To open up another can of worms, I want you to go back to the two visual exhibits at the end of my last post, Offense: Nudity vs. Sexuality, and tell me which of the two pictures turns you on more. (Of course, this only works if you're attracted to me; if not, then imagine two similar pictures of someone you are attracted to). I have a feeling I know what the answer's going to be.
The erotic appeal of nudity is a concept that every nudist has to come to terms with, one way or another, since it contrasts with the nudist credo that nudity is not sexual. The fact is (and yes, it's a fact) non-sexual nudity can be sexually appealing. But this, of course, is not always the case. That's why it's not contradictory to nudist beliefs to accept this fact. A [rational] nudist doesn't claim that nudity is never sexual, only that it's not always sexual, and that the "nudist" part comes out through the non-sexual applications of nudity.
Still, even when not engaged in anything remotely sexual, the nude body of a person you are physically attracted to can be arousing. And there's nothing wrong with that. My belief is that beauty (including sexual beauty) is meant to be appreciated, not hoarded. Beauty not appreciated is beauty gone to waste. That's not to say that wasted beauty cannot be tolerated, but given a reasonable choice between exhibiting beauty and hording it, I see no reason not to allow that beauty to be appreciated.
Of course, I'm not talking about guys jacking off in nudist venues - that's simply rude and lewd behavior that should not have to be tolerated in polite company (on the other hand, if the company agrees to it beforehand, then it's fair game - but then it's not a nudist gathering so much as a swingers' orgy). But what I am saying is that if someone comes across a "nudist image" online, for example, and uses it for certain non-nudist purposes, I fail to see how that causes anyone harm. We could talk about society's collective perception of nudism, and our "responsibility" to defend it from misinterpretation, but we can defend it without ignoring the fact that nudity can be erotic. And ultimately, denying a person's freedom of expression to assert their own truth about what they find attractive (I mostly mean in an impersonal, general way - certainly this doesn't include any sort of harassment or otherwise inappropriate behavior) is no less an injustice than allowing nudism to be misunderstood by those who lack subtlety and insight.
Moving in a different direction, let's talk about aesthetics. As a sexual organism, I am aroused by the nudity of attractive persons. But as an artist, I am attracted to the aesthetic beauty of the unclad human form. I'm not sure how much of a connection there is between these two things, but though they appear in some ways distinct, I'm convinced that they are indeed connected - on different ends of a continuum perhaps. Sometimes it confuses me, because as an erotic artist and a photographer of nudes, I see great beauty in a nude portrait, and sometimes I honestly can't tell if that beauty is erotic or something else. This is part of the reason I focus on "pure eroticism" and sensuality over sexuality. I don't think there's any necessary reason to completely separate these aspects when they appear to me to be related. Except to conform to PC-notions that sex is dirty ("this isn't sex, so it's not dirty"), but I don't subscribe to those notions in the first place.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I happen to find long hair on women attractive. It's pretty, more so than sexy, and I definitely don't get hard from just looking at it. Yet, it's one of the many qualities I am attracted to in a potential mate. This implies that there may be a sexual connection, but there's more to attraction than sex alone. After all, though the biological impetus to procreate is powerful indeed, we don't mate for that reason alone. And yet, something like long hair is a purely physical attribute. I don't know that it has any direct correlation to a personality attribute, or to a certain type of lifestyle (though it may be suggestive of some). It's an aesthetic preference. And yet it's not wholly excluded from sexual attraction, as I am more sexually attracted to women who possess this quality (among others).
So, I see it as a continuum. As Nabokov once penned (and you may notice that I am quite fond of this quote), "it is not the artistic aptitudes that are secondary sexual characters as some shams and shamans have said; it is the other way around: sex is but the ancilla of art." Aesthetics and sexuality are not wholly distinct - in fact, they are intricately connected. Something like a beautiful sunset, this would probably exist on the end of the continuum farthest from pure sexual attraction. But a naked human body? It can be quite sexual, but it can also be a purer form of attraction than, say, hardcore pornography provides. Why force it to be one or the other - pure or impure? Why not let it be both and neither. Why not just let it be. Aesthetically attractive.
