolutely times when I just want to chillax in the nude and not be bothered by people who think nudity is automatically an invitation to an exhibition.
Hot Take: "Nudists do a lot of psychedelics"
Response: Disagree
Okay, this statement seems to be coming out of left field. I'm not going to speak for all nudists, as there absolutely may be some who are into psychedelics (I have known some nudists that wouldn't be out of place in San Francisco during the Summer of Love), but I hardly think that's something that's characteristic of nudists on the whole. Nor is it something that I'm personally interested in.
One of the nudists in the video makes an interesting point about hanging out with the artist crowd, and that adds another dimension to this prompt. I could see that being even more prevalent in that demographic, but I've also noticed a kind of antagonism between established nudists and artists who are comfortable with nudity (another group I consider myself a member of), because the artists are a little bit less inhibited than the nudists about the human body's connection to sexuality.
Statement: "Being naked in public should be legal"
Response: Agree
This is a somewhat controversial if popular tenet of the nudist platform. Certainly, not every nudist believes it, but one does get the impression that it's par for the course. As the one nudist in the video does, you can make an argument about respecting other people's sensitivity towards nudity, but I think that ultimately the arguments the other nudists make trump that consideration. And it's not simply a matter of disregarding the feelings of others, as critics like to frame it. If you live in a free society, you must expect to be challenged, rather than comforted, by what you encounter in the public square. That is not an excuse for behaviors like violence and harassment, but a person wearing their skin is not hurting anybody.
We don't make laws about what kind of clothing people can wear, or how they must groom their bodies. I think board shorts and body hair are unappealing, but my taste has no jurisdiction over another person's freedom to dictate their appearance. That extends to simple nudity. I'm not against making certain exceptions - like dress codes in business establishments. It's not illegal to be barefoot and shirtless (if you're a guy) in public, yet shirts and shoes are required in most stores and restaurants. Nudity isn't practical everywhere. But a blanket prohibition on the unclothed human form is neither just nor healthy. I won't support it.
Statement: "It is appropriate to be nude among children and minors"
Response: Agree
I'm agreeing because the popular sentiment (outside of the nudist community) goes in the opposite direction and that really does a disservice to what nudity is and what nudism stands for. But I'm qualifying that agreement with a consideration to context. In principle, children are not harmed by exposure to nudity; in fact, it is healthy. It's mostly the parents that get upset, but their neuroticism is unfortunately transferred, in time, to their children.
That said, the illusion that nudity harms children, especially in a society that over-sexualizes nudity, often makes it dangerous - for both children and nudists - for that exposure to occur naturally, outside of nudist contexts. Within the right context, it is a complete and utter non-issue.
I don't have any qualms about participating in things like the World Naked Bike Ride in which unsuspecting bystanders - potentially including children - may be exposed to nudity. The offended may simply look away; no real harm is done. But in other contexts, one must exercise caution. Because "appropriate" behavior is a matter of agreed-upon etiquette, and if somebody else believes it's inappropriate, they can make a lot of trouble for you, regardless of your intentions.
Statement: "I'm comfortable with anybody seeing me nude"
Response: Somewhat Agree
This is another tricky statement, because there are layers to the issue. I've been nude in front of friends and family. I've been nude in front of complete strangers. As an artist and model, I've appeared nude before countless people across the world through the internet. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. But I also care about other people's feelings (which is - offensively, and infuriatingly - something people assume not to be the case where exhibitionists are concerned). Which is why I do get uncomfortable when I'm afraid that I might be seen nude by somebody who I think may have a negative reaction to it. It's not because I'm not comfortable in my own skin. It's because I'm not comfortable making other people uncomfortable. If I cover up, it's to preserve their feelings, not my own. But, as I like to say, if you're fine with it, then I'm fine with it.
Statement: "In the past, I have been afraid to show my body"
Response: Strongly Agree
Now we're getting personal. I think there is some truth to the claim that nudism is a cure for body image disorders. I wouldn't assume that every nudist came into the lifestyle lacking in confidence, but it does seem to be very common for people to have issues with their body image in our society. In my case, that was true. When I say that I am attractive, that is not something I always believed - it's something that I had to be convinced of. When I was younger, I was very self-conscious - of myself and others. I remember not liking to wear sandals in public, and giving my brother grief for showing up to the dinner table without a shirt on.
