The "Social Psychology" of Sexting

Here's another news article about the "problem" of sexting, framed in the context of hackers stealing people's nude selfies from "the cloud". It almost sounds like it wants to confront the "problem" from the right perspective, but gets bogged down with trying to replace warning people not to sext with understanding the social psychology that makes people want to sext (i.e., because they think everyone else is doing it). But it, like everyone else, comes from the wrong direction of believing that people engaging in sexting is a problem in the first place, and not simply a benign aspect of human behavior.

"One group says something like, 'Enough, children. Want to stop nude photos from getting hacked? Keep your clothes on in selfies and the problem will go away by itself.'"

Clearly, there is a problem with hacking going on here. But focusing on the sexting seems an awful lot like blaming the victim. Don't want your photos hacked? Stop taking them. Then there'll be nothing to hack. (Except, there will still be other things to hack, like your credit card numbers).

"Those on the other side of the debate insist we must not blame the victim and instead should demand better privacy protections for iCloud and other digital storage accounts."

This gets closer to the real issue - the hacking. Why the whole issue of sexting is even brought up I don't know.

"Why, then, do people keep taking naked digital pictures of themselves and store them in places that could be hacked?"

Um, because it's human nature? Because the threat of getting hacked isn't strong enough to quell mankind's most singularly powerful impulse - to relate sexually with other humans? What I can't understand is why so many people are so surprised that there's so much demand for seeing other people's naked pictures. If it weren't such a taboo to be seen naked by other people (who are not your intimate partners or relatives), there would be more naked pictures out there, and the demand wouldn't be quite so stretched as to resort to stealing naked pictures from the people who'd still prefer to keep them private.

But regardless, the bottom line is that, aside from a little embarrassment, if somebody steals your naked selfies, it's seriously not a big deal. Blackmail only works if you're ashamed of what you did. And people (read: employers) will have less grounds to discriminate against those whose naked pictures "get out" when all of us have naked pictures out there. So, from that perspective, these naked selfie "hacks" are kind of a good thing. They're just laying out on the table what we all try so hard to deny - that we have naked bodies under our clothes, and that we think sharing them with others can be exciting. It's time to fess up, people. Start being honest with yourself.

Nudist Erection Anxiety

I had a bit of a minor epiphany as I was lying awake in bed this morning. Admittedly, I have some fairly non-mainstream views on nudity, but my base line goal for society is simply a more natural approach towards the human body - a compromise that would strip away all the neuroticism and permit, as I like to say, "responsible nudity in reasonable contexts".

Consider, for example, the way the average person feels about "underwear". Nobody (for the most part) is showing up to work, or picking up groceries, in their underwear. People dress up to go out and do their daily business - that's normal. At the same time, if you stopped over at somebody's house, and they hadn't had time to get dressed, and they, say, answer the door in their underwear, nobody is going to scream bloody murder. Some may consider it a social gaffe, but that's largely a matter of taste and opinion, and only the most uptight of persons would make a serious case out of it. And what's more, if they did make a case out of it, I think the majority of the population would shrug and say, "no big deal".

That's what I call being reasonable. It's not that people aren't allowed to be offended by something like that. And there's no problem with preferring to see a person dressed rather than in their underwear. The point is that, regardless of your views, there are times when being in your underwear just makes more sense (just as there are other times when being fully dressed makes more sense), and I seriously doubt anybody would make a federal case out of seeing somebody in their underwear, even if they happened to be picking up the newspaper at the end of their driveway one morning.

All I'm saying is that we should have a similar approach to nudity. There are times when nudity makes perfect sense (swimming, for example), and if it weren't for all the puritanical modesty bullshit, and the absolute fear of discovering what Homo sapiens' genitalia looks like (despite the ironic fact that every person with this fear possesses at least one set of those genitalia that s/he can't possibly avoid looking at, at some point during their day-to-day life), I think we all could survive (thrive, even) with a more reasonable attitude toward nudity - much like the nudists already do.

The nudists are awesome in that regard. They are far more enlightened than mainstream society. They are not, however, perfect. I think that, on an individual level, nudists are in a good position to have a healthier approach toward human sexuality (and a lot of them probably do, although attitudes will vary just as much as in any group) than the mainstream. However, the limited acceptance that society gives nudists to practice their lifestyle (i.e., in isolated communities where they won't spook the normies), pretty much depends on debunking the popular misconception that nudism is a front for swinging sex orgies. As a result, nudists like to err on the side of promoting a "clean" image, since they have much, much more to lose from allegations of sexual misconduct (or any sexual conduct, really) than just about any other subset of the population.

I have no desire to turn nudism into a sexual utopia. While, again, I have pretty radical views on human sexuality, I think the majority of the population is, unfortunately, unprepared to act in a more evolved way toward one another sexually (although unlike most, I'd be willing to put that to the test, in the interest of science); and, besides, even if some of us were ready, the forces of chastity are far too powerful to allow such a thing to succeed. In any case, adding any kind of element of overt sexuality at all to the practice of nudism would be a surefire and fast track method of destroying pretty much everything that's good about nudism in this social climate. There's a reason I'm a nudist, but not a swinger (in spite of how sexually open an attitude I have).

And so we come to the issue of erections. Most guys (understandably) have questions about how erections are dealt with in a nudist situation, and most nudists say that it's not a big deal. Because in truth - it isn't. Men's anxieties are certainly not unfounded, but experience tends to show, and rather quickly, that the problem of unintended erections is much less than it's made out to be. They do occasionally have a tendency to pop up - and any reading of male sexuality that presupposes that an erection is always the direct result and guaranteed precedent of specifically sexual stimulation is woefully inadequate. But most nudists profess to be reasonable in the case of unexpected tumescence, so long as the "victim" of said tumescence discourages any further development, in as discreet a manner as possible.

And I believe them - it's just that it's the sort of situation where if everything works out right, you'll never notice it's happened. And I honestly can't remember a single time I've ever seen a man at a nudist resort with an erection. Of course, with some guys (especially the ones who are overweight), you might not be able to tell the difference. And there was that one black guy I remember seeing flopping around, but I'm sure he was just exceptionally endowed (I know, stereotypes are bad - especially when they're true :p). To be fair, this situation works out pretty well, as far as compromises go. There are other problems in nudism I would address first before complaining about the lack of erections (bear with me, for a moment) - like the obstacle of access to nudist environments (having to drive to the middle of nowhere, and then having to pay admission just to enjoy some outdoor, social nude recreation), or the fear and paranoia surrounding the use of cameras at nudist resorts (except the security kind), and nudists' reliance on keeping their lifestyle secret from their friends, families, and coworkers.

So, unless you're some kind of sex pervert (like me - and I'm not even generally attracted to men), you're probably wondering what exactly the problem is with keeping erections under wraps in a nudist context (as with everywhere else, except bedrooms and the sets of porno films). Well, as hinted at above, it breeds anxiety about our bodies, above and beyond the social imperative to encourage people to behave in an appropriate manner. It's a subtle thing, but as I mentioned before, erections are not simply and always about direct sexual stimulation. Sometimes they really do pop up, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are entirely random, but the trigger could be something benign, such as a certain tactile sensation (the wind or sun), or pressure (lying on one's stomach, which is, ironically, often cited as a solution to the erection problem - it keeps it hidden, yes, but I find that the pressure is anything but discouraging to the erection), or motion (like the slapping of one's member against the thigh during athletic activity) that is entirely unpremeditated and wholly nonsexual in nature.

Even something psychological, like being unexpectedly treated to the sight of a beautiful specimen of humanity in the buff - which may actually include an element of sexuality - is still very much harmless, in my opinion, so long as it is permitted to run its course unaided and not progress to any kind of behavior or activity that would be inappropriate in such a semi-public, social context. That's just the thing, and it's something that's easily overlooked when people have clothes on, since the erection can literally just be ignored (as it is already covered up). Physical arousal is an entirely involuntary response, to use a scientific term. Though you can do things to deliberately stimulate arousal, tumescence is not a muscle you can simply flex by will alone, like your biceps. (This was the topic of a huge debate between a student and my biology teacher in my high school class, and the teacher, unsurprisingly, had the right of it).

The point is that you cannot consciously control erections (if you could, the distributors of Viagra would go bankrupt). You can do things to encourage or discourage them, but if some unplanned-for trigger unexpectedly starts the ball rolling, there may be some level of visible tumescence that just cannot be avoided. Sure, we can cover it up to spare others the sight, but I don't see the point. Nudists believe that nudity is a state of being, not a state of doing. Well, sexual arousal is the same. We can do things to incite arousal, and we can do things while aroused that would be explicitly sexual and, thus, inappropriate in most settings (especially nudist environments). But sometimes we feel some level of arousal independent of our deliberate intentions, and when that happens, it's as natural and innocuous as simply being nude. Erect - like nudity - is a state of being, not doing. People should be held responsible for what they do with erections, and even what they do to encourage or discourage them, but they should not be held responsible for simply having them.

I know, this is probably one of my radical positions, and I respect that. But my point stands. (Not literally - at least, not at this moment :p). Tumescence is just a natural feature of the human penis. Yes, it's connected to human sexuality, but it, in and of itself, is not sexually explicit. The very same argument comes up in the art vs. porn debate, on websites like deviantART, for example, where artistic nudity is permitted, but erections are treated as porn and disallowed. I don't think erections should be treated as porn. Being erect is not the same thing as sticking that erection somewhere or otherwise doing something with it. Being aroused is not the same thing as being engaged in sexual activity (whether intercourse, or masturbation, or what have you), and, wherever nudity is allowed, women are (discriminatorily) permitted to be photographed in an aroused state with immunity. I don't understand why if a person is permitted to view the penis in its unerect state, there's something wrong, then, with that person seeing it erect. It's just one of those things that penises do, and if you've advanced to the point where you're not specifically offended by the mere sight of them, then you should be able to handle them whether flaccid or erect.

