A New Year's Resolve

I began last year working on my overly ambitious Slumber Party Massacre [broken link] project, which took months to complete, required tracking down various outfits and scouting out different locations, and wasn't ready for exhibition until May. Actually, it was ready in April, but April saw my anticipated attendance of an anime convention, during which I cosplayed Chii [broken link] in an extravagant (both elegant and skimpy) pink dress. Between posting my cosplay photos (in addition to myself, also the girls in cosplay [broken link] I took pictures of at the con) and the Slumber Party Massacre photos (along with their Behind The Scenes entries), I got massively behind and ended up with a backlog of photos to upload for the majority of the remainder of the year - which I have only recently gotten pretty much caught up on.

However, I have the sense that I am evolving as a photographer (and model), and I'm looking into better and more efficient ways to exhibit my photography to the world. I have seen, in my work, a distinct strain of material that has uncovered itself over the last year, which reflects the sort of erotic (or pornographic, if you will) photo sets that are produced commercially, that you can find all over the internet. This type of photography has always undoubtedly been a large inspiration on my own work - websites like femjoy [NSFW] and domai [NSFW] and met-art [NSFW], and the erotic art they produce. But lately I've noticed that I've been producing distinct photo sets (as opposed to loose art) that mimic the sort of themed shoots you'll see elsewhere, usually with me dressed in some kind of outfit (either sexy or girly), stripping off my clothes and posing erotically for the camera in various stages of undress.

For a while now it's been my desire to have a website to feature these erotic photo sets (some of which have gone unpublished), but my unfortunate lack of webdev skills (I impressed my computer teachers in the '90s, but technology has come a long way since then) and total lack of experience as an economist or entrepreneur of any sort has left me high and dry. I've also been increasingly inspired to try to somehow make my artistic talent work for me, in terms of earning money for the greater and greater amount of effort I've been putting into my photography. I'll be straight with you - I hate capitalism, but I don't have any choice but to submit to it, as I don't have the skills to live off the land on my own. So I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to get things for free (and it pisses me off that my work as a photographer is not valued monetarily in the way that other types of work arbitrarily are), but I've come to the decision that to value myself and my art and the work that I put into it means to put a price on it. It's up to you to decide whether my work's good enough to pay for, but I simply can't afford to continue producing it for free. So I either have to start making some money off of it, or spend my time doing something else that's more profitable.

And that's where XTube comes in. For the longest time I was reluctant to embrace openly pornographic sites like XTube, not because I bear any ill will towards them at all, but simply because I don't like to surround myself with raw images of genitalia closeups and gushing bodily fluids. To me, eroticism is about beauty and nudity, not the sticky, sweaty, grunting mess that characterizes sex. So it's simply been a matter of taste. But there are very few sharing sites that cater to the middle ground of eroticism, and most non-porn sites don't even allow content that involves nudity (let alone blatantly sexualized nudity). Flickr is the one major exception I've found, in that they allow pornographic content, but are not characterized as a website by it. However, flickr offers no options for users to profit off of their own content (especially if it's pornographic, which is an attitude that persists all over the non-porn web - blogger included, unfortunately), and in fact they actively discourage using their site for that purpose. But XTube has its own Amateur program which makes it very easy for me to upload photo sets (or videos, if I choose), charge a small fee, and profit off of them if they're popular.

So, it's taken me some time to warm up to using, let alone associating myself with, a blatant porn site, but I've joined XTube and as of this week, I have signed up and become verified as an amateur model. Now it's a matter of producing lots of good content, and seeing if I can make any money off of it. I'd like to advertise here on blogger, but my reading of their content policy leads me to the conclusion that that wouldn't be allowed, and I don't want to risk deletion, as I've enjoyed using this blog to post lots of good content about my philosophical explorations on nudity, eroticism, and sexual liberation. However, I have registered two other accounts - on twitter [abandoned], and on tumblr [defunct] - that I intend to use to keep my followers up to date on the sets that go up on XTube, as well as other things of an erotic nature that pertain to me or happen to catch my interest. So I encourage you to check those accounts out, and follow me, and hopefully as I begin to fill my XTube account [defunct] with lots of new material, you'll find something you like, that's worth spending a paltry percentage of the money you make from whatever work you spend your time doing for a living. Thanks!

Exhibitionists "Hiding" Behind Nudism

I've kind of pulled back on calling myself a nudist lately. It's not because I'm any less supportive or enthusiastic about the activity of nudism, but I'm becoming increasingly jaded about the community of nudism, and its seemingly unhealthy obsession with sexual purity. Now, there are practical reasons for this obsession (which I've discussed before), but that still doesn't excuse their prudishness. To be clear, it's not that every nudist is a prude - in fact, there has always been a large subset of the nudist population that is very open to sexuality, which is a fact that prudists regret, because it supposedly tarnishes the clean, nonsexual image of nudism.

Make no mistake, nudism is not intrinsically related to sexuality, and is not a sexual activity. But if we, as nudists, were to be honest about our mantra of "normal, just naked", then we ought to understand that sex can be involved in nudism in the same way that sex is involved in people's textile lives outside the world of nudism, without it suggesting that the sex is an inherent part of the activity (whether nudist or textile - sex is just a part of life, and a big and important part too, that we ought not try so hard to extricate from our lives based on bullshit puritan values). No, the thing that bothers me is this wave of elitism, which is born of nudists' desire to keep nudism's image pure - so as to render it more acceptable to mainstream textile society. This elitism breeds the sort of attitude I detest, where the pure, nonsexual nudist is a "true" nudist, and a nudist who happens to be an exhibitionist or a swinger, or gets turned on by nude scenes in movies, or what have you, is a "fake", and worse yet, a traitor to the world of nudism.

I've said it before. I get that nudism is nonsexual. And I like that nudism is nonsexual. If nudism were about naked people getting together to have sex orgies, I wouldn't be interested in it. That's precisely why I'm not a swinger, and have no real interest in becoming one. I can enjoy nudity on a purely nonsexual level. But there's also that middle ground, where being naked outdoors and in public feels sexy, and might get me aroused - not to the point that I want to start boning someone, stroking myself, getting covered in disgusting bodily fluids, no! I just mean, on a sensory level, it can be a very enjoyable sensation both physically and psychologically. And trying too hard to take the eroticism out of that just defeats the fun of it.

I'm an exhibitionist. I'm a voyeur, too. I won't lie and tell you that it isn't exciting to be able to be naked in front of other people, strangers, in different places. I won't lie and tell you that it's not exciting to be able to see attractive people nude in similar situations (most nudists are not attractive to me, just like most people in the world are not attractive to me - but every once in awhile, you'll come across someone who's attractive, and it's that much more exciting if you have the opportunity to see them naked - that's the simple truth, void of any feeble attempts to deny biology and my feelings in the hope of winning brownie points with my pastor who preaches God's decree that Man be asexual, against our very natures - that's the very basis of my point about the truth of beauty - being honest, and sincere, regardless of the image you wish to project).

Problem is, most people have this idea in their head, the image of the exhibitionist, who stands there with a stupid smile on his face, staring at all the naked people, and the voyeur, who hides in the bushes or peeks over the fence, jerking himself off while spying on all the naked people. Few voyeurs and exhibitionists actually behave like this. Most of the peepers, anyway, are not dedicated voyeurs - they're probably just curious (and who can honestly blame them?). The real voyeurs and the real exhibitionists are probably already inside the club, and are probably already good friends with you. And there's a good chance you don't know that they're a voyeur or an exhibitionist, because they aren't cartoon caricatures, they're people.

Now a lot of people being faced with that fact might think, oh god, I'm being deceived and taken advantage of, something must be done! But that's ridiculous. Voyeurs and exhibitionists are not dangerous. They're not going to rape you or your kids - in fact, if they're really voyeurs and exhibitionists, that means they enjoy just watching, and not actively getting involved; and even apart from that, their interest in the eroticism of the naked sensory experience a) does not mean they are constantly horny, looking for sexual targets, and b) does not imply that they cannot also enjoy the true nudist appeal of being naked, that is to say, the myriad nonsexual reasons that nudity is enjoyable. It's true, that a person can (and even simultaneously) be both a nudist and a swinger, voyeur, or exhibitionist. Many nudists do acknowledge this fact, but from the elitist/prudist point of view, these nudists are "dirty" nudists, not true nudists, traitors and deceivers, bringing down the name of nudism, and hurting nudists everywhere. Well that's ridiculous.

Let's think critically for a moment. Naturally, there are going to be people in the world who are turned on by nudity. Whether this is something any one person thinks ought to be the case or not, those people are going to exist. Obviously, there are a lot of people who like sex, but I think it would be a specific kind of person who is attracted to the sort of not overtly sexual nudity that nudism celebrates. Anyone with half a brain could figure out after a little research that nudist resorts are not playgrounds for sex orgies, and if that's what they're looking for, then they're bound to start looking elsewhere once they figure this out. What about the people who are curious about the nudity? Is it our place to police people's thoughts, to place restrictions upon certain kinds of motivations? Or should we judge people based on their behavior and how they comport themselves? It's easy to kick out a person who's causing a disruption, and engaging in behaviors that are clearly frowned upon. If a person behaves impeccably, should it matter whether or not he thinks nudity can be sexually exciting?

What this world needs is the creation of the image of the polite pervert, the person who can enjoy the erotic stimulations that life sends us, without acting like the stereotypical pervert, making rude comments, harassing strangers, engaging in lewd behaviors in public. Ironically, the polite perverts go largely unnoticed, due to their great ability to control their perversion and not act out in stereotypically perverted ways. So they go ignored, and the public, seeing only the type of pervert who acts out, begins to associate perversion with acting out. Then, in their language and their policies, they begin to fight perversion when the original goal was to fight those disruptive behaviors. And the casualty is the polite pervert who does not engage in those disruptive behaviors, but who is nevertheless discriminated against in the language of the policies and attitudes that have adapted to treating perversion as if it were the causal factor triggering the sort of rude and lewd behaviors they want to abolish.