I feel ashamed looking back on it, because it makes me feel like a hypocrite. But it's a testament to the human capacity for growth. I've grown a lot. Partially due to the accepting nature of the nudist community, but also from the positive attention I received as a nude artist. These days, I'm completely confident in my skin. Even when I'm not engaged in nude recreation, I frequently wear clothing that reveals a lot. You wouldn't think it to look at me now, but there was a time in my life when I was afraid to draw attention to my body.
Statement: "I am not bothered by what other people think of my body"
Response: Somewhat Disagree
Is anybody that confident? It's like saying you don't care about what others think. Inside, I am fiercely independent. I'm going to be me, and nobody else's opinion is going to change that. At the same time, of course I care about what other people think. Sometimes the passing comments of internet strangers affects me emotionally on a level that I worry is unhealthy. And let's get real: I'm a model. I thrive on people telling me I look good. But I also look good, so I have to worry less about people making unkind comments. Yet it still happens. I challenge people's expectations of gender, and sometimes that discomfort causes them to lash out. I'd be lying if I said it didn't hurt me.
But at the end of the day, it's not going to change the way I feel about myself. If they can't see the beauty in my body, it's their loss, not mine. But I also have the privilege of having enough people telling me that I'm beautiful to give me that confidence. I wouldn't have that otherwise; I didn't have it until I went out on a limb and started modeling. All that said, I feel comforted by the knowledge that I can always fall back on the nudist community's unconditional (at least in theory) acceptance of people for who they are and not what they look like.
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Addressing Toxic Positivity
So, I was driving down the street and I saw a message painted on the side of a building that read, "we rise up by lifting others." And my immediate thought was, "no, lifting others just leaves us mired in the dirt." And then I thought, "wow, that was dark. If somebody heard me say that, they'd criticize me for being so negative." But then I thought, "well, why shouldn't I react that way? My feelings are legitimate." It seems to me that some people are so disgustingly optimistic, constantly spouting positive aphorisms, that it just rings hollow, like they're trying to convince themselves of something - and the fact of the effort belies a different reality that they're trying to avoid.
What if "the power of positive thinking" was a lie? What if some people's minds are just oriented towards positivity and others aren't? And what if that's okay? I've been told my whole life to "stop wallowing", but that's just how my mind works. "Just think positive" sounds an awful lot like trying to will yourself out of depression. And the truth is, I might have a lot to complain about (honestly, who doesn't?), but I'm not entirely unhappy. In fact, I consider myself to be a hopeless idealist in spite of my cynicism. I just prefer to focus on the obstacles in my path, and think about what's missing instead of being content with what's already there (that's why I'm a progressive and not a conservative). And I don't like to lie to myself or others about the challenges we face.
As an atheist, I like to express criticism of God, in response to the state of the world. And religious people love to suggest that my experience of suffering is a symptom of my lack of faith. As if going to church would cure my anxiety, or make me rich and popular (Satanism, though...). But what if people turn away from God because God has failed them, and not vice versa? Some people do seem to be blessed, and they think that their success is a reward for their faith in God. So when they see somebody suffering who doesn't believe in God, they think, "if they would only trust in God, they would be successful, too." But it doesn't work that way. Faith didn't make them happy. That's putting the cart before the horse. They're able to have faith because they got lucky in life.
I like to listen to blues music and watch horror movies because I'm drawn to the darker aspects of human experience. It's not like I started indulging in this kind of entertainment and then started feeling depressed. It actually makes me feel better. Because I can relate to it. Commiseration is a healing process. I could force myself to listen to bubble gum pop and watch goofy comedies all day long, but it would just bore me to tears. Don't take away my cynicism. It comforts me. Perhaps the same way your positive thinking comforts you. We all have our own coping strategies.
And I'm not saying that positive thinking can't be beneficial, or that excessive negativity isn't unhealthy. A good balance would be ideal. But there can be such a thing as too much positivity, just as negativity can serve a valuable function. The key, in my opinion - whether you're positivity-inclined or negativity-inclined - is to try to stay grounded in reality, and not take either one too far. But if you gravitate more towards one or the other - even if it's negativity - that's fine. It's part of who you are.