Again, I'm not saying this is a big deal that needs to be made a priority in terms of social reconditioning. But it's one of those subtle, straightforward things that I think demonstrates how much human beings jump through hoops just to hide the reality of life - the fact that we're sexual beings, and the way in which our bodies work. Sure, plenty of people are offended by sex - and they're entitled to make their best efforts to try and avoid it in their daily lives - but it goes deeper than that, because we're actually legally mandated to hush up about the reality of sex, lest kids find out the reason they exist before we, as a culture, are comfortable letting them know about it (i.e., on their 18th birthday, and even then, only begrudgingly, since restricting the sexual rights of adults is impossible - so we just make sure they don't enjoy it as much, by undermining education, discounting facts, and instilling a strong sense of shame and self-loathing surrounding people's bodies and their sexual experiences from a very young age).

Bottom line? If I wake up in the morning, and my roommate has a guest over, I should be able to get up out of bed - having slept nude, and with my morning stiffy (that has nothing to do with sex) - and walk to the bathroom without needing to feign modesty and scrounge around for some form of coverup, in my own home. I'm not unreasonable - I'm willing to cover up when I go out, to protect the modesty of others, even though I don't agree with them. I'll even put something on to answer the door, since you never know who it might be. But one thing I really hate is feeling trapped in my own home, and being forced to act the part of embarrassment and modesty, which not only do I not feel, but am actively against, just because I know the other person is (probably) uncomfortable with my nudity. It's insincere, and there's nothing I hate more than not acting honest and truthful with people. If they're upset with my nudity, then let them react to it. I'm not going to express their reaction for them, just to save them the opportunity to be offended or uncomfortable. In my own home. And if they really don't like it so much, maybe they'll just stop coming over. No skin off my back.

Uh-oh. I'm one of those roommates, aren't I? But I just like having a sanctum somewhere, a place where I can be free and feel comfortable just being myself. A place I can retreat to when I don't want to deal with the rules and the compromises of wider society. A place where no other can intrude, without my invitation. Is that so bad? I think it should be one of the fundamental civil rights, along with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the right to an inviolable sanctuary - not a place of total privacy where the law doesn't apply, but simply a place a person can go to be alone and relax, and not deal with the hassle of other people, and their expectations.

Cyber Monday

I must be a pervert, because whenever I hear the word "cyber", I think of cybersex. Naturally, it cracks me up when I hear people talking about Cyber Monday every year. But, following in line with my perversion of Election Day, this seems like a perfect holiday to celebrate everything to do with internet sex! Even if you don't have somebody to chat up (x-rated style) on the internet today, or aren't keen on hunting for a willing stranger, this would still be a fine opportunity to masturbate to some internet porn. I know, you probably do that every other day of the week (:p), but this time, if somebody catches you, you can just tell them you're celebrating Cyber(sex) Monday!

And before you ask, I must confess that I don't really enjoy cybersex, personally. I'd much rather watch or do than narrate sex. Cybering is too socially-oriented, and I am a very visual person. I would prefer, instead, to swap sexting pictures with some attractive exhibitionists. And I say that having some experience cybering in the past. When I was a teenager, in the days when "chat rooms" were still a thing, I had an ephemeral relationship with a particular girl, and we spent much of our time chatting together engaged in cybersex. Inexperienced as I was in the realm of sex, it was very exciting for me, and was the catalyst for my own true sexual awakening, as before that I had no idea how to "take care of myself" whenever I felt horny.

[description: comparison diptych of two figures sitting nude at the computer]
Me at 18, and ten years later.

Not much later, during the course of a tumultuous long distance relationship with a girl I had paired up with before my high school graduation, I had the opportunity once or twice to engage in some phone sex (presumably the pre-digital age version of cybering). That relationship also involved some picture trading, which gave birth to my interest in erotic self-portraiture, as I have described before. But it wasn't until several years later, after graduating from college, that I got the bulk of my experience engaging in cybersex, in the realm of Second Life.

And what that experience taught me was that I don't really like cybersex all that much. I created an avatar in Second Life and, pervert that I am, delighted in watching her engage in sex on screen on the various sexual position poseballs. For me, finding someone to "cyber" with was really just a matter of finding someone who would pose with me, but, to my disappointment, most people could care less about the posing, and would even go so far as to cyber completely by chat, as if the avatars didn't make a difference. And, frankly, I wasn't interested in getting a stranger off through chat, I wanted to watch my avatar having sex!

But, in the process of learning all this, I had to engage in a lot of more and less satisfying cybersex with people whose real world appearance (or even gender - though I suspect many of them were men, both those with male avatars and otherwise) I would never discover. All the time, I should mention, I presented myself as female which, entirely aside from any motivation to trick people, provided me great insight into how women are treated by men (especially sexually), and was also a catalyst in my real life transformation from male-presenting to female-presenting.

Obviously, I was propositioned a lot, since I designed my avatar after what I myself desire in women - she was a hot, young, skinny, flirty blonde (although I occasionally mixed up her appearance) who dressed like a slut, and loved to take her clothes off. Yes, a lot of the attention was single-minded, and not all of it respectful, but on the other hand, I had some men who would satisfy themselves just for the chance to sit and chat with me (not about sex) for an hour, some even willing to give me gifts without expectation of anything in return - even getting to see me again! Experiencing how men treat women while also understanding the male psychology behind that treatment is enlightening, although it doesn't inspire any more positive a reaction to the petty whining you hear so much of these days by so-called "feminists", who merely lack a critical understanding of human sexual interaction.

Some of my more "colorful" cyber experiences in Second Life involve: a lesbian threesome (albeit one girl was a hermaphrodite with a retractable penis) resulting in a daisy chain that resembled Neapolitan ice cream; a sisterly romance with another faerie (I would often put wings on and spend time being a faerie), whose keeper would also flirt with me; a kindly gentleman who gave me a sensual massage and finished our sexual encounter by placing a finger in my anus (which, at the time, still relatively inexperienced in real world sexual encounters, I didn't quite understand the point of); and a brute of a man that I don't think spoke much English, who took me to a dank warehouse at the back of some dirty alley, shackled me to a bare, blood-spattered mattress, and demanded that I scream while he fucked me raw. I remind you that all of these experiences were virtual in nature and didn't involve my actual, physical body.

A lot has changed since those days, although I would still enjoy logging in every now and then if the program a) had better graphics b) that don't take so long to load, and c) gave you something to do in-world beyond socializing with other players and simply exploring (although I do like exploring). I'm also a little bit concerned about censorship creep, since this is a virtual world that exists in people's imaginations, where you should be able to get your freak on without discrimination, yet there are still people insisting upon acting as the moral police. But I stopped paying attention to that news years ago.

Nowadays I'm more or less content to dress and groom myself like a girl, and reap the exhibitionist thrill of posting sexy pictures of myself on the internet. Although one of my deepest fantasy desires is still to have the ability to mold my body into any shape I want, like you can in some games and virtual worlds (like Second Life), so I could be a true girl down to every last detail. But until technology reaches that point (and I'm not holding my breath), I'm sure I'll be spending a lot more time indulging my sexual interests on the internet. A wonderful invention, no? And today - Cyber Monday - is the day to celebrate its most pleasurable application!

The Illicit(?) Thrill of Nudity

This past holiday weekend found me visiting with family in an environment not so comfortable as home - where I lounge naked practically 24/7 - but in a place I've called home, and where my interest in nudism surfaced (once upon a time), but only by isolated and secretive measures. And so it was that in the evening, circumstances conspired to place me in the house alone, and I took advantage of the opportunity to shoot some billiards (a long time casual hobby I've picked up from my dad) sans clothes.

A question many textiles ask nudists is, why nude? I guess they don't get it, because they haven't tried it (or because some people just aren't wired for it). The ignorant sometimes suppose that nudism is a thin veil for wild sex orgies, while the nudists counter with their motto, "normal, just naked". But does the truth lie somewhere in between? There has to be something to nudism, observant critics argue, or else why would the nudists bother?

Part of the draw of nudism - and the most innocuous part - has to do with comfort, and relaxation. Sure, one must pay attention to the thermostat, although I've found that the body's ability to regulate its own temperature without clothes is more adept than I would have imagined. But it's not about that. It's about freedom from the restriction of clothes. I will concede that some people just don't get this point, and maybe it requires a certain tactile sensitivity, but there is (for me, and many other nudists) a decided comfort advantage in being without clothes.

But is there more to it than that? For some, perhaps not. But others? Certainly, going nude in any place other than the shower or the changing room is generally considered taboo. So there could be an element of excitement involved in breaking the taboo. Is this, then, the source of the "illicit thrill" of being nude? When I am nude in my own home, I hardly feel it - I'm used to being nude there, and it doesn't feel "wrong". But circling the billiard table, with the keen fear of the possibility of getting caught resting in the back of my mind, I feel electrified and liberated.

I've heard a lot about the excitement of being in a situation where you fear you might be caught. I'm not sure I understand it exactly. I mean, there's danger involved, and that could be a source of excitement - although it seems to me a lot like masochism, taking pleasure in the stimulation of pain; you're ignoring whether the stimulation is good or bad, and just taking advantage of its effect on your mind or body. The thought of being caught is rather embarrassing (and in some cases terrifying), and I definitely do not want it to happen, so why would having that sword of Damocles hanging over my head cause me to enjoy myself more, and not less?

