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.
No comments:
Post a Comment