Also, like, you have to play the hand you're dealt. And yeah, you ought to make the most of it, but if you're dealt a shitty hand, you should be allowed to complain about it. People that are dealt a good hand (even if we're just talking about the psychological capacity to be cheerful, separate from race, sex, class, etc.) have good reason to be happy. And so they should be. But it's cruel to expect somebody who was dealt a bad hand to not only have to play that hand, but pretend that they like it. Happy people are happy because they're privileged, not because they choose to be happy. It's pretty offensive to suggest that somebody who's unhappy is unhappy by choice, or by the result of their own undoing.
What if "the power of positive thinking" was a lie? What if some people's minds are just oriented towards positivity and others aren't? And what if that's okay? I've been told my whole life to "stop wallowing", but that's just how my mind works. "Just think positive" sounds an awful lot like trying to will yourself out of depression. And the truth is, I might have a lot to complain about (honestly, who doesn't?), but I'm not entirely unhappy. In fact, I consider myself to be a hopeless idealist in spite of my cynicism. I just prefer to focus on the obstacles in my path, and think about what's missing instead of being content with what's already there (that's why I'm a progressive and not a conservative). And I don't like to lie to myself or others about the challenges we face.
As an atheist, I like to express criticism of God, in response to the state of the world. And religious people love to suggest that my experience of suffering is a symptom of my lack of faith. As if going to church would cure my anxiety, or make me rich and popular (Satanism, though...). But what if people turn away from God because God has failed them, and not vice versa? Some people do seem to be blessed, and they think that their success is a reward for their faith in God. So when they see somebody suffering who doesn't believe in God, they think, "if they would only trust in God, they would be successful, too." But it doesn't work that way. Faith didn't make them happy. That's putting the cart before the horse. They're able to have faith because they got lucky in life.
I like to listen to blues music and watch horror movies because I'm drawn to the darker aspects of human experience. It's not like I started indulging in this kind of entertainment and then started feeling depressed. It actually makes me feel better. Because I can relate to it. Commiseration is a healing process. I could force myself to listen to bubble gum pop and watch goofy comedies all day long, but it would just bore me to tears. Don't take away my cynicism. It comforts me. Perhaps the same way your positive thinking comforts you. We all have our own coping strategies.
And I'm not saying that positive thinking can't be beneficial, or that excessive negativity isn't unhealthy. A good balance would be ideal. But there can be such a thing as too much positivity, just as negativity can serve a valuable function. The key, in my opinion - whether you're positivity-inclined or negativity-inclined - is to try to stay grounded in reality, and not take either one too far. But if you gravitate more towards one or the other - even if it's negativity - that's fine. It's part of who you are.
Also, like, you have to play the hand you're dealt. And yeah, you ought to make the most of it, but if you're dealt a shitty hand, you should be allowed to complain about it. People that are dealt a good hand (even if we're just talking about the psychological capacity to be cheerful, separate from race, sex, class, etc.) have good reason to be happy. And so they should be. But it's cruel to expect somebody who was dealt a bad hand to not only have to play that hand, but pretend that they like it. Happy people are happy because they're privileged, not because they choose to be happy. It's pretty offensive to suggest that somebody who's unhappy is unhappy by choice, or by the result of their own undoing.
Friday, May 13, 2022
Social Media Addiction
I miss the days when my morning session of browsing the web consisted of checking up on sites like Flickr, DeviantART et cetera. I would check my inbox to view interaction on my art, respond to comments, view some themed galleries, and maybe post a new photo. It was easy to visit a site, get caught up, and then put it aside until the next morning, freeing my mind up to focus on doing other things.
But the way social media is these days, with the emphasis on never-ending streams of content, you can't really step away without getting the feeling that you're missing something. And because streams are so dynamic, populated by shadowy algorithms, it's different every time you load the page, and there's stuff you'll never see if you don't happen to log on at just the right time, and satisfy the capricious whims of our algorithmic overlords. User profiles aren't even a reliable collection of their posts and thoughts and works anymore, it's a jumbled collection of reposts and other people's works.
No doubt, all of this is designed to game human psychology with the end goal of any platform being to keep users' eyeballs glued to the screen as long as possible. I hate it. I'm the sort of person who deliberately weaned myself off of broadcast television because I hated feeling like a zombie, sinking into my chair, resigned to watching whatever came on next because it was easier than moving.
I like streaming entertainment because it lets me make a deliberate plan to watch something on my schedule. That's why I hate autoplay so much. I want machines to do mindless tasks for me, I don't want them to think for me - or, more accurately, to pretend to predict what I want when what they're really giving me is what the company wants me to want. I have to be the one in control. I'm nobody's mindless automaton.