I suspect that maybe the getting caught part is only incidental. I'm inclined to believe that the thrill comes more from the breaking of the taboo, and the threat of getting caught merely emphasizes that the activity is taboo (for, after all, going nude in my own home is hardly a taboo). The question on my mind is whether or not this thrill of breaking the taboo on nudity is "illicit" - specifically, whether I ought to feel any kind of shame for indulging in it. Obviously, the answer to this question depends on your definition of the word "illicit", but I think the important distinction is whether or not that thrill is sexual in nature.

Now, I will make the disclaimer that different persons can engage in similar activities for a wide variety of reasons (and the same person can even engage in the same activity at different times for different reasons). And, as the internet meme called "Rule 34" demonstrates, humans have a remarkable ability to harness the latent sexual energy from just about anything. But is there anything normally and intrinsically sexual about the breaking of the nudity taboo? I would argue no. On a separate occasion, I did indeed contextualize my experience shooting billiards nude in a sexual way. I think that's a psychological choice one can choose to make, or not make, depending on the situation (like the difference between skinny dipping with a romantic partner, and swimming in the pool at a nudist resort).

But this time, I was not engaged in any activity that would be inappropriate in a family-friendly nudist setting. The thrill I received from my activity was not sexual in nature - I was not sexually aroused - and, though I may be an exhibitionist to some extent, it had nothing to do with showing off or being seen, since I was alone the whole time. I believe it derived primarily from the impropriety of the activity - the flouting of certain social rules I don't agree with, enhanced by whatever natural draw being engaged in [especially physical] activity without clothes on holds, and the feeling of liberation involved in breaking those rules that normally prevent people from experiencing those draws.

It is, in a sense, "naughty", because you're being a nonconformist, and breaking certain rules of social propriety (but not ethical imperative). But it is not a sexual sort of "naughty"; it's one that anyone - from small children to elderly grandparents - could appreciate, given a proper introduction and the right frame of mind. It would be a chore to go into the reasons why nudity is a taboo in the first place, but the existence and nature of nudist resorts across the country - nay, the world - lends evidence to the fact that those who choose to break the taboo, though they may be engaging in nominally "illicit" behavior, are not necessarily perverts, and have nothing, truly, to be ashamed of.

Although they may, nonetheless, have a lot of explaining to do, if encountered in the act of nude recreation by unsuspecting textiles. -_^

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

Winter is here. We're halfway through November, and the first snow has been spotted. That means it's time to break out the winter coat!

[description: mirror selfie in a department store, wearing a thick jacket and boots]

As a nudist, one of the most annoying things about going out is having to get dressed. And if you're just running out to pick up a pizza, or take care of a few quick errands, it seems kind of wasteful to pick out a whole outfit that nobody's going to see under your coat anyway.

And this winter coat - it's pretty warm, and provides full neck-to-knee coverage. So I decided not to wear anything underneath it. The boots cover up enough of my legs that it doesn't seem like I'm dangerously exposed to the elements - I could just be wearing a skirt under that coat (which I sometimes do).

Interestingly - and I say this for the benefit of anyone who might think there's something wrong or illegal about what I was wearing - this coat covers up as much - and, indeed, in many cases more - as many perfectly normal and acceptable outfits that people wear (think about revealing summer clothes, and thin dresses that people sometimes even wear without underwear). As long as I'm not opening my coat and flashing people (and I didn't), there ain't nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, being covered only by a thick overcoat and not form-fitting, restrictive garments, I had the feeling of being more naked than I usually am when I'm walking through the mall, surrounded by people. It was like a weird juxtaposition of being at the mall, and being at a nudist resort, except that everyone else is clothed. It was fun!

Erection Day

My observance of this all-American holiday is admittedly spotty (I last celebrated on this blog three years ago), but I always consider it a creative challenge to find ways to photograph an erection that is artistic and (relatively speaking) tasteful.

So-called "dick pics" are pretty much the bane of the internet, and consist mostly in not necessarily attractive men wanting to "show off" their goods to unsuspecting strangers (usually attractive women) for some sort of illicit sexual thrill (or validation, or who knows what other reasons).

And that really represents the worst kind of exhibitionism - the sort that thrives on vulgarity and the violation of others' consent, and gives a bad name to the rest of us decent people who simply enjoy looking and being looked at.

But the fact that 95% of the world's sexually explicit media is crass has never stopped me from trying to prove that human sexuality can be depicted in a way that is refined and, dare I say it, beautiful.

And as a sex-positive individual, I view the erect phallus as a celebratory symbol of sexual arousal, rather than a threatening symbol of male dominance and intimidation.

But you don't have to be male to celebrate Erection Day - clitoral erections may be decidedly more understated than the penile analog, but they are every bit as important to the world's collective sexual satisfaction.

So, on this, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I invite you to celebrate sexual arousal in whatever responsible and uplifting ways you know how. If that involves showing off your genitals in an aroused state, then have at it - but remember the difference between celebrating your erection, and shoving it in unsuspecting people's faces.

If you're not comfortable showing yourself off to the world in that way, then certainly, you can wear your erection proudly underneath your clothes today. It'll put you in a happier mood, and chances are, nobody will suspect a thing! Although spreading the word about this exciting holiday is good, too. -_^

Another Miss

[description: fitting room selfie featuring a floor-length, one shoulder, pink prom dress]

Given the season, I would guess that this was a Homecoming dress, but it has the same flamboyancy that is characteristic of prom dresses, and that's what's important. It's not the perfect prom dress for me, like that green one was, on account of its remarkable length (the girl that wore this dress must have worn six inch heels, because I'm pretty tall for a woman). But it is one that I would be delighted to wear. In the first case, it's a beautiful pink color, with sparkling embellishments. I like its shape, and even though I prefer a short skirt that shows off my sexy legs, the longer skirt of this dress does have something of a feeling of elegance to it, which is also fun.

Alas, I could not get the dress zipped up, so it was a lost cause. And too bad, too, because it was marked down to twenty-five bucks from over a hundred dollars! Always it seems to be the case that I can't get the dress zipped up. The length is workable, even the bust is reasonable (given my lack of proportion in that area), and it looks great on me! But without zipping it up, it's not even technically "on" me; I have to hold it up to keep it on. What is it with girls and their super tiny waists? It's not fair! Do women have smaller rib cages than men or something? Will I ever be able to find a prom dress that fits on me? Do they make prom dresses for "big-boned" women? I'm pretty disappointed.

[description: fitting room selfie featuring a knee-length, dark red, formal dress]

I was also looking for something "Christmas-y". I thought this dress was real cute on me, but I had the same damn problem - I couldn't get it zipped up...

Guess I'm doomed to wear my birthday suit. At least it fits.

Sex-Positive or PC?

Honestly, I wish I had a better understanding of all the various social forces in play so I could better locate the source of the problem and then explain it to you. Conservatives, liberals, religious fundamentalists, radical feminists, the list goes on. I'm just one person living a fairly isolated life, so I don't know what groups hold all the power in this world, and what beliefs their manifestos contain. But it seems like the moral conservatives consistently find a way to take everything with positive meaning in this world and corrupt it to their petty ends. They did this with feminism. Sex-positivity is no exception.

Actually, I was surprised when I learned that sex-positivity itself was born out of the feminist movement. I began considering myself to be sex-positive before that, and it just never occurred to me that it had anything to do with the gender wars. It's appropriate, considering all the sex-negative (and anti-feminist) shit that gets spouted by people calling themselves feminists, and that gives the public at large their idea of what feminism (incorrectly) stands for. Certainly, railing against the anti-porn feminists and such is entirely in line with the sex-positive mindset; I just don't see any reason to restrict it to a feminist viewpoint, when it could be holistically humanist, or something like that.

That anti-porn comment is telling, though. Nowadays it seems that the "sex-positive" community has been infiltrated by ultra-PC liberals (who are paradoxically moral conservatives), who would argue that pornography is an unethical form of sexual expression. These are people who are so caught up in the divinity of the technical concept of "sexual consent". Ideally, consent is a great thing - and its antithesis is rape, which is about the most sex-negative act you could conjure. But these people are too caught up on an artificial legal designation of consent, and their worship of the concept is blinding them to the great variety of human sexual behavior. They would have you believe that you must obtain consent before fantasizing about another person sexually!

Honestly, I can understand the twisted rationalizations for this belief, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered to be "sex-positive". Sex-positivity has seemingly taken on this poisonous approach in that "good" (and thus, ethical) sex can only be had in specific forms between specific people. It's all about the social cohesion between two adult, fully-informed partners bringing their genitals into union. This entirely eliminates asocial sexuality, which is a wholly ablist (discriminatory against those who have a disability - especially of the social variety, like myself) perspective. And do these people even realize that they're denying adolescents the possibility of a healthy sexual awakening due to the arbitrary and inhumane fact that "consent" is not a human right but a privilege granted by the government only to certain persons?

It's disgusting, but above all, it's not sex-positive. Sex-positivity doesn't mean "if it feels good, do it". Of course! Just because an act violates your uptight definition of what constitutes "consent" doesn't mean that it's unethical. People seem to use this argument to imply that sex-positivity encompasses a sex-negative criticism of human sexuality. That's insane! No, not all sex is sunshine and rainbows, and being sex-positive doesn't mean that all sex is good. Rather, a better ideal would be one similar to the Wiccan Rede - updated to: "an it harm none, do what feels good".