And so sex becomes an enemy, and people repress themselves, and we end up in this terrible state of affairs, overwhelmed by deception and hypocrisy, where everyone is absolutely obsessed with sex (more so because it's taboo), but too terrified to admit it because they don't want to be one of those obnoxious perverts that they and all their friends are constantly compelled to complain about (because that's the zeitgeist, and god forbid you should step out of line and refuse to conform to popular notions - then again, you've been raised with these erroneous beliefs, so you probably don't even realize how wrong you are).

It's quite a mess, isn't it? Well, I'm doing my best to right it by advocating for sexual liberation - the goal being not to induce sexual anarchy, but to encourage the polite perverts, the ones who are being overlooked, to admit to their perversion in the hope that in doing so, more people will be able to recognize that perversion doesn't have to be about indiscriminate sex orgies and all the "terrible" things god (and our politicians) warn us about.

And in the meantime, I see no reason to be alarmed by the fact that sex perverts are going to necessarily be attracted to nudism. As long as nudists continue to make it clear that nudism is not about having sex orgies, and that overtly sexual behaviors will not be permitted in nudist venues, that's all that really needs to be done. There's no point in fretting over the perverts who might have the wrong idea - they can be educated, and if this doesn't change their perverted feelings, then what more can you expect? You're never going to be able to force people to not be attracted to nudity, and you're never going to be able to stop perverts from having some interest in nudism, on account of the fact that nudity is so hard to come by in this puritan world. So you might as well stop worrying about it. You can't perfectly police the image of nudism, either - you will never get everyone in the world to have the "right" (according to your limited perspective) view of nudism, and you really shouldn't want to (think diversity), so you might as well stop losing sleep over it.

People will always be attracted to nudity. You can't change it or stop it. If that's the result that public acceptance of nudism requires, then you better think of a different strategy, because you're never going to get there. You might wonder what other strategy one could possibly have - well I've already got one. Ending the sex taboo. Prohibitionists and abolitionists (these people actually believe commercial sex work is a form of slavery) will try to convince you that embracing sex will initiate a rapid societal decline into a state akin to that of Sodom & Gomorrah. This is a lie. It's called propaganda. It's seductive because it's designed to be - it's designed to make you accept their goal (controlling sex). But it's not true.

The same argument is used about drug use, and all sorts of "vice crimes" that don't hurt anyone. Pretty much everything you've been told is wrong. Why do you trust the media and politicians? Why do you trust scientists and teachers without critically examining the evidence yourself? Everyone has an agenda, everyone stands to profit from getting other people to believe their lies. Even I do. But that's why I try so hard to emphasize skepticism, and honesty to combat hypocrisy. I don't want you to believe what I say, I just want you to consider the point of view that's being silenced. Because only after balancing the issue, and critically examining the two sides can you come to a balanced decision, and have a much greater chance of accepting what is true, instead of what is convenient (or what someone else is invested in having you believe).

Everywhere I go, I see chants of sex is bad, sex is dangerous, sex is dirty. So naturally, since I enjoy sex in a good, wholesome, healthy manner, I want to promote my perspective, which is quite contrary to the popular image, which encourages no end of discriminatory language and practices against those who engage in sex (who certainly, in most cases, don't view themselves in the same negative terms their opponents fling at them). What is your goal in this world? To make everyone else think the way you do? To force them to embrace your idea of what's good and what's evil, of what's valuable, and what's rubbish? To act and think like you? Do you want to control other people? Shame on you. My goal is freedom of choice - giving people the ability to choose to live their lives the way they want to - not the way you or the sheriff or the mayor or God wants.

Generalization is the enemy of individuality. And I caution you to avoid using it where you can. I feel guilty about using it myself against my opponents, but I'm dealing with people who hurt me and others like me, due to their narrow-mindedness. I don't think most of them are bad people, I could probably be friends with them given the chance. They might not even realize how hurtful the ideas they toss around are. But that's why I'm speaking out to raise awareness. Don't criticize people who don't live like you. Try to get to know them first - actually get to know them, not just research stereotypes and more generalizations. And in the meantime, refrain from judging them, just because they're not like you, and you maybe can't understand them through the lens of your own biased perspective (everyone has a biased perspective, even me - that's why it's important to put extra effort into being objective and thoughtful, and thinking before you speak). Not everyone has it in them to be a better kind of person, but if you do, you owe it to yourself and the rest of humanity to try.

Showering With Strangers

I think that, in our culture, showering is a pretty private activity. It's a bathroom activity - and most of those you do alone, even if some of them (brushing your teeth) are less potentially embarrassing than others (sitting on the toilet). Plus, you're naked in the shower, and modesty dictates that noone is allowed to see your naked parts, but for a few exceptions (close relatives when you're small, friends when you're drunk and goofing off, spouses when you're horny). If that's not enough, you're rubbing your hands all over your naked, wet body in the shower, and hell if that's not at least a little bit sensual (even if you're not thinking about that when you do it).

Most people shower alone, and have an expectation of privacy when they're showering - again, but for a few exceptions, like if you're showering with an intimate partner, or if you're a kid in the bath with your siblings. Of course, not everyone goes by those rules. Nudists, for example, are by definition lax about modesty regarding nudity, and in many nudist resorts and locales, there are outdoor shower facilities (like the indoor kind you find in locker rooms, that go largely underused thanks to a combination of excessive modesty and homophobia, due to locker rooms being unnecessarily segregated by gender) where men and women old and young alike all shower together without a care in the world (then again, they're hanging out naked together without a care in the world in the first place).

You, of course, don't shower with strangers in these places, as that would be pretty awkward, but you could very well find yourself showering next to, or in front of, complete strangers as well as friends and family members. And really, once you get over the thought that "this is supposed to be a private activity", it's really not a big deal. We all shower. And nobody is particularly interested in your shower routine - you do what works for you. Unless they're a jerk, nobody is going to criticize your routine or anything of the sort.

But what of the sensual element I mentioned above? Watching an attractive person shower can be a highly sensual experience, I won't deny that. In nudist contexts, this sort of thing is strictly verboten, because it is impolite, and people don't go to nudist resorts to be gawked and leered at. And what's more, if you aren't intending to be watched, then having someone's eye on you can make you incredibly self-conscious. But in a more appropriate context, it could be a very sensual experience, both for the exhibitionist in the shower, and the voyeur watching.

Now I get the sense that some people would think, "who would want to watch me showering?" And if they're not particularly attractive, then maybe the answer to that question is, not very many people. But if they are, or if they are more attractive than they think they are, then there might be some people out there who would be interested. Now, how is one supposed to feel about that? Cultural values regarding modesty dictate that we ought to feel a bit creeped out that somebody would derive pleasure from looking at us naked. But I say, why the hell should that bother us? It's only natural.

I guess if you think about it reflexively, if it were you looking at yourself, you'd probably be a bit creeped out, because I imagine that most people are not particularly attracted to themselves (I may be a bit of an outlier in that sample). But think about somebody else, who is very attractive to you. Of course, if you've internalized the sexual shame that society has pounded into your brain, then you'll probably feel bad about "lusting" after another person. But if you're comfortable with your perfectly natural and healthy sexual feelings, then you might recognize that getting to watch an attractive woman (or whoever you might be attracted to) taking a shower (preferably with her permission, firstly because it's more fun if the other person is enjoying it too - although your feelings on that may vary - and secondly because it's more ethical that way, which entails less guilt) is a pretty exciting thing to do.

Now, just conceptualize it this way. There might be some people out there who are attracted to you, and would enjoy watching you take a shower. It's not creepy or anything, it's just natural sexual curiosity. And there are probably a lot of other people who have absolutely no interest in watching you take a shower (and not necessarily because you're ugly, they may just not be attracted to men, or whatever the case may be). There's no reason to feel dirty about letting the people who want to see it see it. And if some people don't want to see it, that's perfectly fine - and they really should not criticize you for letting others who do want to see it see it. That's called censorship - keeping something from someone who wants to see it. If somebody thinks you shouldn't give a naked picture of yourself (just as an easy example) to a person who wants to see it just because the first person (who wasn't asked and shouldn't be butting in) has no interest in seeing that sort of thing, they are forcing their interests and morals on you, and attempting to restrict your freedom of self-expression. Don't let them do that to you. Don't let them make you feel guilty or dirty for engaging in this kind of activity, either.

On a related issue, I hold firmly to the belief that letting a person see you naked, or even going so far as to let a person watch you masturbate, is not equivalent to giving them permission to have sex with you. This is why you should not feel awkward allowing people you are not attracted to, to be turned on by you. You can give people the gift of sexual excitement, without committing to engaging in any kind of sexual contact with them (that's the beauty of voyeurism/exhibitionism). To use a more concrete example, say you're a straight man. If a gay guy hits on you, you have no reason to feel intimidated, because simply being attractive to a gay guy doesn't make you gay. Attraction, as you probably know, is not always a two-way street. It doesn't have to always be a two-way street to be worth anything. If you're willing to give your attractiveness out without reciprocation, and if others are willing to be attracted to you without expectation of reciprocation, then more people can be happier and hornier and more relaxed about their sexuality without a need to put pressure on those they are attracted to who aren't attracted back.

Looking vs. Touching

The difference between exhibitionism and swinging is the difference between looking and touching. I might enjoy having sex in front of a crowd, but it doesn't mean I'm willing to have sex with any or everyone in that crowd (whether or not I might fantasize about it in the safety of my own head). My erotic photography is not an advertisement for a product that can be bought for the right price. My erotic photography is the product. Some people would argue that it's a tease, that there's no value in arousing one's sexual desire unless you also intend to satisfy it. I vehemently disagree. I think there is intrinsic value in the eroticism itself, apart from any consideration for sexual satisfaction, and I also think satisfying oneself to an external stimulus is a perfectly respectable alternative to having a stimulus that actively satisfies you.

It's not unlike the argument that girls who dress provocatively and don't put out are asking to be raped. My sexual attraction to another person is not their responsibility, and if I find someone attractive, they have no obligation to me. I could be attracted to someone who doesn't dress particularly provocatively, or I might be drawn to an element of her clothing or style that she hadn't intended or expected to be attractive. This does not imbue her with any sort of responsibility to my sexual desires. And it's no different if she wears something that our culture defines as provocative, and expects to be accompanied by promiscuous sexuality. Regardless of a person's intentions with the way they dress (or act, or simply look), the only and responsible way to know if a person is interested in a certain type of activity is to ask her, not assume, based on appearances.