I became an artist and a writer and a content creator at least in part because I wanted to produce something of value instead of being a passive consumer. To express my individuality. But now, I feel like social media is exploiting even that in order to create more zombies. And the worst part is that it's so hard to kick the habit because the social interaction provides legitimate value. It's a devil's bargain. You can't ditch the bad without sacrificing the good. Or so it seems.
Isn't there a better way?
But the way social media is these days, with the emphasis on never-ending streams of content, you can't really step away without getting the feeling that you're missing something. And because streams are so dynamic, populated by shadowy algorithms, it's different every time you load the page, and there's stuff you'll never see if you don't happen to log on at just the right time, and satisfy the capricious whims of our algorithmic overlords. User profiles aren't even a reliable collection of their posts and thoughts and works anymore, it's a jumbled collection of reposts and other people's works.
No doubt, all of this is designed to game human psychology with the end goal of any platform being to keep users' eyeballs glued to the screen as long as possible. I hate it. I'm the sort of person who deliberately weaned myself off of broadcast television because I hated feeling like a zombie, sinking into my chair, resigned to watching whatever came on next because it was easier than moving.
I like streaming entertainment because it lets me make a deliberate plan to watch something on my schedule. That's why I hate autoplay so much. I want machines to do mindless tasks for me, I don't want them to think for me - or, more accurately, to pretend to predict what I want when what they're really giving me is what the company wants me to want. I have to be the one in control. I'm nobody's mindless automaton.
I became an artist and a writer and a content creator at least in part because I wanted to produce something of value instead of being a passive consumer. To express my individuality. But now, I feel like social media is exploiting even that in order to create more zombies. And the worst part is that it's so hard to kick the habit because the social interaction provides legitimate value. It's a devil's bargain. You can't ditch the bad without sacrificing the good. Or so it seems.
Isn't there a better way?
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Thoughts While Freehiking
Preface: I typed these thoughts out on my phone while hiking nude through the woods, because apparently getting out into nature frees not only my body, but my mind as well.
The Council of Conscientious Exhibitionists
I think it would be a fun game to pick a trail and hike it nude, just to see whether you can make it to the end without encountering anybody. But though this game relies on nudity being taboo (otherwise there would be no stakes), I don't like the feeling that I might be committing a crime, or that I might bother some unsuspecting innocent. Isn't there a way to capitalize on the excitement of the taboo without being a threat to society?
What the exhibitionist understands, and the prudist pointedly ignores, is that there is often an excitement to being naked - a thrill above and beyond the simple comfort of nudity that nudists celebrate. It depends on the taboo. Which is why hiking nude on trails in nudist campgrounds may feel good, but it lacks some of the excitement of true freehiking.
But what the simple-minded lizard brains of so many can't seem to understand (and this includes many exhibitionists as well as the nudists who criticize them), is that you can appreciate that taboo thrill, and still want to avoid upsetting anyone.
Or that you can exploit the taboo on nudity for personal pleasure, while still lamenting that it prevents you from enjoying nudity on a wider scale. This is how you can be a nudist and an exhibitionist simultaneously - both in practice, and in principle.
I just wish there were a council of "conscientious exhibitionists" that could brainstorm ways to enjoy the thrill of exploiting the nudity taboo, without upsetting anyone. And to show the world that there are exhibitionists who care about innocent bystanders and the general social order.
I submit my application to join this council, but I can't do it all by myself. There needs to be a conversation - a melding of ideas.
Caught - Between Nudism and Exhibitionism
When I go out into the woods, I just want to spend time naked in nature. I say that the taboo on nudity makes it more exciting, but the reality is that I do NOT want to be seen by anyone any more than they would want to see me. That alleged "thrill" of getting caught just isn't part of the intended experience for me.
Yet I do find being nude in novel locations and situations (where nudity is not commonly seen and expected - i.e., outside of nudist "safe zones") to be exciting. And as an artist, I enjoy photographing those experiences - in direct contradiction to nudism's general ban on cameras. So I'm caught between nudism and exhibitionism.
Designated Freehiking Trails
I wonder how it would feel if there were a designated trail for "freehiking" in my favorite park. Because that's what I want - to hike nude, and not get in trouble. But would it be less fun without the taboo, if I knew there was an explicit allowance for it?