Believing that sex is some phantom force of violation and intrusion - that even thinking about someone in a sexual way without first gaining their explicit, verbal consent, is entirely sex-negative! Sex-positivity isn't about all the conservative bullshit that the church preaches. It's not about "only between committed partners in the bedroom with the lights on" either. It's about a base, fundamental belief that sex is a positive force, a natural part of life, and an activity with a huge pleasure potential. Encouraging sexual shame and paranoia is antithetical to this.

Now, believing in the positive aspect of sexuality doesn't mean that every instance of sexuality is, in fact, positive. I understand that. But believing that every instance of sexuality is negative until every person involved seeks the magical key to the gateway as determined by policy makers and pseudo-intellectuals isn't sex-positive! I believe in the positive aspect of sexuality. Most so-called sex-positive persons don't seem to, however. They are liars and hypocrites and they are not sex-positive. True sex-positive individuals are extremely rare in this fucked up, diseased sexual world we live in. And I'm sick of seeing moral conservatives spout their beliefs and claiming to be sex-positive! Where are the true sex-positives in this world?

More Nude News

Just a couple this time, because I can't take too much moronic news at one time.

Why has sending naked photos become normal for young people?

"if a guy asks you to send a photo and you don’t, you get a little bit scared he might find someone else to talk to."

Omg, this is so stupid. And if you start talking to a guy and he tells you to have unprotected sex with him or else he'll find some other girl to talk to, would you do it? If it's not something you want to do, then find somebody who's actually worth your time, that won't pressure you to do things like this.

But it's not such a big deal, anyway. It's just a naked picture. And all that fear-mongering about how you'll be bullied and you'll never be able to get a job and you'll end up committing suicide out of depression because somebody passed a naked photo of you around school - that's stupid, too!

If you're the type of person who would be cowed into ending your life over a naked picture, then it's pretty damn simple. Don't take one. And if you do, stand up for yourself. After all, the more people who do, the less stigma this activity will have.

You think it's great that we live in a world where passing around naked pictures is an offense worthy of wrist-slashing (or prison time)? Hell no! I don't want to live in that world. So let's stop making such a big deal about it. It's normal behavior, and it's here to stay.

You can choose to engage in it or not - that is entirely your decision, and you shouldn't let people pressure you into changing your mind. But whether you do it or not, it's not the end of the world.

We talk about the "victims", but the real criminals are the people who would make you think any less of yourself because you were confident in your body and in your sexuality - enough to show it off.

Don't let those bullies win. You know how best you can do that? By taking a naked picture of yourself and sharing it, and then standing up for yourself and refusing to let people treat you badly for it. That's empowerment right there.

Revenge porn Bill upsets British nudists

This is absurd. They go on and on about how full-frontal nudity is not equivalent to pornography and that's entirely beside the point! If this bill really and truly bans all nudity regardless of whether or not it's pornographic, then that's a big deal. But it also has nothing to do with so-called "revenge porn", which is just as damaging if it's actual porn or just a nude image. This is about censorship, pure and simple, riding on the back of a noble-sounding pursuit ("let's stamp out revenge porn!"). Yet it's real purpose is not even remotely hidden, like they don't even care. This also lends evidence to the fact that the UK is not so enlightened about issues of sex and nudity as we Americans like to think (as bad as we are). I mean, seriously, how does this bill have anything at all to do with "revenge porn"? I don't get it!

This simply isn't a nudist issue - it's a free speech issue! Not that I have anything against nudists taking up that free speech issue. If anyone involved in this (but particularly the politicians) had any real concern over "revenge porn", then they'd focus on the revenge part, and not get hung up on the porn (or nudity, as the case may be). Honestly, how much evidence do people need before they'll finally realize that all this white knighting against human sexuality is nothing more than a front for puritan idealism? Yeah, the forces of chastity are amassing against us once again.

An Amazing Machine

The human body is an amazing machine, which, at its best, displays a beautiful combination of strength and grace. What I also find amazing is the powerful meanings we attribute to its depiction. Surely, as any organic product of nature, a human body can be depicted in a vulgar fashion. And there are legitimate taboos, such as against the passing of waste, or the signs of death and decay. Although, our apparent fascination with the symptoms of violence is disturbing and inexplicable - the mere sight of human genitalia is rarely tolerated to the extent that even real life gore is. But even depicted in its prime, as the ancient Greeks used to carve out of stone, we harbor an unnatural taboo. Why do we fear so the bodies we possess?

Partly this is a fear of sex, in spite of an academic understanding that naked bodies are not equivalent to sex acts. Public nudity is discouraged, partly out of a lack of confidence in the average citizen's grooming habits, and partly out of fear for offending one's aesthetic sensibilities, given that most persons are not Greek athletes in the prime of fitness. Yet, even depictions of perfect bodies in the media are met with public outcry, and the very possibility that the genital organs may be exposed - no matter what they look like or even what they're doing - to the public eye is met with horror.

So, then, we cover up, at least in part to distract ourselves from sex. But yet, the signs of sex are everywhere, and the taboo against nudity only reinforces the notion that it is a form of explicit - indeed, pornographic, or else it would be on billboards and the covers of magazines like every other sexual cue - paraphernalia. But all of that, it all exists inside the minds of individual humans. We fear the naked body because we fear the thoughts it might stir up in people's heads. How uncultured a fear that is! As if humans weren't already thinking of sex constantly! Though we forbid the showing of sex in many venues, why the body, too? And why, when we see the body, do we immediately assume that sex is involved?

Truly, the artistic discipline is accompanied by a long history of the study of anatomy. And well it should be, in spite of the prudes and the puritans and the censors. Apart even from its use in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, what subject stirs more the aesthetic sensibilities of man? On what grounds should it be restricted and restrained, and categorized along with the most vulgar fancies of the most degenerate members of the population? Why should certain bodies, also, be taboo where others are less so - considering the hysterical fear we have of understanding the process of physical maturation?

Whatever thoughts these images might stir up in the minds of men - they are the property, and responsibility, of those men. Art is a form of speech, and speech is the basis of all thought. This is the very principle behind the freedom of speech. Should we restrict certain forms of speech because we fear the thoughts that may arise in some of its listeners? Even if that means cutting off the nobler thoughts of others? Should we not allow an aesthetic appreciation of the amazing machine that is the human body, for example, because some people, while looking upon it, may be overcome by their own vulgar imaginations?

And what of the accusation that the taboo on nudity merely encourages its unhealthy conceptualization, while limiting the ability of noble people to conceptualize it appropriately, as it deserves? No, I think the deck is stacked; although reason will forever tremble before the power of emotion. Depictions of the human body in all its glory are a social good, and censorship of any kind is a social evil. Hide it away, whisper about it in hushed tones, and you are only feeding the demons that consume this population on the whole.

Excitement and Overexposure

Here's a common complaint I hear against nudism: "But if I see naked boobies all the time, it'll lose its excitement - I never want to reach a point where seeing naked boobies doesn't excite me!"

Response: I find it incredibly ironic (and not a little bit hypocritical) that the type of person who's constantly staring at women's chests and hoping for a nip slip would use this argument, seeing as I doubt it even factors into this person's logic when they are watching porn on the internet for hours at a time.

But while there is some legitimacy in the concept of "normalization" - that we tend to get used to things we are constantly exposed to - a human being need not fear "wearing out" their sexual appetite. Exposure to erotic triggers will, at best, tire you out temporarily; but, like hunger, there will always be more desire in store just around the corner.

I am a person who appreciates the naked human form - especially the female form. I have dedicated myself to art so that I may surround myself daily with depictions of that form. Through my appreciation of art, I see countless images of naked females almost every day. Do I ever get tired of seeing a beautiful naked woman?

The answer to that question is a resounding NO! Exposure hasn't diminished my appreciation for the human form - it has only refined it. It may be true that I don't get giddy at the mere sight of an exposed breast as if I were an adolescent boy. But in no way does that diminish my appreciation for a beautiful breast when I see it. In fact, I value that experience so much, I want the whole world to go naked so that I may indulge in it more often!

Frankly, I think we need more maturity when it comes to sex and the sight of the naked human body. Tittering at the sight of a naked breast is a phase that adult men need to grow out of. Seriously. It is at least partially responsible for the sort of ridiculousness that occurs in this country (the United States) when the nudity taboo is even barely broken - such as during the "nipplegate" fiasco. This fetishization and objectification of the human female breast also contributes to women's body image issues, sexual inequality in the form of resistance to topfreedom movements, and an unhealthy stigma attached to breastfeeding.

There's nothing wrong with a man finding a woman's breast - or any other part of her body - sexually appealing. But there is a mature and an immature way of handling it. And exposure is the best way to get past that awkward adolescent phase that our culture seems to be willfully stuck in. So, no, I don't think that coddling your unhealthy fascination with parts of people's bodies is a legitimate argument against the mainstreamification of nudism. But nice try.

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

[description: fashion selfie featuring a black jacket and jeans with matching boots]

You'll have to forgive the framing of this shot - my cell phone won't attach to a tripod and so it's even trickier than usual to get a good picture of myself. Alas, fall is well and truly upon us, and so that means the shorts and minidresses of the summer are largely behind us. I've had this jacket and these boots for a couple years now; I no longer remember where I got them, though it might have been the internet and/or a certain coat factory.

The jacket is very attractive, I think - it has large buttons down the front, and I especially like how it cinches (with a belt) around the waist. It's light, so not good for the winter, but perfect for fall weather. The one complaint I have is that it's pretty tight around the shoulders and a little short in the arms. It's certainly something I can work around, but makes it a little uncomfortable, especially when I have my arms stretched out.