I welcome the internet because it greatly facilitates the practice of voyeurism. But we need to divest ourselves of this belief - particularly rampant concerning the interpretation of pornography - that a sexy picture is intrinsically related to sexual activity. If the picture depicts sexual activity, then it is obviously related to the sexual activity that it depicts. But if it does not, then we cannot presume that a certain body posture, or a come-hither stare, or the style or lack of clothing, or anything, is an invitation to sexual activity, when it could simply be flirtatious and sexy (not sexual) behavior.

In either case, there can be no presumption of a link to any other sexual activity that follows the display or sharing of that picture (and we must differentiate between independent sexual behavior, and sexual behavior that actively involves the stimulating subject - in other words, jerking it to a picture on the web is not equivalent to having sex with, much less raping, the person in that picture; all the more so if that person has absolutely no idea). Again, it all comes down to asking what a person wants. Pictures are not a "fuck me" permission slip (in your dreams), any more than wearing a miniskirt or flirting are. And neither should we treat them as if they were such an invitation to loose and licentious behavior by censoring them. A picture is just a picture, depicting only what it depicts. Nothing more. Anything else that might come of it is courtesy of the installment plan, and can be billed exclusively to those active participants who are responsible for it.

Hang on, "fuck me" permission slip? ...Oh, I just had a wonderfully naughty idea. >;-)

A(nother) Note On Privacy

I don't want to criticize other people's uses of the internet, but sometimes my philosophy runs counter to the intuition of many. On flickr, there is a sizable portion of the community that is interested in what can best be described as amateur porn. This is entirely understandable, as sex is popular (whether you like it or not), and I respect flickr for allowing it, because otherwise, I would likely not be permitted to make 'artistic erotica' that borders the line of the explicit, and would therefore either have to give up my passion for erotic photography, or else find some other place to showcase my work.

Most of the people who are into this amateur porn sharing activity are less like me - with a driving artistic passion - and more of the 'let the horny pics flow' variety. Moreover, though they are undoubtedly sexually liberated, I get the sense that in most cases their sexual liberation is a 'secret' from their public and professional lives, whereas I - though I don't advertise my sexual interests to my friends (well, maybe a little) and family (to say nothing of business associates), neither am I committed to keeping it a big secret, because I respect honesty and transparency, and I think that sex should be less stigmatized and the only way to do that is to fight back against the 'deny it and pretend it doesn't happen' mentality.

Not everyone, though, is in a position to be able to afford the potential blow to their reputation should others find out about their proclivity for sexy "mis"deeds. And so, there is some concern about privacy when sharing pics online. Now, I agree that general concerns about privacy on the internet are valid and important, as regards personal information. But when the point of an activity is to share pictures, it seems counterintuitive to go to lengths to control the distribution of those pictures in certain ways. Most people keep their pictures on flickr private so that only specific people they add to their designated contact list can then see the pictures they share. This serves the purpose of preventing anyone not interested in seeing those pictures from seeing them, and only allowing those to see them who have expressed an interest in seeing them (and in some cases, having something in return).

On the first concern, I can't help thinking that flickr's safety filters already do the job of preventing people who don't like porn from seeing it. Of course, somebody who likes to see porn (or doesn't, but is willing to look for investigative purposes) will be able to see it even if you don't want them, specifically, to see it (say, a friend of yours or a family member who you'd rather not know you were into this sort of thing). On the other hand, people put up these "walls" of privacy that are mostly illusory, that do more to lull you into a false sense of security than to really prevent information from getting into the wrong hands. Any person you let past your wall of defense can take your pictures and then post them anywhere else, without your permission. Most of the people coming in are largely anonymous anyway (because they, like you, don't want their activities to be known), so you can't possibly know them well enough to trust them, and limiting access to only the most trusted has the effect of 1) pretty much defeating the purpose of sharing in the first place, and 2) not keeping you 100% safe anyway, because people you trusted can turn on you, or prove to be less trustworthy than you thought, or even cause problems unintentionally by making mistakes.

So, I say, if you're posting pictures on the internet, chances are they could end up anywhere. Which means two things. If you absolutely cannot deal with having to defend that picture no matter who sees it, then you really should not be uploading it to the internet*, unless you're prepared to deal with the regret and fallout should you gamble on the risk of nobody important finding out, and lose. The other thing this means is that if you're posting a picture on the internet that you're capable of defending even if your, say, grandmother** ends up finding it (as unlikely as that is, it is not impossible), then there's really no reason to put up any extraneous privacy walls other than trying to keep that picture in a place where people who want to see it can find it and people who don't can easily avoid it (although this is only an issue of social politeness).

* Of course, sending private pictures to your boyfriend/girlfriend/someone you trust by email is an entirely different matter than posting pictures on a photo sharing site to be viewed and admired by anonymous strangers.

** Ex: Say I have a relative who is conservative and very religious. I'd rather not have her know that I pose for sexually explicit pictures and share them with strangers on the internet. On the other hand, if she found out, I'm not going to deny it, and I'm not going to hang my head in shame either. This is a part of who I am, and while it's unfortunate if she doesn't like it and chooses to judge me for it (the possibility of which is the reason I don't go out of my way to tell her), I'm not going to change, and I'm not going to feel sorry for myself because someone else doesn't like what I do.

And that's how I do things. I did mention another concern, which is the 'barter' system of internet trading - "you can't see my pictures unless you have some pictures of your own to show me." I think it's great to encourage people to go out and take more pictures for us all to see, but I'm not going to require that someone have a picture of interest to me before I allow them to take pleasure in viewing what pictures I have. Some groups on flickr also have this policy, in that you will not be allowed to join unless you have pictures to contribute that fit the theme of the group. While it's great to have contributing members, it seems kind of discriminatory for me not to be able to join a group to advertise my appreciation for erotic nudes of women, just because I haven't really had the chance to take any erotic pictures of women myself. Do you see what I mean?

Anyway, there's definitely a poor opinion of "leechers" and "lurkers" in internet communities, and while in some cases that opinion is warranted, in others it looks to me like your typical discrimination against voyeurs and people who lack opportunity and those who are more passive and like to observe the world more than interact with it. That's not to say that they're worthless and don't have anything to contribute, just that they go about it in a different way, and you really shouldn't discriminate against them just because they behave differently than what you're used to.

In short, to paraphrase what I've said before, I'm not about hazing and private communities and secret privileges. I'm about honesty and transparency and giving power to the people.

Toy Sex

[description: montage of photos of two undressed female figurines in a variety of intimate poses]

I took the above pictures several years ago, just for fun. Who among us hasn't looked at an attractive doll or action figure of the appropriate sex and thought, I wonder what she'd look like without her clothes on? And who among us hasn't had the thought cross our mind to experiment with sexual roles using these dolls as stand-ins? After all, we play war games and adventure games and all sorts of games with our toys, why should we not also play sex games with them? The only reason I can think of is that we are indoctrinated to believe that sex is dirty and immoral and something we should be ashamed of, and only experiment with behind closed doors, keeping it all a big secret as if to pretend that none of it really happens.

I took those pictures purely for my own entertainment, but that was at a time when I was less sexually liberated than I am now, and also when I had less experience as an erotic photographer. These days, I can see the wealth of inspiring potential that the use of a doll or figurine can have in the context of an erotic photo shoot, and suddenly my mind turns once again towards the toys of my youth, but with a sexual gaze that has been for much of my life restrained. As a person who is questioning the accuracy of his lifelong socially appointed gender, I do tend to jump at opportunities to recover the girlhood I never had. Yet with a clear sexual appetite, I now see so much more potential in the procurement of a collection of Barbie dolls, for example, than a simple chance to practice the consumerist fashion-conscious role that is prescribed to girls.

Furthermore, I notice with curious amusement that among the great variety of sexual tastes that abound, there are some out there who do indeed get a special thrill out of interacting with their 'dolls' of various styles in a rather, shall we say, intimate manner. Though it does not represent an obsessive passion of mine, I must frankly admit that it all sounds like quite a bit of fun. And so it was that almost a year ago now I posed with one of my own anime figures for some intriguing pictures. I wasn't sure how or if I wanted to present those pictures at the time, so I stored them away for a while. But the idea was so clever and novel, that several months later, I decided that I simply must share the best one [broken link], at least, of those pictures for the world (or at least the perverted component of it) to see.

And now, because I have recently come upon some photos taken by others that have rekindled my inspiration for this particular photographic theme, I'd like to share with you a handful of other photos that came out of that shoot, almost a year ago now. Apart from being sexy, which you may or may not agree with, I think they are clever and amusing, so if the subject itself doesn't turn you off (which is to say, it doesn't bother you to look at closeups of somebody else's penis - which I would entirely understand if it does), then I hope you'll enjoy these:

[description: series of closeup photos of a nude female figurine interacting with an erect penis]

Erection Day

I hereby designate the Tuesday after the first Monday in November Erection Day! So don't be shy, this is the day to sport your erections - because the only thing the "polls" are good for is jerking!

I don't support democracy. It doesn't make sense to me that a nation should be ruled differently depending on the personality of its ruler(s), especially when those ruler(s) change too frequently to provide any stability. Laws and rights and policies should be determined by logic and ethical reasoning, not tastes and opinions. Fundamental equality is a farce unless we abide by universalist ethics, not ethics that are voted on by a majority. Having a Constitution means nothing if its enforcement depends upon the individual interpretation of the person the rest of society has elected to judge you.

Sexy Holidays

Some people complain that Halloween has become too sexualized, with all the girls dressing up in "sexy" versions of popular costumes. I've never had a problem with that; in fact, I think it makes the holiday that much more exciting. Then again, I don't limit my festivities to Halloween - I like to sexualize all of the holidays!

Sexy Santa!

Nude New Year's!

Voluptuous Valentine's!

Frisky Easter Bunny!

A Horny Halloween!

And A Tasty Turkey Dinner!