(Although explicitly allowing nudity on one trail would have the effect of implicitly banning it elsewhere, leading to a "ghettoification" of freehiking in that park, in opposition to the usual, open-ended, "use your own discretion, and if you get caught, as long as you're not being a nuisance, you'll probably be fine" - don't ask, don't tell sort of policy.)
I wish I could try it. I just wonder if the ideal situation for me isn't "you could get caught, but you don't", because that's inherently a gamble, and I don't normally like gambling. Which is why this stuff is bothering me to the point that I'm sitting here typing my thoughts out on my phone when I could be hiking nude some more, as I haven't yet encountered anyone since leaving the parking lot.
When Sex Enters The Equation
I guess there's also the fact that the thrill is sometimes sexual. Sometimes. But if it's only sexual part of the time, and I'm capable of restricting the sexual part to appropriate situations (when I'm out in the woods alone, it doesn't really make a difference whether it's sexual or not, and alone is just the most common way I get to enjoy being naked in nature), then is there a problem?
But also, let's be honest, having an OnlyFans account encourages this behavior. I would be less inclined to indulge the inclination to masturbate in the woods if I wasn't thinking, "I can film this and make some easy money." Now, I support sex work, because we should be free agents to make our own choices. But if I still had Patreon, I could make money on non-pornographic media. And their injunction against porn would serve to discourage the production of that other content.
However - and here's where the irony kicks in - the fact that they dumped me because I produced pornographic content elsewhere - discriminating against me based on stigma - actually makes it harder for me to transition to non-sex work. Their rule (which I'm sure is purely self-serving, and not designed to make a moral statement - albeit calculated to minimize the damage incurred from powerful forces of chastity in our society) goes too far and actually backfires, at least from the moral perspective. I'm stuck doing sex work when what I'd prefer to be doing is making art.
And if it's true that I can make quicker, easier money selling porn than I ever did selling art, that's not my fault; and it's not the fault of any hosting site or their rules, either. That's just human nature. But if human nature ensures that sex will sell, and we live in a capitalist economy, then why is there so much stigma against sex work? Instead of trying to change human nature, maybe we should figure out how to incorporate it into our lives a little better.
The Council of Conscientious Exhibitionists
I think it would be a fun game to pick a trail and hike it nude, just to see whether you can make it to the end without encountering anybody. But though this game relies on nudity being taboo (otherwise there would be no stakes), I don't like the feeling that I might be committing a crime, or that I might bother some unsuspecting innocent. Isn't there a way to capitalize on the excitement of the taboo without being a threat to society?
What the exhibitionist understands, and the prudist pointedly ignores, is that there is often an excitement to being naked - a thrill above and beyond the simple comfort of nudity that nudists celebrate. It depends on the taboo. Which is why hiking nude on trails in nudist campgrounds may feel good, but it lacks some of the excitement of true freehiking.
But what the simple-minded lizard brains of so many can't seem to understand (and this includes many exhibitionists as well as the nudists who criticize them), is that you can appreciate that taboo thrill, and still want to avoid upsetting anyone.
Or that you can exploit the taboo on nudity for personal pleasure, while still lamenting that it prevents you from enjoying nudity on a wider scale. This is how you can be a nudist and an exhibitionist simultaneously - both in practice, and in principle.
I just wish there were a council of "conscientious exhibitionists" that could brainstorm ways to enjoy the thrill of exploiting the nudity taboo, without upsetting anyone. And to show the world that there are exhibitionists who care about innocent bystanders and the general social order.
I submit my application to join this council, but I can't do it all by myself. There needs to be a conversation - a melding of ideas.
Caught - Between Nudism and Exhibitionism
When I go out into the woods, I just want to spend time naked in nature. I say that the taboo on nudity makes it more exciting, but the reality is that I do NOT want to be seen by anyone any more than they would want to see me. That alleged "thrill" of getting caught just isn't part of the intended experience for me.
Yet I do find being nude in novel locations and situations (where nudity is not commonly seen and expected - i.e., outside of nudist "safe zones") to be exciting. And as an artist, I enjoy photographing those experiences - in direct contradiction to nudism's general ban on cameras. So I'm caught between nudism and exhibitionism.
