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?