Everything in life is simply more fun when it's sexy! And you don't have to wait for the holidays to come around - every day can be Sexy Day!

Obscenity (noun)

def: The concept that some speech is indefensible under the First Amendment's free speech protections.
ex: The only thing that's obscene is the concept of obscenity itself.

I mean, come on, what the fuck is the justification for obscenity? Spiritual purity? Since when does the state have a compelling interest in protecting the spiritual purity of its citizens, and which government-sanctioned religion dictates which thoughts are spiritually pure, and which are spiritually bankrupt?

What exactly is the concept of freedom of speech? I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't a selection of the community voting on whether or not your speech is wholesome.

Let's explore the conditions of The Miller Test (expanded):

1. The work in question must depict or describe sexual conduct.

* Proof that "obscenity" is concerned merely with sexual speech. That begs the question, why does sex, as a general topic, deserve more scrutiny under free speech rights than any other? Excepting of course, as the result of religious prudery.

2. The prohibited conduct must be specifically described in the law.

* This is actually reassuring, because I'd rather know exactly what sorts of things I can and cannot say, than to leave it up to interpretation. But this is only about the conduct described (or depicted) in the speech. Why should certain types of sexual acts not be allowed to be described or depicted? Surely, some acts may be considered criminal, but then, is the speech that accompanies them similarly criminal? If I take a picture of a crime, does that make me criminally liable? What if I merely discuss an illegal act, or draw it using stick figures? The illegal act itself has not been committed, but is it still illegal to talk about?

3. The work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (the "SLAPS" test)

* This seems like a legitimate consideration, but it's totally empty. It's basically an extension of the "socially redeeming value" doctrine, attempting to delineate what constitutes "socially redeeming value" (which is a good thing - again, I want the law to tell me exactly what I can and cannot do, rather than leave it up to interpretation). Except that it's still a matter of interpretation. And are these really the only categories under which a work may have socially redeeming value? And why should a work have to have such value to be legal? Since when are we putting a value judgment on acts of speech, and then criminalizing the ones that are deemed worthless? We only do it with sexual speech. The underlying assumption is that sexual speech, on its own, is offensive and unredeeming, and that it has to contain some extra value to be worth defending - otherwise, it's corrupting and deserves to be censored and punished.

4. The work, taken as a whole and applying contemporary community standards, must appeal to prurient interest in sex.

* Following on that last point, we see that interest in sex for its own sake (i.e., "prurient" interest), is not defensible. This is religious bullshit about sexual purity and chastity. You're not allowed to have lustful thoughts - and if we catch you, that is, by hearing you engage in sexual speech for the sake of "prurient" interest, then we will punish you. What the hell? It's not the government's job to keep me sexually pure, and protect me from sexual corruption.

5. The work must portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, applying contemporary community standards.

* The whole contemporary community standards thing is scary, because it makes things rather subjective. I guess the idea is that if the speech offends the community, then it ought to be censored. Hello, is that what the concept of freedom of speech is supposed to represent? If it bothers people, it ought to censored, and punished? NO! Offensive speech (apart from harrassing behavior) should be strictly defended by the government! And anyway, why should community standards have ANYTHING to do with speech that is not broadcast publicly to the community? What people shout in the streets is one thing, and what they talk about over dinner is something else. Still though, the value of free speech is not dependent on whether or not people like it.

All together, it would seem that this is a pretty good test, given that a "work" (you can tell they're targeting pornographic videos, can't you?) has to fail all these standards to be deemed obscene. Yet not one of these standards is actually reasonable in context, and they all blatantly single out sexual speech for special scrutiny, yet without giving a justification for why this should be so. Which I suspect is because if they did give the justification, it would be obviously unconstitutional. "We are concerned for your mortal soul". The First Amendment covers not only freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. What other justification for safeguarding the sexual purity of citizens can you think of other than on religious grounds? There's no scientific evidence that prurient discussions or depictions of sexuality are harmful to people who want to have them (on the contrary, it tends to promote sexual interest, which is, by the way, required for the continued survival of the species) - and it's not okay to restrict a person's right to speak on the grounds that somebody else who hears it might get upset.

Redefining Voyeurism/Exhibitionism

Voyeurism and exhibitionism seem like the same thing to me. They're just two sides of the same coin. After all, you can't have exhibitionism without someone watching, and you can't have voyeurism without someone being watched. In any given act of voyeurism/exhibitionism, one or more persons is the voyeur(s), and one or more persons is the exhibitionist(s).

I suppose consent may be an issue. A man who exposes himself to strangers in the park is engaging in exhibitionism with nonconsenting "voyeurs" (if we can even call them that). And a man who peeks through the keyhole of a bedroom door is engaging in voyeurism of nonconsenting "exhibitionists" (again, if we can even call them that).

But it seems to me that a person who likes to watch (or be watched) would, purely out of politeness, prefer to watch (or be watched by) someone who likes to be watched (or who likes to watch). Yet there is this stereotypical assumption that voyeurs get off on invading the privacy of others, and that exhibitionists get off on shocking and offending people.

I am sure there are fetishists out there that are like that, but what about the rest of us who like to watch or be watched preferably in a consensual context, given the opportunity? Is there a different word for us? Frankly, I think it's discriminatory to assume, by definition, that voyeurs and exhibitionists are persons who are aroused by intrinsically nonconsensual sexual activity!

Personally, I think there should be more of a distinction between consensual and nonconsensual voyeurism/exhibitionism, than there is between voyeurism and exhibitionism itself. Perhaps we need a new concept to describe voyeurism and exhibitionism as they occur in a consensual context - Mutual Voyeurism/Exhibitionism (MVE) perhaps? Or maybe something that emphasizes the importance of observation, without signaling one or the other side of it: as nonconsensual voyeurs engage in voyeurism against non-exhibitionists, and nonconsensual exhibitionists engage in exhibitionism against non-voyeurs, and only mutual voyeurs/exhibitionists engage in consensual voyeurism/exhibitionism (simultaneously).

Note also, that if a person engages in nonconsensual voyeurism or exhibitionism, it does not necessarily preclude them from being a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist. It may simply be the case that, due to an inability to find a consenting partner (not hard to believe in a society that discourages, even stigmatizes, voyeurism and exhibitionism), they may, perhaps in desperation, or purely out of convenience, have taken risks or made decisions resulting in a less than optimal outcome. Given the right opportunity, they may prefer a consensual experience to a nonconsensual one, and should thus not be stigmatized as the type who thrives on the nonconsent of their "partners" (or victims, if you will).

Furthermore, even a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist may prefer one over the other, due to his tastes and personality, just like some people in the BDSM community prefer to be doms or subs, while others can enjoy both sides. I would designate these persons either mutual voyeurs or mutual exhibitionists, depending, with the "mutual" prefix indicating that they prefer consenting partners to nonconsenting ones (contrary to what the public casually assumes about voyeurs and exhibitionists - much like they have, in the past, stereotypically assumed that members of the BDSM community are rapists and committers of violent sexual abuse).

Myself, I would describe as a mutual voyeur/exhibitionist, as I enjoy both sides, and prefer to engage with consenting "partners". (In the case of voyeurism and exhibitionism, the term "partners" may refer not only to people you are engaging with in sexual contact or intercourse, but also to persons you are watching - "performers" - or persons who are watching you - "observers"). Lastly, because of the hands-off nature of voyeurism and exhibitionism, as well as the immediacy of sight, it stands to reason that allegedly "nonconsenting" acts of voyeurism and exhibitionism can often be very minor invasions of privacy or offenses against decency - indeed, if at all - and should thus be considered accordingly, and not treated like serious crimes when they clearly do not constitute such.

Art or Sex

The difference between myself, as an artist, and an ordinary pervert is that I am devoted to beauty, not sexual conquest. My interest in girls is not to possess them sexually - that is not my goal. I merely desire to have their permission to honor and admire their beauty; and in the best-case scenario, to be permitted to immortalize it in my photography.

Now, that's not to say that eroticism isn't a part of the beauty I admire. I wish it were as simple as separating my sexual interests from the aesthetic qualities I appreciate. Then I could just be a regular photographer taking pictures of beautiful people, without having to deal with the stigma of being labeled a "pervert".

And certainly, the experience of spotting a pretty girl on the street is qualitatively different from the experience of spotting a sexy girl on the street. But I'm too honest to pretend that there isn't some relationship between the two, and that the two never overlap.

Most people politely avoid sexual connotations in order to defend their reputation (because sex, in this society, is vilified). I'm not willing to do that, because I'm dedicated to exploring the world as it is, and that means not sweeping inconvenient truths under the rug.

But even accepting the potential sexual connotations of my work, the fact remains that there is a distinction between erotic beauty and sexual activity. One is a transient act that brings intense pleasure usually to no more than a few people at a time. The other is a romantic concept, the realm of dreams and desires, often inspired by a physical quality that is possible to preserve, through art.

Both of these have their virtues, and their drawbacks. But they should not be mistaken for one another, though they may be related. And my dedication is not to sexual activity (not that I am asexual, either), but to beauty, even as it approaches the erotic.

It is possible that, in my mind, I have eroticized aesthetic beauty to an unusual extent. But if part of my admiration of those qualities is erotic in nature, I don't feel comfortable denying that. Yet if, on the other hand, I were to tell someone that my interest in photographing models (especially nude) is artistic or spiritual, and not at all sexual in nature, they will be suspicious if they have any reason to suspect otherwise. They will not trust me unless I am 100% clean. And because I have so far embraced sexuality to the extent that I have, I am not only not 100% clean, but blatantly unclean, in the eyes of the chaste.

So my honesty is punished, where more deceptive men may be able to get away with it - men who, I emphasize, may have less noble goals than I do. After all, if they've deceived you about their sexual interest, they may also have deceived you about their devotion to art, and only be interested in exploiting and taking advantage of their models. This is cause for much distrust in the artistic community (see: GWC - Guy With Camera), toward those who express an unverifiable "artistic interest", as if this were a badge of honest intent, entitling the bearer to special privileges.

Well, as a token of my honesty, I'm telling you that I do have a sexual interest in the models I'd like to photograph. But my devotion to art is likewise sincere.