Designated Freehiking Trails
I wonder how it would feel if there were a designated trail for "freehiking" in my favorite park. Because that's what I want - to hike nude, and not get in trouble. But would it be less fun without the taboo, if I knew there was an explicit allowance for it?
(Although explicitly allowing nudity on one trail would have the effect of implicitly banning it elsewhere, leading to a "ghettoification" of freehiking in that park, in opposition to the usual, open-ended, "use your own discretion, and if you get caught, as long as you're not being a nuisance, you'll probably be fine" - don't ask, don't tell sort of policy.)
I wish I could try it. I just wonder if the ideal situation for me isn't "you could get caught, but you don't", because that's inherently a gamble, and I don't normally like gambling. Which is why this stuff is bothering me to the point that I'm sitting here typing my thoughts out on my phone when I could be hiking nude some more, as I haven't yet encountered anyone since leaving the parking lot.
When Sex Enters The Equation
I guess there's also the fact that the thrill is sometimes sexual. Sometimes. But if it's only sexual part of the time, and I'm capable of restricting the sexual part to appropriate situations (when I'm out in the woods alone, it doesn't really make a difference whether it's sexual or not, and alone is just the most common way I get to enjoy being naked in nature), then is there a problem?
But also, let's be honest, having an OnlyFans account encourages this behavior. I would be less inclined to indulge the inclination to masturbate in the woods if I wasn't thinking, "I can film this and make some easy money." Now, I support sex work, because we should be free agents to make our own choices. But if I still had Patreon, I could make money on non-pornographic media. And their injunction against porn would serve to discourage the production of that other content.
However - and here's where the irony kicks in - the fact that they dumped me because I produced pornographic content elsewhere - discriminating against me based on stigma - actually makes it harder for me to transition to non-sex work. Their rule (which I'm sure is purely self-serving, and not designed to make a moral statement - albeit calculated to minimize the damage incurred from powerful forces of chastity in our society) goes too far and actually backfires, at least from the moral perspective. I'm stuck doing sex work when what I'd prefer to be doing is making art.
And if it's true that I can make quicker, easier money selling porn than I ever did selling art, that's not my fault; and it's not the fault of any hosting site or their rules, either. That's just human nature. But if human nature ensures that sex will sell, and we live in a capitalist economy, then why is there so much stigma against sex work? Instead of trying to change human nature, maybe we should figure out how to incorporate it into our lives a little better.
Wednesday, May 4, 2022
Expressing Beauty
As a person who has always been somewhat averse to populist tastes (liking the same things everybody else likes), one of my goals as an artist has been to express through the visual medium of photography things which I find beautiful, in the hope that doing so would demonstrate that beauty to people who might not have ever thought to find beauty in such things before.
Mainly, this applies to the human body and physical attraction, being a somewhat uncommon amalgam of sexual stereotypes that I nevertheless find (in reviewing my own photographs) to be attractive where others might expect to be repulsed. E.g., the ugly stereotype of the "man in a dress", versus the androgynously feminine creature who nevertheless possesses male anatomy that I portray in my works.
I'm not sure if my attempt at prying open new windows of perspective in other people's minds is entirely effective (and not just egotistical - "you must like what I like"), or if I'm just showing a minority of the population something they already like, but it's one of my goals and motivations as an artist, because when it comes to certain subjects, people are not so "you do you" in matters of taste as one would like to think.
And though diversity (in opinion as well as form) is generally touted as a virtue, it never stops bothering me the cold, hard fact that two people can look at the same thing, and one of them can see a God, while the other sees the Devil. How can one create any common ground in that case?
Mainly, this applies to the human body and physical attraction, being a somewhat uncommon amalgam of sexual stereotypes that I nevertheless find (in reviewing my own photographs) to be attractive where others might expect to be repulsed. E.g., the ugly stereotype of the "man in a dress", versus the androgynously feminine creature who nevertheless possesses male anatomy that I portray in my works.
I'm not sure if my attempt at prying open new windows of perspective in other people's minds is entirely effective (and not just egotistical - "you must like what I like"), or if I'm just showing a minority of the population something they already like, but it's one of my goals and motivations as an artist, because when it comes to certain subjects, people are not so "you do you" in matters of taste as one would like to think.
And though diversity (in opinion as well as form) is generally touted as a virtue, it never stops bothering me the cold, hard fact that two people can look at the same thing, and one of them can see a God, while the other sees the Devil. How can one create any common ground in that case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)