The boots are just fantastic. The thing I like the most about them are the buckles that stick out on the sides (they're mostly for show). They remind me of the [very sexy and reminiscent of bondage] boots I had my necromancer wear in Guild Wars once upon a time. They have a short heel, which is enough to give it a look of elegance, but not so much to make them terribly uncomfortable to wear. I wore them this day because it was rainy (not good weather for tennis shoes, or flip flops if you're wearing long pants you don't want to get wet), and because my rain boots are less comfortable and a lot harder to put on and take off.

The jeans are just regular skinny jeans. I think they work really well with the jacket and boots, which themselves come together for a really smart look. Another thing that goes well with that jacket is a poofy skirt not much longer than the jacket itself. I may have worn the jacket once or twice all by itself with nothing underneath, but not anywhere more exciting than taking the trash around to the back of the building after dark. It's pretty short, and the flaps come apart easily in the front when you walk. ;-p

Evolving Sexual Attitudes

The unrestrained, animal instinct would, presumably, lead to a whole lot of indiscriminate fucking (and probably not a small amount of rape). I imagine this to be the default state of the uncivilized, uneducated human specimen.

The emergence of a belief in sexual purity as a moral virtue, as pushed by a number of popular religions, seems poised to contain and control human sexuality. The natural sexual appetite is reconceptualized as the sin of lust, which must be tamed and expressed only in particular, controlled situations (approved by the church, or government), else one succumbs to moral corruption.

It would be naive to think that this strategy has been employed throughout the ages for strictly altruistic purposes; but, at its best, it seems intended to be a civilizing influence. However, it is a very blunt tool applied to the very subtle subject of human sexual interaction.

In the middle ages, this simplistic, black-and-white approach may have been adequate. But I would argue that we have evolved to the next level. Certainly, in the 21st century, amidst all the clamoring for newfound sexual liberation and tolerance, it would seem as though we were ready for a more nuanced understanding of human sexuality.

Hedonistic sexual anarchy is one end of the spectrum. Holy virginity is the other. Have we not reached a level of cultural sophistication where we can distinguish positive and destructive sexual acts through their impacts on the individual people involved, rather than making broad proscriptions on certain kinds of contact?

Are we not at a point where we can understand that the human sexual appetite is not sinful, but natural, and that there are merely healthy and unhealthy ways of expressing and indulging in it? Do we not live in a modern society that believes in fundamental liberty and the civic rights of the individual?

Need we continue to be corralled by ordained shepherds who preach lowest-common-denominator approaches to sexual ethics, that limit the freedoms of the sophisticated individual for the sake of the simple-minded fool? Is it not time to refocus our attention on the rules of ethics in lieu of superstitious morality?

I'm ready. I don't know about you.

Preventive Measures

This seems to be a symptom of the nanny state, in which safety is viewed as being more valuable than basic liberty. It's also what happens when people engage in victim-blaming, and reflects a legislative approach that's employed in "end demand" strategies. In the end, all it is, is avoiding the real problem and focusing on something else, to the detriment of our principles as a society.

Nostalgia

Nothing in life prepares you for the passage of time.

[description: photo series of nude portraits in the house where I spent most of my young life]

One of the greatest crimes of the cosmos is lack of perspective. They say that life is a learning experience, but what's the point of learning if, in the process, you're robbed of the opportunity to make use of it? I wish I could go back in time, knowing everything I know now - about myself and everything else - having all the experience I've so far accumulated. I wish I could communicate with myself from an earlier age. I don't think I ever would have guessed that I'd be the person I am now, but I often think that if I had been surer of myself at a younger age, I could have accomplished so much more. I've spent so much of my life being afraid. And that's one thing that still hasn't changed.

[description: a series of erotic portraits in the bedroom where I grew up]

From the very start, my work as a [self-]portrait artist has always been to express myself - not just bodily and physically, but thoughtfully as well. It has been a medium of communication between me and a world in which I am often too timid to speak up. I have never been just a model - just a body in an image, displayed on a screen - I have been a model and a person. And my self-portraits are also portraits of my personality, and my lifestyle, and my beliefs - not necessarily by capturing my day-to-day experiences, like the myriad snapshots that turn up on Facebook - but by demonstrating my inner life, which, as an introvert, has always been far more important to me. I would hope that anyone, upon viewing these photographs, would see the depth in them and recognize them as being something so much more than just "dirty pictures".

Both Sides Now

(With apologies to Joni Mitchell, lol).

One of my friends viewed some of my "safer" photography once several years ago, when I was less enmeshed in the modeling lifestyle as I am now. It wasn't too long after I started sharing my self-portraits on the internet. It was in the context of my flickr photostream, and so there were (as there tends to be) some comments on my photos, some of which were thinly veiled (if that) come ons, more or less obviously posted by men, if simply going by stereotypes.

At that point, I was obviously farther along the path of getting used to what every erotic model (and quite a few of the non-erotic variety, to their chagrin, I'm sure) has to get used to - receiving sexual comments from random strangers - than my non-model friend. Although, as I have already alluded to, not quite as comfortable with it as I am now. To somebody who has not had the experience of being a model, I can understand a little bit of confusion/discomfort at the thought of random people - particularly ones you have no interest of being sexually intimate with, as that is just how the statistics work out - coming on to you in a regular capacity.

Now, as a straight man (as I and, ostensibly, my friend both are), if this attention were coming from random women it would be a little bit more understandable. But when it comes from men, there's a little bit of awkwardness there. I'm not gonna sugarcoat this: the discomfort is largely inspired by a widespread culture of male homophobia. I've come a long way in getting over that feeling of discomfort. But at the end of the day, being "straight" is not a badge that I wear, it's just the way I describe my own sexuality, and I'm not (any longer) looking to prove anything to anyone, as it's not as if being gay would somehow make me less of a human being anyway (and those people who tend to think this need a reality check).

So, to me, it seems that if I'm getting a sexual compliment from a stranger I have no sexual attraction to or chemistry with, it doesn't make a difference to me if it's a man or a woman. And I don't subscribe to the simple-minded notion that a person attracted to one or the other sex is attracted to every member of that sex. Indeed, though I am attracted to females in a fundamentally more important way than whatever incidental attraction I might have to a male (and if you've read any Kinsey, it shouldn't be a surprise that very few people are entirely, 100% exclusively attracted to one sex or the other), I don't find it such a huge stretch of logic that I could find a particularly choice male specimen more physically attractive than a particularly dull or run-of-the-mill female. It doesn't mean I would necessarily have any desire to become either romantically or sexually intimate with them, but still.

Yet in the case of erotic modeling, a compliment needn't even come from somebody generally attractive. I've written about this before (though I don't at this moment recall when or where), but part of the "job" of erotic modeling is presenting yourself as a sort of fantasy icon for your adoring fans. And while there seems to be this superstitious belief among the masses that if somebody comes on to you that you're not attracted to, you've somehow lost face, I don't buy that. A sexual compliment is just that - a sexual compliment. And it doesn't require any sort of return. When somebody says they're attracted to me, that means I'm doing my job as an erotic model. It doesn't mean that we have to start dating, or have cybersex, or anything like that. I think this is a situation that most people in sex work deal with - providing sexual services for clients, without getting attached - that most of the rest of the world doesn't understand very well. But at this point in my life, I've adapted to it pretty comfortably. And I've learned to actually derive pleasure from being desired, even when the person doing the desiring isn't someone that I reciprocally desire.

I chose the title for this post to illustrate how - much like I am on both sides of the camera, as photographer and model - I am also on both sides of the screen. I am not just an erotic icon (maybe even "softcore porn star", if you will), I am also a fan of erotic icons. I collect sexy and artistic pics of nude models, too. They might not be the same ones my own fans collect (aside from my own - and, indeed, in most cases, they are probably not the same, given that what I am, and what I am attracted to, are two different, even if sometimes superficially similar, things), but I understand what that's like. I know what it's like to see a picture of an attractive person that gets your blood pumping. And I know what it's like sometimes to be stirred, sexually, by such pictures. And as a sexually liberated, sex-positive individual, I am not ashamed of that. Indeed, though many more people probably do feel shame, I'm sure it is not an insignificant percentage of the population (if possibly skewed toward males) that has at some time or other, if not regularly, "availed" themselves of internet pornography (or even non-porn that they've found sufficiently stimulating).

Now here's where things become odious. That shame bit does indeed cause some problems, and not just for the person on the messy side of the screen. We (collectively as male culture) indulge in porn, while simultaneously shaming those who are involved with it. In a very similar kind of dance, we drool over women who dress or act in ways that we deem "slutty", while thinking less of them in the process, and vehemently denying the women in our lives (especially wives/girlfriends, and most especially daughters) the opportunity to do the same (at least when not in private). Frankly, I think this is terribly hypocritical, and it reflects a very unhealthy attitude towards sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is viewed as a sin, and thus, while we simultaneously delight in it (it is, after all, a form of pleasure), we reject and despise those who cause us to feel that way.

I, however, am different. I view sexual pleasure as a gift. And anyone who is capable of giving it to me - not just directly, but also through the mechanism of arousal and desire - deserves my praise and respect. It's sad that I'm in the minority on this, but it's true. It also seems to me that this whole idea of reciprocation - that if somebody comes on to you, it's like they're demanding a return, or making some kind of comment on your own nature, by the sort of person that would be attracted to you (which makes no sense at all) - encourages an erosion of the concept of consent - whereby somebody has the right to decline a sexual advance without it impacting the "honor" of either party.