Pleasure in Procreating

Why does sex feel good?

I suppose it's because our bodies are designed to respond with pleasure when our sexual organs are stimulated.

But why is this so? If you believe in intelligent design, then I guess your creator has a few questions to answer (and I'm afraid it looks like he's not talking). I, however, am of the opinion that evolution is the most reasonable hypothesis currently on the market.

So what is the key to evolution? Survival. This sounds like a tautology, but that which is adapted to survive will survive, and that which is not will die off.

What forms does survival take? One is immortality - indefinite survival of the self. Unfortunately, this poses certain physical problems (see the Law of Entropy), and I don't believe any living organism we know of has figured it out...yet.

Another form is renewal. Though the individual must eventually die, his species can live on through his progeny. Enter the cycle of life. Those that wither and die are replaced by new generations, created through sexual reproduction.

As we can see, procreation is important for survival. So what kind of mechanism is necessary for organisms to procreate enthusiastically, in order to encourage the continued propagation of the species?

Logical thought is one possibility. An organism may procreate because he understands the need to procreate. However, many organisms have not developed an intellectual faculty for logical thought (as far as we can discern). Furthermore, an individual may decide that survival is not his goal.

The species with the best chance for survival is the one that has an overwhelming compulsion to reproduce. An organism that enjoys sex is more likely to fuck - and fuck often. Since we are the product of many years of evolution, it may very well be the case that sex feels good because it has enabled us to survive.

Now, an amoeba or a fruit fly's primary concern may be to reproduce before it dies, but we as humans are highly advanced organisms. Beyond survival (of the self, and the species), there is a little thing called "quality of life", that we can afford to concern ourselves with. And though happiness is very complex, in general, pleasurable activities are desirable - including sex.

Of course, procreation - while both important and rewarding - carries a large burden, and is not the desirable end result of every individual sex act, for organisms intelligent enough to understand the process and make that decision. Reproduction is fundamentally important for the species, but pleasure is an even more basic desire for the individual. And while an individual may desire to reproduce only a handful of times throughout his life, he wants to experience pleasure as much as possible.

Sex fulfills a very unique and strong desire. It is unlike any other. A man can pursue all sorts of alternative pleasures in life, but none will equal the pleasure that sex brings. Perhaps in some transhumanist future, we will be able to displace the need for sex and replace it with something decidedly less risky, that also doesn't involve the complications of interpersonal relations. Perhaps we will become the engineers of our own evolution, and be able to separate completely the pleasure of sex from the need to procreate.

But for now, we have to deal with the potential complications of sex (transfer of disease, unplanned pregnancy, complicated relationships), while understanding that sex is both pleasurable, and fulfills a fundamental human need. I think we are intelligent and sophisticated enough to engage in recreational sex responsibly. Shaming people out of having sex too freely is no longer helpful (if it ever was). It negatively affects the quality of too many people's lives, with minimal benefit (it does not encourage people to fuck responsibly). People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to engage in sexual activity, after being properly educated about both the pros and cons, how to minimize risk and act responsibly, as well as how best to enjoy oneself (and one's partner(s)).

And aside from that, whether in addition or as an alternative, people should be encouraged to pursue the erotic arts and seek out the sensual pleasures in life, and develop a rich fantasy life, for those times when sex with another is not convenient. Life is a sensual experience, and there is no excuse for shaming people out of being able to enjoy those pleasures.

The old may not admire the young?

I was just reading some comments on a random thread about convention photography, looking for some advice about good lenses to use in that environment, and I came across a comment which is not particularly uncommon. The poster of that comment was remarking at how "gross" it is that at conventions s/he often sees "old" men shamelessly snapping photos of all the young girls in skimpy costumes, and oh my god, isn't that creepy? And I can kind of see where that comment is coming from, because I'm not blind to the prudish attitudes that pervade modern sexual politics. And it's not simply a matter of 'guy attracted to girl' - which is, after all, natural - but it's a matter of 'older guy attracted to younger girl' that so often grosses people out.

Like I said, I can see where that's coming from. But that doesn't mean it's a justified reaction. It's no more natural for a young man to be attracted to a girl his age than it is for an older man to be attracted to a girl of that age. I'm hesitant to make a generalization about how all men are interested in young, virile women, but you do see it a lot. And I suspect it's part of biology. But why is it creepy? If the young girl represents a man's ideal of beauty, then why is it gross for him to recognize that, and admire it, regardless of his age? We have this expectation that people only be attracted to other people close to their age, but time and again, experience bears out that this is not always the way that sexual attraction works.

Now I suppose there are reasons why it's easier to date within one's age bracket. Social institutions often tend to be geared toward a generational segregation. You grow up in a system where you spend most of your time in classes with people within a year of your age. You make friends with those people, and often some of those people stay your friends throughout life. But even beyond that, people within a generation share quite a bit, in terms of interests and cultural experiences, so they're often easier to socialize with than people of disparate ages whose life experiences are vastly different from yours.

But you know what? A lot of good can come out of spending time with people who have had different life experiences than you. And a lot of value can be shared between older persons and younger persons (going in both directions), if their minds are opened. I am of the opinion that age is just a number, and I have had a lot of friends throughout my life that have been significantly older than me. I've always expressed a bit of a maturity beyond my years, so I suppose that's not all that unexpected. But as unique as I am, I'm not the only one who can benefit from those sorts of friendships.

Generally, these kinds of platonic friendships are respected, but as soon as the question of love and sex and romance come into play, people get uncomfortable. Anyone who dares to defy the "half-age plus seven" rule [infographic] is bound to draw suspicious looks and hushed whispers. After all, age-peer relationships are the rule, and we live in a conformity-loving society. It is the popular belief that freaks who flout convention deserve ridicule. As far as condoning age-disparate relationships, it would be worthwhile to discuss the difficulties that such relationships might pose compared to age-peer relationships, but there have been more than enough examples in practice to demonstrate that such relationships can be entirely sincere and positive. Ultimately, the responsibility of choice rests on those engaged in the relationship, and not on society to either condone or prohibit such relationships en masse.

And yet, the greater the disparity, the greater our concern. But neither are age-peer relationships always free of concern and complication. A person is not good (or bad) for you based solely (nor even primarily) on their age. Personality is a much better predictor of character and motivation. I ask you, is there reason to condemn a man's appreciation for the beauty of a young girl, based purely on his age? Does acceptable behavior at 20 become unacceptable at 40? At 60? At 80? Should people in those upper ages be forced to suppress their admiration and appreciation for youth? And if so, on what grounds? Because it looks "creepy"?

Viewing the appreciation of erotic beauty as "creepy" can only come from a sex negative mindset. What harm does appreciation do? Who is harmed by being appreciated? And is it because we love to shame people both for expressing their sexuality, and for being the target of sexual attention (yes, that's right, we just love to blame the victim)? And if so, are we justified in condemning these people when we should be pointing the finger back at ourselves?

As Oscar Wilde once wrote, "those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt." And yet the cultural paradigm is to regard anyone who responds to beauty (if there is any erotic context whatsoever) as a creepy pervert. We inject creepiness and perversion into our conception of beauty. Like as if beauty must exist pure and independent, that it is somehow spoiled if it is recognized, viewed. Or, perhaps, there is something wrong with beauty in itself - that it is some kind of evil, a taunting, sinful lure. If there is anyone at fault here, it is those who view the appreciation of beauty as something ugly. It is their twisted and confused attitudes about the nature of sexuality that need remedying. If we are to be honest, the truth is that these young girls are beautiful and sexy, and I can see no reason why anyone should be criticized for recognizing that fact.

Lens Talk

It took me a matter of hours to learn how to shop for a lens [broken link], and what all those numbers mean, but it took me years to work up the motivation to actually learn it, on account of my chronic laziness. I bought my digital SLR camera (a Canon XSi) just before Christmas 2008, which was almost three years ago now. At the time, I had recently lost the point-and-shoot camera I had been using for my 365 Daily Nudes project (at the Burning Man festival, along with all the amazing pictures I took at the festival). A few months after losing it, and being forced to fall back on the even crappier point-and-shoot camera I had been using before that one, I rekindled my fading desire to shoot photography. I decided that it was time to upgrade to "prosumer" level (somewhere between mindless consumer and sophisticated professional) and purchase a dSLR camera.

It's one of the best decisions I've ever made (certainly in terms of my photography hobby).

Thanks to the guidance of a tech-savvy friend, I got a good deal on a Canon XSi. The kit lens included in the package was the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens. As far as I can tell, it's a fantastic multi-purpose beginner's lens. I was upgrading from point-and-shoot quality photography, so the fact that it's not a high-end high-quality lens failed to affect me. Over time, I've begun to desire even better quality optics, but the flip side of that is that the technical quality of my photography has increased by leaps and bounds since my point-and-shoot days - as well as my knowledge and experience, especially after I made the daring move to start shooting in manual (versus auto) mode, and learn how to manipulate exposure.

Meanwhile, my tech-savvy friend, who's always been at least one step ahead of me (my first two digital cameras were old cameras of his that he was trying to get rid of), started recommending the EF 50mm f/1.8 II [prime] lens, which is a good quality lens for its really low price. I spent several months deliberating, and then finally bought it, lured by the promise of better quality pictures, and faster exposures, thanks to the larger aperture (f/1.8 versus the kit lens' f/3.5-5.6). The latter is of particular importance to me, considering that I shoot a lot of medium to low light photography, and I abhor using a flash. (I want a quick exposure to reduce motion blur, but to do that in situations where there's not a lot of light, you need a larger aperture to suck in as much light as possible).

The 50mm lens delivered on its promises. It's fast, and I really like how much better the pictures look compared to those taken with my kit lens. However, the one significant drawback is that with a 50mm focal length, the angle of view is very narrow - close to the upper range of the 18-55mm zoom that my kit lens sports. So it's like using that lens with it stuck in the "zoomed-in" position (except, of course, with faster exposures and better quality pictures). But for my photography needs, the tight angle of view is hard to deal with. I don't shoot a lot of small objects, and I probably shoot most of my photos indoors, where there's not a lot of room to back up and get everything in the frame.

