Sexual Predation

The prevalence of the term 'sexual predator' in modern parlance, thanks in no small part to the proliferation of sensationalist news stories (frequently told from a sexually conservative perspective), has become problematic.

It is true that there may be such a thing as 'sex crime', which is to say, crime that involves either the sex act, or a sexual motivation - most likely referring to rape; that is, a person having sex with another person against that other person's consent, that may or may not involve physical violence beyond the simple act of being 'penetrated' against one's will (although not necessarily against one's bodily construction).

I am not attempting to minimize the seriousness of the crime of rape, I am merely trying to approach the issue rationally. The problem is that, married to certain extremist views within certain camps of feminism - the radical sort that believes "all sex is rape" - we come to a point where the basic mating behaviors that occur naturally between men and women are being reinterpreted as a form of predation.

Now, classically speaking, predation is an act of feeding - literally. The predator captures the prey, often involving violence, kills the prey, and then eats it. What part of this gruesome process suggests sex to you? I am willing to concede that the 'hunting' of victims that a rapist engages in is a predatory sort of process, but we must be able to separate the sex criminal from the basic sexual urges we all experience.

When a man experiences sexual desire for a female, and even, perhaps, receives some sexual pleasure from the sight of that female, or from fantasies he indulges in about that female, he is not engaging in any sort of 'predation'. When a man pleasures himself to pornographic images of women on the internet, he is not 'preying' on females, he is merely attending to his sexual functions. When a man observes women 'in the wild' (that is to say, in public), and even as he evaluates their sexual desirability in the privacy of his own mind, he is not acting as a predator but merely as a member of a species of sexual organisms.

We must be extra careful not to let language creep infest our own understanding of human sexuality, and not to allow our morbid fascination with news stories about sexual predators infect our faith that the basic mating rituals between the sexes can be free of intrinsically violent and predatory underpinnings.

Public Privacy

Let me put this into crystal clear terms. If I walk out into a public space, you have - in my interpretation of law and freedom, but not necessarily those whose interpretation matters - the right to photograph me in a non-intimidating, non-obtrusive way, to jerk off to that photograph in the privacy of your own home, and to share that photo with others - even in a public, but non-commercial manner (such as on internet forums), and even if those others also jerk off to that photo in the privacy of their own homes.

The photo does not legally constitute pornography, as it does not depict explicit sexual activity (as such is not legal to engage in within any public space I know of - otherwise, it is my opinion that by engaging in an activity while in a public space, you waive any right to privacy you would have had had that activity been engaged in while in private), and therefore my consent (or lack thereof) to be featured in that photograph is of no consequence (other than to basic politeness, which is not legally enforcible).

I extend to you this right, which I believe you hold even without my volunteering it, and I expect exactly the same consideration in return (barring the inevitable disagreement from legal authorities). It makes no difference what sex, race, age, or nationality you or I are. This is not a matter of one class wielding power over another, but of all classes being equally beholden to the rights and freedoms granted to the public, while in public, in the interest of free speech.

5 Myths About Porn

Following are five myths about porn that are far too frequently cited by those who wish to censor it.

1. Porn is produced by a corrupt industry.

While this may at times be true, it is a claim whose proof requires specific evidence based on research, and not simply accusations based on anecdote. And anyway, in any other industry, hints of corruption would spark public outcry for reform, not for prohibition. Nevertheless, more and more porn these days is being created by independent entrepreneurs (and philanthropists), as the popularity of amateur porn on the net can attest to.

2. Porn is degrading to women.

Never mind the fact that there is feminist porn and gay (male) porn - the latter of which doesn't even feature women. The issue of "objectification" is even more thorny because it is based on a foundation of misdirected truths and outright lies. So-called "objectification" is just one part of the normal and complicated process whereby one person experiences sexual desire for another (which is, in and of itself, harmless).

3. Porn is harmful to children.

Not any more harmful than the explicit gore and glorified ultraviolence we gleefully feed children these days - and, possibly, considerably less so. Honestly, I'd rather a child learn the process by which life is created than that by which life can be snuffed out. And as much as "teen pregnancy" is considered to be a social illness (which, in terms of metaphorical diseases, is about as prevalent - and resilient - throughout human history as mortality), it is nothing compared to the tragedy of school shootings.

4. All porn is violent.

While this is certainly true for some porn (though I don't subscribe to the belief that violent media creates violent persons), it is but a niche among the rich diversity of material available. Justifying this claim requires an absurd belief that sex is intrinsically a violent act, usually interpreted as a male committing violence against a female, which comes from the "all sex is rape" school of fundamentalist feminism that I would have thought by now had been widely discredited as a crackpot theory.

5. Porn is unrealistic.

I don't believe there is any reason why we shouldn't approach sex - as we do with everything else in the creative arts - with a sense of fantasy and performance. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as "documentary pornography", and it frequently goes by the name of "sex tapes".

Until would-be censors start arguing about different types of visual or audiovisual (I don't know why writing gets a free pass) depictions of sex (which they may or may not refer to as "porn"), in terms of what does and does not deserve to be censored, then you will know that their arguments are not only inaccurate, but insincere as well. But people who believe that sex belongs behind closed doors for the sake of their own fragile sensibilities rarely have the integrity to admit it. For doing so would seriously undermine their claim that, somehow, this censorship doesn't violate their alleged (but phony) support of free speech.