In any case, to wrap up this discussion, I will come, finally, to the impetus that put my pen into motion in the first place (figuratively speaking). If somebody - a fan of my erotic work - comes to me with a message of pleasure and desire, I take it simply as the compliment it is, with no expectation that I must express either reciprocal attraction or, barring that, revulsion that somebody I am not attracted to would dare express an attraction to me (I mean, big deal, right?). In another sense, I can imagine myself in the fan's place. What if I were to see a picture of an erotic model I am intensely attracted to? No doubt I would feel very similar toward this model, and where is the shame in that?

Now, one must consider the importance of being polite, particularly when making comments that the model is going to see. Incidentally, you would be impressed by how many people are careful to make sure I won't be offended before admitting their sexual attraction to me, despite the way that I conspicuously present myself as an object of sexual desire in my photography. But I think a lot of this, in addition to a basic sense of politeness, is encouraged by how many models out there (probably more often the female ones, because stereotypes) do exactly that and still get upset when somebody dares to express a sexual attraction to them. I sit on the middle of the fence - where politeness is important, but at the same time, people should have a basic understanding of human sexuality, and recognize that when somebody makes a sexual comment, it doesn't impugn their reputation as a pure, Christian angel. Or rather, as a decent human being. This whole image of the sexless angel is ridiculous, and unhealthy, and causes no end of frustration throughout society.

So, to reiterate, when somebody tells me how they masturbate to my pictures (for example), instead of getting offended and grossed out, I just think how nice it would be to have an opportunity to tell a female model I'm attracted to what her photos do to me (believe it or not, I have never done this - because I've been conditioned to internalize my feelings), without her getting upset and offended. And while certainly you could argue that it would be better if we just kept all this stuff unsaid, what's wrong with being honest? Frankly, the idea that there's this sexual undercurrent going on behind the scenes, that most people accept but no one is brave enough to address, just to me feels really slimy and deceptive. Much more so than simply being honest when somebody's appearance or behavior causes you to feel happy in your pants, so long as you don't expect them to be obligated to do anything about it, and are polite when you do go about sharing. And by all means, I don't think you should necessarily walk up to a stranger on the street and tell her the outfit she's wearing is giving you a boner (again with the politeness thing), but models in particular should be more expecting of this sort of thing than everyone else.

Outfit of the Day (#ootd) - Double Special!

[description: fashion selfie featuring a pink minidress with matching purse and flip flops]

I wore this outfit the other night. I explained some more details about this pink swim wrap/dress here. With my hot pink purse, and my hot pink flip flops, I was a little bit concerned that it would look like a bubble gum factory had exploded all over me. There is a concern [all the way] at the back of my mind about "trying too hard" to look feminine (instilled in me by other people's reflections), but the truth is, I love the color pink, and I wore this outfit with confidence.

It's interesting to see how my wardrobe has evolved over the years, as I continue to collect pieces, and weed out the ones that don't suit me so well. In the beginning of my "transition" to living as a girl, I would grab anything and everything and try it out, but with experience - the kind of experience most women my age have decades more of than me - I've learned to focus on some combination of the clothes I like, and the clothes that actually look good on me.

That having been said, I'm a very girly girl. I've never really considered the ultra-feminine pieces in my wardrobe to be an expression of the effort I put into being a girl, so much as simply an expression of my personality. If I had been born female, and all other things being the same, I'd still wear all this ultra-girly pink explosion stuff. Because I just like it!

[description: fitting room selfie featuring a dark green strapless minidress]

Moving on to a second outfit - I took this picture in the dressing room, but this wasn't an outfit I was trying on, it was actually the one I wore to the store. I was trying on another prom dress (the blue one on the hook). It was really short on top and bottom (which by now you should know I like), but the waist was way too small on me. It's a pity, because it had been marked down to the all-time low price of a dollar!

Anyway, the dress I'm wearing is another one of my favorites. I bought it from a girl doing cartwheels at a yard sale. I don't doubt it was a bit longer on her, but the length suits me just perfectly. It's green, which is my other favorite color, and though I do have trouble keeping it from sliding down and threatening to cause me to flash people in public, it's really easy to slip on and off and is nice and cool for the summer. I actually had one guy in the store that night go out of his way to tell me that he liked my dress. If he only knew. ;-p

Q: How do you define art?

A: Firstly, I think it's important to ask the question, "how do you define art?", rather than "what is art?", since this is inevitably one of those subjects on which everyone will never agree. And so this is not my attempt to define art so much as an explanation of what I personally consider to be art.

True to my diplomatic nature, I take a rather subjective and radically inclusive approach towards art, that is inspired by the archetypal eighth grade literature teacher's philosophy on wrong answers: the only wrong answer is the one which you are incapable of defending. And so, if somebody - anybody - can make an argument that a certain thing is art, then I am willing to concede that it is art.

The reason I'm willing to do this is because, though art is a form of object, it is not the "thing" of art, but the "effect" it has on the human heart (whether that of the artist or the audience) that matters. Thus I believe that art can indeed be accidental, and both intent and interpretation can create art, not always in the same object.

To be (only slightly) more concrete, I support the theory that art is a [man-made] reflection of life, and the universe that surrounds us. It is an expression of existence as interpreted through human being. It makes some kind of statement (whether consciously or not) about - or it expresses a reaction to - being, as experienced by a conscious intelligence.

None of this makes any distinction between good art and bad art, nor between "high" art (i.e., fine art) and "low" art (i.e., pop art), which are independent scales that are themselves subject to a considerable amount of subjective interpretation. These are all just different kinds of art. But they are all art, and the important thing about art is that it comes from human hands (even as it sometimes reflects the world beyond people), and that it touches the human heart.

Sex in Art

One of the troubles with trying to create material that aims to be erotic, is that people's sexual tastes are so varied. Just look at how many different categories the porn industry is splintered into. Different people react to different things, and even one person's erotic triggers can change during the course of one's life.

There may be a certain "common denominator" of human sexuality that can be tapped into, to engender a certain level of response in a large fraction of the population, but that can only go so far. You can write a story about a character who experiences erotic attraction in such a way that the audience can relate to it, but getting the audience to actually respond erotically is a guessing game.

Obviously, this is no reason to refrain from creating erotic materials - even in non-sexual contexts, you can't ever hope to please everyone. There will inevitably be some, for example, to whom the character you write to be likable or relatable is neither likable nor relatable. If anything, I think this supports the artist's impulse to please himself as much as anyone else, which people sometimes call selfish.

But, if you do indeed want your work to be able to be appreciated by a wider audience - and in many cases, this is important, if not the most important thing - what can you do? I think the answer is that you need to appeal to more than just the erotic impulse, so that the people who don't find the work personally very erotic, can still find it appealing in other ways. For example, to an image you could add artistic composition (which is indeed my approach, as an erotic photographer), or to a film you could add drama.

I think this is an excellent argument for a closer marriage between art and pornography, because as it stands, the two are diminished by being kept so firmly separated. Pornography loses its interest and value because it has no redeeming qualities beyond the erotic impulse (which is probably narrowly directed, in most cases, to the subset of the population who will find that instance of pornography particularly arousing).

And on the other side of the divide, we have beautiful art that is afraid to say anything about human sexuality; and when it does, it is derided (whether for its base morals as interpreted as a piece of art, or its pretensions when considered as pornography) to the point that other talented artists are discouraged from applying their talent to the subject, thus resulting in the vast majority of depictions of human sexuality being of the single-minded, unartistic, pornographic variety.

I think anyone and everyone who wants to change this should take heart, and stand up. Ignore the simple-minded masses who insist on fitting everything into neatly delineated categories, and the prudes and moral conservatives who insist that sex as a subject is not befitting the same kind of careful and profound treatment as every other subject ever considered by an artist. And go out there, and make art. Art that crosses boundaries. Art that defies conventions. Art that shatters taboos, and dares to color outside the lines. Get out there and shake things up a bit.

The Last Day of August

I recorded a video with this title three years ago, so maybe I should make this some kind of annual tradition, to do something special on the last day of August, in celebration of the summer nearing its end. I guess that's kind of what people use the Labor Day holiday for, but I've always been kind of independent about inventing my own personal holidays.

I probably say this at least once every year, but my favorite season is summer, and thus it stands to reason that my favorite quarter of the year encompasses the months of June, July, and August. Although summer officially starts toward the end of June, and doesn't end until nearly the end of September, I find that the weather in June is more consistently summery than that of September, plus the anticipation of the coming summer during the last days of spring is a happier time than those days when the autumn looms just over the horizon.

Not to say that I don't enjoy the autumn, because I believe it is a beautiful season all its own. And this is something I've really only been able to fully appreciate after I finished my schooling, since before that the fall was always imbued with the utter dread of the anticipation of the new school year. But now that that's no longer part of my life, I can appreciate the mood of the autumn. The approach to Halloween is a perfect time for watching horror movies - and as a humongous horror fan, that gets me very excited.

So it's really not until the winter blows in, and the days are at their darkest and coldest, and I have to start thinking about (read: dreading) Christmas, and the obligations that come with birthdays in my family (even my own) in the following months, that I start to get depressed. But even though I can appreciate the fall, it's still sad to see the summer reaching its end, as the days begin to grow shorter and cooler, and to me it seems like the last day of August holds a kind of significance.

So yesterday I drove to the nearest lake to go swimming with a friend and some of her family. The weather was mild but very humid, with dark clouds hanging in the sky. It drizzled a little bit, but not enough to spoil the day, and in any case, it's likely that the weather kept others from the lake, since we were the only ones there at what I am assured is usually a popular part of the shore (it was the first time I'd ever been to that particular part of the lake). But though the lake water was very cold, the air was just warm and humid enough to be comfortable, and so we had a good time.