So, I actually use my kit lens more often, switching in the 50mm only when I can get away with it - like if I'm shooting outdoors, where there's more space - although, ironically, there's usually more light, too, which kind of negates the need for faster exposures. And if I think about it, most of my photography is self-portraiture, where I'm using a tripod anyway, so I can afford to deal with slightly longer exposures. With a tripod, hand-shake from holding the camera isn't an issue, and I've become pretty good at holding still for poses. Hence, my kit lens is usually adequate, although there's still the desire to have a better quality lens - one without the drawback of having a tight angle of view like the 50mm has.

However, there's one other area in which I've felt my photography equipment has been considerably lacking, and that's in shooting convention photography. Most convention photography is indoors, where there's not a huge amount of natural light; and since it's not really practical to set up your tripod, you have to shoot hand-held, so quick exposures are important. But in the middle of a crowd, especially when the hallways are narrow and cramped, there's not a lot of room to back up, so you need to shoot fairly close to your subject. Plus, rather than head-and-shoulders portraits (which have never interested me much), you usually want to take full-body portraits to get the whole costume in the shot (and that's not to mention some of the long props congoing cosplayers sometimes wield). So you have to have a lens with a wide angle of view.

As it stands, I have two lenses. One of them has a wide enough angle of view for this type of photography, but it's too slow, and I've been consistently getting pictures that are way too blurry for my standards. The other lens I have is fast enough, but the angle of view is too tight, so I can't get the kind of pictures with it that I want. So now I'm studying the lenses that Canon has available, looking to see if there's something affordable I might be able to get my hands on. What I need is something with a focal length close to the lower range of my zoom lens, which is 18mm, but with an aperture size closer to my 50mm lens, which is f/1.8. Something fast, with a wide angle. But it also has to be cheap...

In an ideal world, I'd get a super expensive lens that is really high quality - for example, something in the luxury series, like the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM perhaps (and I might as well get a better camera, too, while I'm at it). But those lenses run for upwards of a thousand dollars, and are completely outside of my price range. I'm looking at the EF 28mm f/2.8, which is one of the cheapest Canon lenses on the market (other than the two I already own). It looks to be a reasonable compromise between the lenses I have: faster than my zoom, but wider than my prime. Although I would really like to try it out first before buying, to see if it's wide enough and fast enough, rather than risk being disappointed.

It's tempting to consider either the EF 24mm f/2.8, which is a bit wider than the 28mm f/2.8, or the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, which is a bit faster, but the former is a hundred dollars more expensive, and the latter is almost double the price of the 28mm f/2.8. I've never been a technical snob, and as long as I can get the pictures I need, with as much or better quality than the equipment I have (which doesn't allow me to get those pictures), I think I'll be satisfied. After all, the pictures you get with the cheap lens you own are going to be better quality than the pictures you don't get with the lens you don't have (because you can't afford it). Right?

Still, though, it'd be nice to try before I buy. Also, I haven't considered the used market (nor third-party lenses), where prices might be more affordable.

Abstinence vs. Sexual Purity

Sex - as in sexual intercourse, and various forms of sexual activity - carries some risks, and should be engaged in responsibly. There are reasons to abstain from those activities. Maybe you're not ready for the responsibility. Maybe you don't want to deal with the risks. Or maybe you simply don't have access to a partner you trust. But even if this is the case, it doesn't mean you have to remain sexually pure. There are other methods to sate your erotic desires.

Think about it. I don't go out and have sex with somebody every time I get horny. Most people probably don't. Some people are in committed relationships where they can have sex pretty much anytime they want it. I think this is probably the exception to the rule, as most people are not in such relationships, or their partners are not horny and available all day, every day (and even if they were, they'd probably be complaining about how you're not!).

So when I'm not with a person I want to have sex with (and who wants to have sex with me), do I restrain myself from entertaining any erotic thoughts? Do I abstain from pleasuring myself in any way? No. Whether I'm stimulating my body, or just my mind, there are plenty of ways I can indulge my erotic fantasies and desires - and one that I have great interest in is the art of eroticism - the creation and sharing of erotic pictures.

The point of this discussion is that when people think about sex, they think about all the risks of sex, and then they judge sexually-related activities based on those risks. But there are different forms of sex, and not all sex involves the risks of sexual intercourse. We shouldn't judge non-sexually-explicit erotic art as if its creation involved sexual intercourse. We shouldn't treat fantasies as if the activities they describe were being acted out in reality. And we shouldn't react to expressions of attraction as if they were a form of sexual assault.

If you're not having sex, you can still be sexy, and if you're sexy, it doesn't mean you're having sex.

The Difference Between Fantasy and Reality

I think we really need to understand what the difference between fantasy and reality is. Because restricting fantasies on the basis of their merits when practiced in reality is insane.

Imagine this fantasy. You're sitting on the subway, and a naked girl (or guy, depending on your orientation) walks up to you. She (or he) is really hot, and she immediately unzips your pants and begins to manually and orally pleasure you. You then take her home and fuck her hard all day long, again and again, until you're both exhausted. Then she leaves and you never see each other again.

That fantasy is really fucking hot, right? You know why it's hot? It's hot because you don't have to worry about getting arrested for indecent exposure on the subway. You don't have to worry whether this girl (or guy) has any sexually transmitted diseases. And if it is a girl, you don't have to worry about getting her pregnant (you don't even have to concern yourself with whether or not the sex is safe). You also don't have to worry about the repercussions of skipping out on a day of work to have an all-day sex orgy. And you don't have to worry about seeing this person again in case you don't get along very well, either. There are no laws, no responsibilities, no consequences, none of the shit that so frequently gets in the way of having a good time in real life. It's just imagination.

Having these fantasies doesn't make you want to go out and perform them in the real world. Well, you might want to perform them, but you don't perform them just because you're thinking about them. You refrain from performing them for exactly the reasons why they shouldn't be performed (unless it's a fantasy that can be performed in reality without any problems - and there are plenty of those, too). There's no reason why you should be barred from thinking about (and enjoying) those fantasies in the safety of your own mind. And there's no reason why those fantasies should be restricted topics in the realm of creative fiction (audio, visual, literary - whatever).

Sabotaging Sexuality

How to sabotage a person's sexuality:

Preach the belief that sex is an immoral act perpetrated by an aggressor (the one who desires sex) against a victim (who is incapable of either desiring or enjoying sex), where the aggressor derives sexual satisfaction by degrading the victim.

Note that this is essentially the script put forth by anti-sex "feminists" describing men's sexual attraction to women (especially as applied to pornography).

Then, when a person experiences sexual feelings, he will interpret those feelings as a desire to degrade the target of his attraction, and will feel guilty about it.

Supposedly, shame will encourage sexual repression. But you can't eliminate sexual desire, and people are bound to continue acting on their sexual urges, while merely feeling bad about it. And god knows how they'll begin to act once they've been convinced that degradation is the key to satisfaction. You may as well be short-circuiting their moral fuse. See, you can't really control people's sexuality, you just end up fucking with their heads. And that's totally humane.

Meanwhile, the lucky ones among us see the trick for what it is, and recognize that our sexuality, which is wholesome and natural, is simply a desire to seek and pursue pleasure, and not a need to parasitically feed off of the humiliation and degradation of others (although you have to wonder about the desires of the people who insist that that's what sex is all about).

We think of sex in terms of who is getting off. The only time it is ethical to get off on the stimulus of another person is if that person is also getting off (i.e., is a knowing, consenting partner). Otherwise, we view the stimulant as if she were being used, inhumanely, as a sexual object, against her will. Degraded, if you will.

Well, here's another way to think about it. If somebody experiences sexual release, it means they're feeling good. That's better than feeling bad, right? Why are we so tied to our sexual modesty and purity, that we value them above the pleasure of others? Why would we rather maintain those vapid qualities, at the cost of allowing others to suffer through life? If you have contributed to another person's orgasm (knowingly or not, willingly or not), you should feel honored to have had a part in increasing the amount of happiness experienced in the world, to balance out all the pain.

None of this is to suggest that we throw out our concept of sexual ethics. There is polite sexuality, and there is rude sexuality. But don't assume that all sexuality is rude. And don't feel like you have to police your image, both digitally and in the real world, lest some pervert drool over you. If you don't know about it, then how is it inconveniencing you? And meanwhile, you're helping somebody to feel better in their life, if only for a brief moment. By contributing to sexual shame you are only encouraging people to feel miserable.

And perhaps it's because you already feel miserable, and misery loves company. But you know what? I bet you would feel a lot better if you began treating yourself to the occasional orgasm. But even better than that, revel in your sexuality. When you're able to appreciate the sensuality of simply living, when you allow yourself to respond to the erotic triggers you experience daily, you will then be more receptive to the transcendent joy that is inherent in life. And maybe that will better prepare you to deal with the hardships that life inevitably brings. No doubt life is hard. There ought to be a balance, after all. Don't be afraid to let yourself enjoy the good things in life. And don't punish others for having the ability to enjoy those good things, even when you can't.

Public Nudity in the News

According to a recent news article, there is currently some debate over the status of public nudity in San Francisco - specifically in the neighborhood known as the Castro. They are discussing drafting a new law requiring nudists to put a towel down on seats before sitting down, and to put some clothes on before entering restaurants. While the issue stirs up the usual intolerant attitudes about public nudity, it's kind of exciting to hear that the city actually recognizes a person's right to be nude in public - even if it does so reluctantly, and potentially only in this specific location.

But about those intolerant attitudes...

"They are unabashed in their brazenness, setting off a robust debate about how far San Francisco's legendary penchant for tolerance should be stretched."

I hate this sort of thinking. The idea that public nudity stretches the boundaries of reasonable tolerance. Oh lordy, lordy, of all things, we cannot allow naked people to roam our streets! There are much harder things to tolerate. Drugs, prostitution, hate groups picketing in the streets. In what twisted world view is public nudity a cardinal sin? The only thing offensive about naked people in public is that we're conditioned to view the naked body as disgusting (except when it's sexy). But the naked body is natural, and our aversion to it is what is sick. Luckily, there's a cure: exposure.