Feminism and Sexual Empowerment

As a post-feminist, I am both a staunch supporter of women's rights and the equality of the sexes, and critical of various non-humanist strains of feminism. One of feminism's blunders that I cannot forgive is propagating the myth that female sexual empowerment (a woman taking control of her sexuality) in a way that caters to male sexual desire is - instead of a natural part of mating ritual - an insidious influence of the male patriarchy.

Thus, female actors and characters in the media who incite male lust through their image or their deeds are not positive feminist role models, but icons of women's 'prison of sexuality'. Unfortunately, this attitude is rampantly sex-negative, and whatever progress it might inspire in the realm of female empowerment (in the non-sexual realms), it achieves at the cost of further maiming our already diseased and demented views of human sexuality and relations between the sexes.

Now I believe, as somebody who generally believes in the good - if seriously flawed - nature of humanity, that this view comes from a place of genuine concern. Namely, the pressure that is placed on women to be sexual agents and only sexual agents in the social sphere. I get that. A woman should not necessarily be judged solely or even primarily by her sex appeal, to the marginalization if not total exclusion of all other aspects of her personality.

But. The solution isn't to wipe sex totally out of the equation. We should encourage women to be more than sexual agents, and acknowledge them when they make accomplishments of a non-sexual nature, and above all, treat them like human beings and not single-minded sex objects, and with equal status and potential as any male. But while we're doing this, we have to also be careful not to criticize women for wielding their sexual agency, otherwise we're limiting women's options and not treating them humanistically like they have their own will and can make their own decisions.

Especially when flaunting a woman's sex appeal has the common affect of rendering males subservient. How can that not be feminist at its core? It becomes patriarchal when we look at common responses and criticisms of the woman who freely wields her sexuality. Slut-shaming, for example, is massively anti-feminist. What is it about psychologically or even physically abusing a woman for expressing her sexuality that speaks to women's rights and empowerment? Victim-blaming, also, is a symptom of the patriarchy.

Consider this hypothetical. A woman decks herself out in a really slutty outfit and heads to a bar to attract male attention. This is basic preening behavior. Nothing about the basic fact of relations between the sexes indicates a necessary imbalance of power or influence. Now say that the girl, in the process of expressing her sexuality, doesn't find what she considers a suitable mate. But a man decides to rape her anyway. This is patriarchy in action - a man denying the woman's choice.

Now the story makes it to the news and what happens? The woman is shamed for dressing like a slut in the first place, and people say she deserved to be raped because she was 'preening' without being willing to give it up. In casual parlance, she was a cocktease. But this view depends heavily on the idea that women exist, as objects, to sate male lust - when and where it is incited - as if it is their duty and responsibility to please males, and to hell with what the female wants. That's patriarchy, folks.

So, I believe that women - girls, especially - should be given the opportunity to do everything and anything with their life - just as much as boys are. Whether that's to become a doctor, a scientist, a mother, or a stripper. Maybe we put too much pressure on girls to be sexy. Maybe. But there's nothing wrong with that alone. The problem is in the balance. So instead of shaming the sexuality angle - which only harms females and reinforces the paternalistic impulse, we ought to merely add other options to what's already available, and focus instead on cutting out our own disparaging treatment of women who make their own choices - no matter what those choices are.

Shameless Pornography

In spite of what I say about the value of erotic art over that of pornography (which I do believe), I do still sometimes produce pictures that could only be described as "shameless pornography". But there are good reasons for this.

It's partly because, yes, I am an exhibitionist, and I do get something of a sexual thrill out of being exposed to the world. But it's also because, despite my preference for erotic art, I still believe that pornography is an important and defensible medium.

I want to prove through my deeds (and not just my words), that I am okay with pornography, and also that a person who involves himself in pornography is not irrevocably stained, but can still be capable of great and noble things like the art that I also produce.

When I say that I like erotic art better than pornography, I am not attempting to denigrate pornography like most people - and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, by 'denigrating' myself (as the anti-porn crowd would say) as the subject of pornography.

I've seen other artists take a different approach where they swear they'll never do porn, and say it like it proves they have some kind of honor, but all I see is a person trying to belittle a popular mode of expression that so many others engage in. And I won't be a part of that.

Reflecting on Narcissism

To write my interest in my own reflection off purely as narcissism is short-sighted. While I do, generally, like what I see, there is more to it than that.

Whatever the cause - introversion, social anxiety, pure curiosity - I have an interest in knowing how I appear to others. I have a strong desire to view myself in the third person. Not just because I like looking at myself, but because I am overly concerned (yes, I admit that) with how I present myself, and I want to be able to put myself into the minds of those who observe me from a perspective that I - trapped inside my own body - am not privy to.

How do I look? From a distance? How would I react if I saw someone looking exactly like myself? What would I think? What would I feel? Can I change my appearance or mannerisms in any way to change other people's reactions for the better? These are all questions that plague me constantly, and even more so when I am dressed unusually and in the midst of a crowd.

Sexy Art

If you call something sexy "art", porn detractors will cry out that you're making an excuse for it. But there really is such a thing as erotic art, and equating it with pornography simply because part of its appeal is erotic in nature does a grave disservice to that art form.

How can you say that something sexy can't be artistic, and can't have quality above and beyond the trashiest level of pornography? Why is it worthless solely because it's erotic, regardless of its other merits (and lack of demerits)?

Unless you're against sex itself. And if you're against sex, you're against me.