[description: fashion selfie in a pink swim wrap with miniskirt and neck tie-off]

This is the outfit I wore to the lake, over my swimsuit. It's a hot pink swim wrap I bought at Walmart several years ago. I love it so much, I own two of them! It's really quick and easy to slip on or take off, and is really short at the bottom and the top (which I love), but unlike other dresses of its sort, the neck tie helps a little bit in keeping it from falling down. Actually, when I first bought it, I thought it was just a skirt, then was delighted to find out that it was really a dress! (The thing hanging from my nonexistent "cleavage" is my keys, lol).

[description: a man stands on the shore of a lake in a skimpy bikini bottom]

This is the swimsuit I wore, which is the one I dubbed the "mankini" in my Swimsuit Model post. The great thing about natural parks as opposed to man-made pools (other than the lack of an admission fee), is that they usually have less restrictive rules regarding "community standards". (I speculate this same difference exists between fenced-in nudist resorts vs. nudist beaches, but I've never been to a nudist beach yet to compare).

The pool I go to would probably kick me out if I wore a Speedo (they threaten as much on their rules board), and barring a political protest regarding sexual discrimination (which I considered last year), since girls are allowed to wear the skimpiest of bikinis (so long as they aren't thongs), I don't know what if anything can be done about that (indeed, a lot of people are of the opinion that a business should be allowed to discriminate based on their personal principles).

But there's nothing illegal about a man wearing a Speedo-type swimsuit on public land - in fact, you could arguably get away with wearing a thong, although I'm not sure I'm ready to argue that one with law enforcement - and I'd be surprised if anyone with authority had the gall to tell me to change in this instance. So, damn straight I'm going to exercise my right to personal expression as the citizen of a free country! Though, I still find it utterly depressing that homo sapiens is so neurotic that it won't let its members go nude (a.k.a. "natural") when swimming in such a place...

[description: clouds cast a gloom over the shore of a lake]
It's not a very large lake, but it is pretty.

[description: a man in a bikini bottom stands in profile against a sheer cliff face]

Lol, my skin is totally overexposed against these rocks. It looks like it's glowing! That's my moontan, for you. :p

[description: a man in a bikini bottom reclines on rocks adjacent to the water]
Basking on the rocks...

[description: the figure of a man emerges horizontally from the shallows]
Is that a crocodile?!

The water was teeming with small fish, who were not shy. They would swim all around you, nipping at your fingers and your toes and the rest of you. I am told this technique has been used in spas as a sort of exotic massage.

My BFF/roommate, who occasionally doubles as my assistant, took most of these pictures with a cell phone camera. If I had known we'd have the whole beach to ourselves, I might have brought my bigger camera. But you never can know with these things sometimes.

[description: a figure stands waist deep in the water, arms stretched to meet its reflection]
This pose was totally inspired by a Jock Sturges portrait.

[description: a man in a skimpy bikini bottom poses seductively while standing in the shallows]
And this is me doing my Sports Illustrated impression. :p

On Stockings

It's funny - because stockings are the source of a very prominent strain of fetishism, and particularly among so-called "transvestites" - but I tend to view them as an instant turn-off.

I am totally and absolutely a "leg man", but - and maybe this is in some way related to my interest in nudism - I find the bare leg (and, in the right circumstances, to a not inconsiderable extent, the bare foot) to be extremely sexy.

Stockings, as I see it, are a way for women to wear things like skirts that would normally show off the legs, but without actually baring the legs. Which, to me, is a travesty. Why would you cover up one of my favorite parts of a woman's body? It seems too much like censorship.

Fishnet stockings can be considered an exception, due to their highly porous nature. Thigh-high stockings may also be considered an exception when paired with a miniskirt, or worn with lingerie, since they draw emphasis to the exposed thigh. Still, they don't trump bare skin.

I know there are practical reasons for wearing stockings - like, for example, maybe it lets women wear skirts in cooler weather, or if they don't consider their legs to be of a sufficient quality to bear showing off (or if they just haven't bothered to shave their legs in the last couple days).

And that's fine. I'm not saying that stockings should be outlawed. But generally, I view them as a turn-off. Much like skorts (obviously dreamed up by a prude), which tease with the promise of a potential panty flash, without any of the risk of that actually occurring (and isn't that largely the fun of wearing short skirts?).

There are a lot of articles of clothing that I do find sexy - probably even to the point of fetishism - but they are almost without exception skimpy garments where the emphasis is on what they expose rather than what they cover up (e.g., short shorts, miniskirts, bikinis, flip flops).

Whatever exceptions there may be to this rule probably include uniforms of a certain sort (like cheerleader uniforms). Of course, I have an appreciation for things that are feminine and girly, like curves and flowy garments and sparkles, but I'm not sure I would class those as styles that I find particularly sexually appealing, so much as attractive on a different scale.

Prom Dress Dreams

I'm slowly learning the ins and outs of the low-budget fashion world, and one thing I'm discovering is that every year after the spring, around about the time that school lets out, you begin to see once-used prom dresses turn up at drastically reduced prices in the thrift shops and overstock depots.

I love prom dresses. They're probably my favorite form of feminine formal wear. (Lol, say that five times fast!). There's so much variety to pick and choose from; they come in all sorts of colors and styles. Yet most of them seem to evoke a feeling of the young girl's dream of attending a fantasy ball, when she can dress up in an extravagant dress and feel like a princess, if just for one night. Plus, there's an element of flirty romance involved that is more suited to the whims of late adolescence than the ultra-serious kind of approach you get with wedding gowns and formal adult parties. It's more playful and ... imaginative!

Anyway, I harbor my own fantasy of going back in time, embracing my feminine side at a younger age, and attending my own high school prom in a beautiful prom dress, instead of the boring and restrictive tuxedo I wore (apologies to anyone who thought I was handsome in that tuxedo, including my girlfriend at the time). I can't turn back the clock, but I can still dream of owning a prom dress that makes me feel fabulous and magical.

And since I'm not going to shell out a queen's ransom in gold to own a dress for which I'll never have a proper occasion to wear, I'm pretty much limited to the commercial hand-me-downs. And there are some problems with that. First, I have to find a dress in a color and a style that I like. I actually did get one prom dress already, via a personal hand-me-down, that fits me, and looks nice enough, but wouldn't necessarily be my dream pick.

Which brings me to point two - it has to fit. For me, that can be tough. Luckily, I'm pretty skinny (in relative terms), but I'm still not totally built like a girl. In particular, I've got a very wide chest and shoulders, which, actually, does not balance out the fact that I don't have breasts the way you might think it would - instead of evening things out, I have trouble getting things to fit around my upper torso even as I don't have the volume to fill out the front.

The last thing, which is particularly relevant in the second-hand market, is that the prom dress has to be functional. It stands to reason (and my experience bears this out), that the most discounted dresses (and therefore most attractive from a purely financial perspective) usually harbor some serious damage - be it a busted zipper, a torn skirt, or major staining. On a humorous note, browsing through these used prom dresses gives me the impression sometimes that their final fate was met at the hands of a horny teen impatiently trying to strip out of her dress once she finally scored some privacy with her date at the end of the night.

Anyhow, I found a prom dress today at the Goodwill that I absolutely adored. It was in a color I liked - a pretty shade of green (my favorite color before I got turned on to pink) - and a style that screamed out to me - short on both the bottom and the top (plus, the skew of the skirt is very flirty). I've read fashion advice in (prestigious!) magazines that stress the importance of balancing skin exposure - crop tops with long pants, miniskirts with long sleeves, things like that - and frankly, I think it's a bunch of sex negative, prudish hogwash. Fact is, some people are afraid to be "too" sexy - and a lot of that has to do with the insidious culture of slut-shaming, whereby those women who have the courage to show off their bodies are shamed by their peers and the culture at large for not adhering to the arbitrary (and disgusting) mandates of the purity police (the above mentioned fashion mags are also guilty of this, though I'm not sure they realize it).

So anyway, if it's typically called "skanky" or "slutty" by the general population, I'm usually all for it. And a dress that cuts off just above the bust, and just below the thighs, is like perfect for me, even more so considering that the one thing I'm probably least confident about showing off is my midsection, which is not as tight and toned as I would like. But, alas, when I tried the prom dress on, though I managed to squeeze it around my hips, I could not get it to zip up all the way around my chest. In these pictures, I'm basically holding the edges of the dress up to see what it would look like if I could only get it on. It's too bad that it didn't fit, because I think it looked fantastic on me...

[description: fitting room mirror selfies featuring a beautiful green prom minidress]

The Power of Suggestion

[description: two nude figures are arranged Bosch-like on a couch in a suggestion of coprophagia]

This image actually came out rather a bit more perverted than I had intended. I just wanted something sexually suggestive, but because it's tricky to get two clones too close to each other, I had to play around with my options... Still, if you ignore the implication of the clones together, separately I think they're both very erotic, and the image comes together pretty nicely as a whole, so... Hell, I like to broach the taboo in my art.

The Power of Suggestion

I watched Enter The Dragon once a long time ago, and I was inspired by Bruce Lee's philosophy on the "art of fighting without fighting". Certainly, it seems in the spirit of the first rule of martial arts: the best way to win a fight, is to avoid it in the first place. What does any of this have to do with my art, you ask? Well, it has inspired my view that erotic art is the art of sex without sex. While it is certainly not always the case (especially as I contend that sexually explicit images - the type most people label as "pornography" - can be just as artistic as anything else), much of erotic art tends to rely on the power of suggestion, rather than full disclosure. This is a form of indirect communication than can be considered coy, but also extremely clever in the right hands.