"the city's elected leaders have largely stayed out of the debate over public nudity, not wanting to run counter to San Francisco's storied reputation as an anything-goes culture where individual rights and freedom of expression are embraced."

This is just an extension of those beliefs. I'm bothered by the idea that embracing individual rights and freedoms is tied to this notion that "anything-goes". People seem inclined to believe that if we give people one freedom (that they deserve), then they will go off and take every liberty they want. If we let people roam the streets naked, they're not going to initiate public orgies. And if we celebrate people's freedom to roam the streets naked, we don't have to also celebrate their right to initiate public orgies (a right they haven't been given, whether you think they deserve it or not).

This sort of "anything-goes" language is just a form of scare-mongering that conservative-minded folk use to scare us out of giving people any more freedoms than they already have - not just the freedoms that would be detrimental to civilized society (which they cite to prop up their argument), but also the freedoms they deserve, that would contribute to a more civilized society. Make no mistake, this is exactly the same kind of thinking that conceptualizes gay pride as a threat to the social order, and evidence of the decline of modern civilization.

"'I'm all for live and let live, but this has gotten out of hand,' said Jonathan Mills, who lives in the Castro and has complained to police about the naked guys. 'This is not hip or cool or an asset to San Francisco. These people make other people avoid our neighborhood at a time when it is struggling.'"

Actually, nudism is totally hip and cool - or, it could be, if it weren't for its image being represented by old, lumpy people.

What's more, if you actually advertised the city's tolerance for public nudity, you would get tons of tourists. Imagine the boost to your neighborhood's economy! But you resist this simple solution because either a) you think the shape God created us in is ugly, or b) you have unfounded fears about people having sex in public or something similar. I get that you don't want people having sex on the streets (although I don't understand why that's a problem), but what about that leads you to the conclusion that people shouldn't be naked on the streets either? Are you really equating nudity with sexual activity? I hear about that a lot, but I didn't think anyone was ignorant enough to actually make that mistake.

"Karla Zeitz, who lives in the neighborhood with her children, ages 4 and 5, said she usually avoids the areas where the naked guys congregate. Still, she moved into the Castro knowing it was not Kansas. 'Frankly I'm more disturbed by the meth heads, the drugs and the panhandling than I am by seeing a couple of naked guys,' she said."

Finally, some sense. A couple naked guys (and I wish it weren't restricted only to guys) in the streets is not a serious problem.

But if there is any good in this article, it's that having a law requiring nudists to put a towel down before they sit down, and to dress before entering restaurants, implies pretty directly that it is not against the law to be nude outside, as long as you put a towel down before you sit down (which is pretty standard nudist practice, in my experience).

I'm wondering if there's any affordable property up for sale in that neighborhood. ;-)

Interestingly, the poll attached to the news article, which asks your opinion of what should be done about public nudity in San Francisco, doesn't offer the option, "legalize it explicitly". The most positive choice is to "keep tacitly allowing it". I don't want it to be allowed tacitly. I want it to be allowed EXPLICITLY!

In other news, a body painting artist working in Times Square is advised by police to cover up his topless model. This story caught my attention because, to my understanding, women are allowed to go topless in public in New York City. But apparently, the reason the model was asked to cover up is because she was creating a commotion, and the authorities wanted to nip it in the bud before it "got out of hand".

I wonder, how exactly would it have gotten out of hand? Were they expecting some kind of orgy to break out? Or were they afraid people in the crowd would get into fights for some reason? I don't understand. Unless it's simply a matter of crowding - you know, causing a traffic hazard or something.

But we hide nudity under our clothes, and in seedy strip clubs behind velvet curtains; if you put a nude right out there on the street, of course people are going to be intrigued and want to look. My question is this: if there were more nudes in public, would it be a problem? Would people be as shocked if they'd seen half a dozen nudes on their walk already? Would they stop and crowd around if they knew they would encounter a dozen more nudes if only they would keep on their way?

It bugs me that if a woman takes her top off in public, we, as respectable citizens, can't "handle" it properly. What's more, it's pretty offensive to suggest that a woman's topfreedom can be rescinded if enough men take a prurient (or any) interest in her breasts. I guess men and women aren't equal after all. But I think the solution is not covering the nudity up. The solution is exposing more of it. It's the only way to get over the titillation factor of nudity, on account of it being rare and exciting.

P.S. I just came across a blog written by a guy who lives in the Castro district, who is regularly nude in public. It is fascinating to hear about his experiences, and the kind of reactions he gets from people - some positive, many negative. I suggest you start here [NSFW], where he describes how the neighborhood has changed over the years, and has succumbed to mainstream conformism. But be sure to check out the rest of the blog, too.

Pluralistic Politics

In a society of many members, which believes in basic human rights, and the fundamental equality of its citizens, it is necessary that unlimited freedom be restricted, under the understanding that one man's freedom can only extend as far as the point at which it begins to infringe on the rights of another. I cannot do just anything I want, because some things would harm others, and that would not be fair to the other person's right not to be harmed - just as I would not want to allow others the freedom to do things that would harm me. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for society. But recently I've been seeing a lot of expression of a very disturbing trend, based on the concept of building a uniform social policy to be applied across the board of society.

Dealing with individuals enables scrutiny of individual circumstances. We can see just whose freedoms are being exercised, and just whose rights are being infringed. The purpose of the courts is to look at every accusation of criminal conduct (which should be defined as a rights infringement), and to judge on it, individually, by a jury of peers, taking individual circumstances into account. Yet this philosophy seems to be at odds with the popular mindset that the law is an imperfect, blunt instrument, that can only be applied to citizens equally across the board, without consideration to individual circumstances.

What I'm seeing is people actually submitting to the inevitability of the imperfect law model, wherein people are judged by the standards of the majority. Policy is dictated by what caters to most of the concerns of most of the people, with the concerns of the minority sacrificed for the good of the statistical majority. This is a gross injustice. People have come to believe that it is right that a person's freedoms be unreasonably restricted because the democratic majority has argued that exercising those freedoms causes rights to be infringed in a statistically significant proportion of instances, without concern for the fact that exercising the freedom in a particular instance may not have that effect. It's like outlawing the use of scissors because too many scissor mishaps have occurred - in some cases even to the point of absolutely forbidding anyone to use scissors, even with the proper training and safety precautions. And if a scissor expert can't use scissors safely for a good purpose, most of the rest of society will be eager to say, "that's a good thing, because unleashing the power of scissors on the populace is way too dangerous, we can't afford to even let one careful person use them, because then how do we stop them from getting into the hands of the reckless?"

This is absurd. I have the strangely uncommon belief that the law should serve the citizen, and not the other way around. The law exists to protect people - specific people - who are being wronged. It does not exist to oppress freedom for the good of the statistical majority, applying measures where they don't belong, because it takes too much effort to scrutinize which people or circumstances those measures should specifically apply to. It's a brainless, pro-conformist belief in the inherent supremacy of the majority, to the detriment of diversity and minorities everywhere. Infringing the rights of an individual is never justified by a call to statistics, much of which are frequently built on lies and stereotypes. Have I mentioned how much of a gross injustice this is? Do people not believe in the worth of the individual anymore? That the bodiless entity called "society" is not more important than your basic human rights? "For the people" doesn't mean "for the faceless mob", it means "for the individuals that make up that faceless mob". For the individuals, each of them, individually.

The Pornography Stereotype

It occurs to me that when I make arguments about pornography, I'm usually thinking about the term in a way that is probably different than how most people think when they talk about pornography. In the popular lexicon, especially "informed" by certain branches of feminist thought, pornography is a highly profitable industry wherein perverted men force women to humiliate themselves for the gratification of other perverted men. This is not what I mean, at all, when I refer to pornography. I have never been involved in "commercial" or big industry pornography. I don't particularly have any desire to. And as a consumer, it doesn't even interest me very much, compared to the aesthetic discipline that concerns itself with erotic beauty. But when I think about pornography, I think about sexually explicit speech (since much, though not all, erotic art is not sexually explicit), usually in the context of a person celebrating their sexual agency in a way that, unlike private sex acts, can be shared with a mass of people. It's not about women being coerced and degraded, but about women (and men) celebrating their sexuality.

See, the difference is between looking at porn from the sex negative mindset - that porn is a tool of sex, which is a vice, that harms everyone that comes in contact with it - and looking at porn from a sex positive mindset - that it is a celebration of life and the sharing of pleasure, engaged in consensually and with positive feelings. Unfortunately, the pervasive nature of the sex negative mindset throughout society informs the way we think about these issues, and porn (and sex in general) is far more commonly associated with the "evils" that sex may bring, than with the good that it can inspire. It's hard to argue about the positive effects of porn, when the popular discourse is concerned with how porn degrades women, how most women are forced into it, probably at dangerously young ages, and how people in the sex industry are stigmatized and at risk for any number of other vices - particularly drugs and disease.

But what it also does is marginalize positive sexual expression - which, I'll admit, may be in the minority. But what do we accomplish by marginalizing that minority, and repressing it in an attempt to stamp out the more common (arguably) negative sexual expression? The approach of most anti-porn crusaders is full-on sexual repression, not a replacement of negative sexual expression with more positive sexual expression. Supporters of the latter are your pro-porn crusaders, whom the anti-porn camp would love to fool you into believing are actually apologists, defending negative sexual expression for selfish reasons. It's the same way the pro-life camp would love to smear the pro-choice as anti-life activists. It's all propaganda. No reasonable person would argue that coercing and degrading women for a profit and the sexual gratification of perverts is a good thing for society. But when people argue in favor of porn and sexual expression, it's the good kind they're arguing for. And I caution you about the danger of total sexual repression. Stamping out the good in an attempt to eliminate the bad (even if there is more bad than good) doesn't end well. The best approach is to focus on the good, identify what makes it good, and then promote it above and beyond the bad stuff. If you think a lot of porn is bad for society, then start advocating for people to produce more positive sexual expression - the kind of sexual expression I talk about when I use the term "pornography", the kind of sexual expression people use to express themselves to the world, with a positive sexual mindset that encourages pleasure and more happiness in the world, not more suffering.

