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.