I like suggestion particularly because it has the power to conjure ideas that don't directly exist in the source medium. It's almost like a kind of magic. I can show you a picture of a person's body not engaged in sexual intercourse, and it could make you think of sexual intercourse (obviously, there's a wide margin of error, but that's part of what makes suggestion so mystical). It depends a lot on psychological conditioning, which is itself dependent on culture. You can make statements with and about suggestion that have much to say about the connections we draw - as individuals, and as a culture - between more and less disparate subjects. Like the connection between nudity and sex, or the connection between sex and sin.

Suggestion is also a very important weapon in the battle between free speech and censorship. And it can be used by both sides. The censor can demonstrate a connection between an allowed form of speech and a disallowed form of speech, and use it to make an argument to increase the forms of speech that are disallowed. I, on the other hand, like to use suggestion to demonstrate the disconnect between thoughts and speech. If certain speech is restricted - sexually explicit materials, for example - this demonstrates a cultural discomfort with the subject of sex. But, at least so far, we cannot restrict people's thoughts. So I can induce people to think about sex (within a margin of error) without using restricted materials, through the power of suggestion, by showing them something they associate with sex. And if the censor tries to move against me, that just reveals his real goal: to regulate the thoughts of his fellow citizens - regulating speech is just a means towards that end.

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

One of the things I like most about the summer is that it's hot enough that you can just throw something on and go outside - you don't have to wear a jacket or dress in layers, which I don't like for two reasons - a) I'm a nudist and clothes are kind of uncomfortable, and b) I'm an exhibitionist and I like to wear things that are skimpy and show off lots of skin.

And women definitely have the advantage when it comes to clothing that you can just throw on and be street legal. A man could pull on a pair of shorts and be good to go outside, but without a shirt (and shoes, but women have to wear shoes, too) he won't be allowed in a store or a restaurant or what have you. And once you add the shirt, now you've got two pieces, and it's starting to get more complicated. Men don't really have the equivalent of a "dress" that you can just slip on.

Although, as I have proven, it's possible for a man to co-opt the clothing of the female. I really like this one slogan I learned from a friend on deviantART [NSFW] (who found it on tumblr [broken link]): "they're not women's clothes, they're MY clothes." Which is true, because when I started "cross-dressing", I felt really uncomfortable shopping in the women's section. But gradually, I just got used to it and I realized, I'm not a spy sneaking into enemy territory, this has become my part of the store to shop in (much more so than the men's section)!

But one thing women can do with relative ease that I'm still jealous of is wear a skirt (or dress) without panties. I think that sounds like an awful lot of fun, but due to the external nature of the male genitalia (and in particular its tendency to grow and stand erect), that's really not practical for a man. And also, even with something keeping the "gear" under wraps, there's often still the issue of an unsightly (depending on your opinion, I guess) bulge, which is why it helps to look for dresses with a certain cut or certain details - like ruffles - to help hide that area. Enter today's outfit:

[description: selfie featuring a short, green dress with spaghetti straps and three tiers of ruffles]

I found this dress at Gabe's (actually my BFF picked it out - she always finds the best pieces for me), and it just looked so fantastic on me that I had to buy it, despite it costing more than a few bucks (if I told you how much it actually cost, you'd think I was a total cheapie :p). I like short dresses that don't cover too much up top or below (indeed, a dress that looks short enough on the rack that you're not sure if it's supposed to be a dress or just a shirt tickles me pink). It's a very pretty shade of jade that reminds me of Girl Scout green, and the cups are rounded and very lightly padded so that it makes me look like I have more boobs than I really have - which helps when trying to "pass".

The flip flops I got at Walmart (they're easy to find) have a low heel to them, which enhances their elegance and femininity. I like them a lot - they're actually the second pair I got after I had worn my first pair out. Together with the cute vinyl purse (which is another thing my BFF found for me), the outfit is composed of my two favorite colors - green (which was my favorite color before I became a girl) and pink (which I love because of its association with girls).

Ode to Miley Cyrus

My first awareness of the great pop icon that is Miley Cyrus came back when her claim to fame was Hannah Montana. At the time, I didn't think much of her at all - she was just another too-pure Disney girl. But even then she was hard to ignore, seeing her fake stage name and face plastered everywhere. For a time, it seemed that you couldn't walk down an aisle in Wal-Mart without seeing some product branded with the Hannah Montana logo. If I felt anything beyond indifference to her then, it was mild annoyance at her commercial popularity.

[description: a smiling Hannah Montana holds a microphone stand]

But slowly, that began to change. Why is that? Simply put, Miley came of age. Early on there was that Vanity Fair controversy, over a "seductive" and minimally dressed photograph of a 15 year old Miley taken by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. The public and the media cried out, that a teenage girl should be "sexualized" before the eyes of the masses. But I appreciated both the artistry of the photo, as well as its underlying statement about the irrepressible (for no lack of trying) sexuality of young women transitioning through adolescence.

[description: Leibovitz' famous portrait of a mussed up Miley, covering herself with a sheet]

Other controversies followed, including one about the use of a stripper pole during one of Miley's performances (remember when this was shocking, before it became her M.O.?), but what really turned me into a Miley fan was the release of her album Can't Be Tamed, which arrived within a year of her upcoming 18th birthday. The cover features Miley decked out in black leather, and the unapologetically sexy music video for the title track has her sporting the dark wings of a raven or a crow (or a fallen angel), breaking free from her cage. On the underrated album, Miley sings about liberty (Liberty Walk) and independence (Robot), in addition to the usual songs about love and partying (Who Owns My Heart). It seems calculated to present Miley Cyrus as an independent, sexual agent, breaking free from the oppressive purity of her previous Disney-fried image.

[description: cover art from her album Can't Be Tamed, with Miley decked in leather]

A lot of people were upset about Miley's new image, disappointed that the sweet Hannah Montana their daughters all looked up to had become this sultry vixen. But was Miley not allowed to grow up? Just because she had been a child star, was she beholden to some unwritten contract to maintain a squeaky clean image? Weren't the girls who followed her as Hannah Montana growing up, too? Was this reaction due to the paternalistic (dare I say, patriarchal) instinct to keep women the innocent, asexual angels we unrealistically expect them to be as little girls? It was never for a moment unclear to me that all the furor over Miley's R-rated antics was (and still is) a symptom of the conservative impulse to suppress women's sexual agency. Who better to look to, then, for a true feminist icon?

[description: Miley humps a foam finger on stage, dressed in flesh-tone underwear]

If Can't Be Tamed was, for me, Miley's "coming out" album, then Bangerz is the album where she truly comes into her own as a pop star. Her style as a musician is more mature, and her image - still sexy, and more fashionable than ever - continues to evolve. The release of the album last year (2013, which I dub the Year of Miley) was just one in a string of noteworthy press involving the antics that were fast becoming typical of Miley, such as her twerktastic performance with the foam finger at the MTV Video Music Awards, and the release of her music video for Wrecking Ball (the seminal breakup anthem of the new millenium, although the righteous anger that infuses FU is infectiously fierce), featuring an all nude Miley licking a sledgehammer and riding a - yep, you guessed it - wrecking ball.

[description: Miley stands nude with hands over genitals, emblazoned with a logo]

It was her participation in the skin cancer charity Protect The Skin You're In [broken link], for which she modeled nude, that solidified my resolve to pick up Miley's new album, Bangerz, and cemented my dedication to her as a pop icon. By this point, Miley Cyrus has become such an outrageous figure, that she's ripe for both parody and ridicule, but I see much of her antics as part of the nature of being a perfomance artist, and behind it, it seems to me, is this extremely confident young woman who is not afraid of her own body; and that threatens a lot of people. The fact that she gets so much slack for the sexual nature of her videos and performances is proof positive that here in the twenty-first century, as a culture, we are still disgustingly intimidated by a sexually confident woman.

[description: alternate Bangerz cover art, featuring Miley nude from the waist up, arm across chest]

A lot of the material on Bangerz could be superficially written off as a paean to partying. And this is part of Miley's aesthetic. Why should we begrudge young people their parties? Life is to be enjoyed. But it's not her singing "love, money, party" that makes me so fiercely loyal to her. Partying is just the foil for a self-confident and celebratory worldview. When Miley sings "we can't stop, and we won't stop", she's not just talking about the party. She's referring to her passionate resolve to "do her thang", or in other words, be just the person she is and was meant to be. It's about turning away from the haters and the judgers and the people who would dictate how you should live your life, that cause you to doubt yourself and feel ashamed of who you are. These are the people that spread so much hate and intolerance in the world - and Miley is offering the solution: believe in yourself, whoever you may be.

[description: Bangerz tour promo, featuring Miley licking her reflection in a mirror]

And the amazing thing is, that through all the hate and intolerance, some people are getting it - mostly young women like Miley herself. I went to see Miley Cyrus in concert last night, and the sheer volume of sexually confident (if just for a night) young women in attendance was truly inspiring. An uninitiated bystander might describe it as Teen SlutWalk: The Concert, but the truth was that this was an accepting space where women seemed to feel safe to express themselves sexually through fashion without fear of harassment (or worse), and where persons of alternative sexualities could feel welcome. How awesome - and what's more, how feminist - is that? It was a pleasantly transcendent experience for me, and it has amplified my respect and dedication to this woman, whom some may understandably revere as the Goddess incarnate. I'd go see her in concert again tonight if I had the opportunity, and I eagerly look forward to hearing about what she does next.