A Couple of Excerpts

I stumbled across a rather interesting essay on erotica and aesthetics while surfing the web, and I wanted to reproduce a couple of brief passages here, since they are well-written, and happen to align with my own position on sexual expression and fantasy. The title of the essay is "The Erotic as an Aesthetic Category", and you can read it in full here [NSFW]. The website also has a number of other interesting philosophical essays on a variety of topics, so if you've got a large block of time to kill, you might like to check it out.

"Erotic literature is thus bound to explore every possibility, even those possibilities that someone might regard as appalling, morally, socially, or psychologically, but that curiously contain the power to arouse. If this reveals something about the unconscious and about the natural terms of the erotic response, it would be wise to be aware of it and deal with it. Or, as Jung might say, the unconscious can become too energized with it, and acting out an irrational response becomes more possible.

"Whether or not this is a real danger, it still behooves human curiosity to see what is going on and represent truths, however disturbing. The erotic as an aesthetic category does mean that, like other aesthetic categories, the requirements of morality, although independent, are not otherwise suspended. Art, literature, and fantasy are one thing, action is another. Some people confuse them, both that fantasy spills over into action, and that the limitations of action are thought to require the suppression of fantasy." (my italics)

"The truth is that Greeks and Romans found human bodies and sexual intercourse beautiful, interesting, and wonderful -- and funny. And if its representation effects an erotic response, so much the better -- a divine gift. This may not be agreeable to religions that mandate tightly circumscribed sexual expression, but, for better or worse, modern life has broken through such restrictions. Promiscuity and disease are not good effects of this, but then one discovers that the Greeks and Romans thought no better of promiscuity than we might. Their sexual explicitness did not imply sexual license, an accommodation and a balance that has not yet been struck anew in popular or elite culture. Mere disapproval or alarm at erotic representations will not do this job. An anhedonic moralism that would suppress them instead would contribute nothing to the richness of human life." (my italics)

Why 2257 Bothers Me (And Why It Should Bother You)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and the following does not constitute legal advice. Actually, one of the things that bugs me most about our laws is that legalese is so hard to parse, that you often have no idea what constitutes "following the law" without paying a highly-priced professional to interpret the rules for you - which may well be overturned in a court setting. Nevertheless, the following are the issues as I understand them, and I may not be a lawyer, but I am a critical thinker.

I've been trying unsuccessfully to articulate the reasons why the 2257 Regulations [link to Wikipedia article] make me feel uneasy, and I think it all comes down to this: the law places an unconstitutional burden on protected speech, but it does so with the justification of protecting children from sexual exploitation. And, frankly, it's incredibly difficult to construct a convincing argument placing the importance of essential liberty above the alleged "safety" of children (and there is no doubt policy-makers take advantage of this fact). No matter what I say about how 2257 chills speech and gives the state way too much control while taking away the privacy of its citizens, my entire argument could be destroyed by a simple, "don't you care about the children who are being sexually abused and exploited?"

I don't want to seem insensitive (though it may be inevitable) to the plights of abused children, but where does it stop? How much of our rights and freedoms are we willing to give away "to protect the children", when it's not even clear that we're doing that much? The 2257 Regulations do nothing to prevent child sexual abuse. If someone is intent on breaking the law, drafting more laws isn't going to stop them. What 2257 does is make it easier for law enforcement to identify and prosecute illegal speech. But at what cost?

What really bothers me about 2257 is that it shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. If you are accused, then you are guilty unless you can provide the required records proving your innocence. If you cannot, then even if the prosecution can't prove the speech you've created is illegal, then you can still be punished (rather harshly) on account of not having those records. I get the sense this law was pushed forward by frustrated prosecutors who felt it was unfair that producers of "indecent" pornographic speech were getting off unpunished just because they couldn't prove that the speech was breaking any laws.

The other thing that really bothers me about 2257 is that it reinforces the position of law enforcement as enforcers of social control, instead of mediators of public conflict, which they're supposed to be. I am unnerved by the thought that a cop could look at an image, decide that a crime has been committed, and then press charges without ever receiving (or even soliciting) a complaint from anyone involved in the creation of that image. I know victims are not always in a position to stand up for themselves, but I was under the impression that this country was founded on the principle of NOT infringing on the fundamental rights of the innocent in a [sloppy] attempt to get at criminals.

You might think that the 2257 Regulations (read them here [broken link]) don't apply to you. You might think they only apply to big profit-making pornography industry companies. Well, you're wrong. The courts have argued that individuals intent on sexually exploiting children are not motivated purely by commercial interests, and therefore ALL speech that includes pornographic content ("actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct") falls under this law, including the videos you make with your wife in your bedroom.

You could argue that the courts are never going to prosecute you, for any number of reasons (because you're not a threat, because the videos you've made are obviously not illegal, whatever), but that's entirely beside the point. The law is on the books, and you are expected to obey it. If you do not, you are subject to the penalties, whether you manage to get away with it or not. And it's not good for society to have laws that most people aren't expected (or don't expect) to follow. Above all, this is not like getting a speeding ticket; failure to comply is a federal crime, and you could spend up to 5 years in prison - all because protecting children from sexual exploitation (even if that means tossing innocent people in the slammer) is serious business.

You might think that the 2257 Regulations are reasonable. After all, there is an official age limit for involvement in pornographic media, what's so bad about keeping records to enforce that? Well, it's reasonable to require individuals intent on creating this type of media to check first and make sure those involved are of age. What the recordkeeping requirements do is burden the civilian with what should be law enforcement's duty to investigate. It's their job to get in contact with those involved and ensure they are of age, if they believe otherwise. This falls under shifting the burden of proof.

Moreover, the recordkeeping requirements are simply too much. Can you imagine having to create and maintain documents (viewable by government agents at any time) for every single alcoholic beverage you drink, every single cigarette you smoke, every NC-17 movie you ever watch, just so that law enforcement has an easier job of prosecuting people who give alcohol, cigarettes, and NC-17 movies to minors? It may be a noble task, but it's just too much control, it takes the fun out of everything, and most of all, it's an unlawful restriction on liberty. And it gives the impression that law enforcement doesn't trust you to follow the law. Sure, distrusting its civilians is a better way of cracking down on crime, but do you really want to live in a country where the government doesn't trust you? It's "guilty until proven innocent" all over again.

IDing is reasonable, given the age restriction. But having to keep these records is overkill. I would even go so far as to say that having these records for cases that appear to be borderline (i.e., "barely legal" porn) is not just reasonable, but a really good idea. Still, I don't think it should be a legal requirement (especially not across the board), simply an intelligent defense for those few who think that misunderstandings could lead to mistaken charges.

In a discussion on the constitutionality of the 2257 Regulations, and whether they should apply to all producers of pornographic content or only those producers of content that could be reasonably mistaken for illegal speech*, one defender argued that one could not always tell, just by looking, the difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, or, more importantly, the difference between an 18 year old and a 15 year old - hence why the records are crucial. This may be true, but it reveals much of the intent behind the law. Very few cases would involve a reasonable confusion between a 15 year old and a 21 year old (or, more importantly, between a 12 year old and an 18 year old).

We have a federal age restriction on pornography set at 18, even though teens under the age of 18 have often been sexually active of their own volition [link to Wikipedia article]. Remember that the purpose of these laws is to combat the sexual exploitation of children - a concept that evokes images of prepubescent children being raped on camera for profit: very visceral, emotional images that tug on our heartstrings, and short-circuits those reasoning faculties that might prevent us from agreeing to give up more of our rights and liberties. Is the state really using this law to prevent prepubescent children from being raped? I think, comparatively, it would be very easy to tell the difference between a prepubescent child and an adult, as opposed to trying to parse younger teens from older teens. After all, if (actual) child pornography were indistinguishable from adult pornography, then why would pedophiles even bother?

No, this law is being defended on the merit that the state wants to be able to criminalize speech that is visually indistinguishable from legal speech: porn that features teenagers that are indistinguishable from adults. Teens that, quite unlike victimized children, may actually want to participate in pornographic speech - speech that, in some cases where the teen is over the local age of sexual consent, depicts legal conduct (quite apart from the court's conviction that child pornography - which really has nothing to do with this - is a form of speech inextricably linked to conduct that the court has a "compelling interest" to combat. I agree that the courts have a compelling interest to combat the sexual victimization of children, but the interest is far from compelling when we're talking about sexually mature teens).

If setting an age limit at 18 means a few prematurely developed 15 year olds might slip through the cracks [link to Wikipedia article], I fail to see why that is a serious problem. The real activity the age limit is meant to prevent is the abuse and exploitation of children who are too young to have an interest in sex, and there are extremely few cases where an 8 year old could possibly be mistaken for an 18 year old. We've already got more than enough laws on the books, that cover more than enough ground; the more we expand their reach, the more protected speech will be chilled, and the less freedom and privacy we'll have.

Once the government has put into place a system that can enforce the criminalization of speech indistinguishable from protected speech, what's going to stop them from raising the age cutoff from 18 to 21? After all, some 18 year olds are still in high school. What about parents who don't want their kids wasting their college tuition on fucking when they should be studying at university? Boom, the cutoff age jumps from 21 to 25. Which will be great for the lobby who wants you to wait until marriage and only have sex for procreation, in church-approved positions (and still feel ashamed afterwards). Because, you know, the worst possible thing that could happen in the world is a 17 year old masturbating on a live webcam feed - worse than widespread poverty, drug addiction, gang violence, war and famine, murder and genocide...

You think any of this would happen if we had a healthy and positive approach towards sexuality? And what really gets me is the fact that sexual crime and pathology thrives in a climate of sexual repression and obsession. Pathologizing healthy sexual urges does nothing to curtail criminal sexual behavior (in fact, it may have the opposite effect). If we want to "fix" the sex problems we have, the answer is not to push sex further and further under the rug, but to pull it out, dust it off, and stop behaving so pathologically towards it. Sex is a part of life.

*Read this argument for the unconstitutionality of the 2257 Regulations (it's very good). And then read this response (a bit harder to stomach). I know, they're long, and filled with legalese, but they're very interesting if you have the time and patience to plod through them.