Rainbow Party

Happy New Year! This year's theme is...Rainbow Party!!! Pick a color to get started!

[description: shades of lipstick in every color accompany a man unbuttoning his pants]

You know, I've always felt that rainbow parties were one of the more remarkable urban legends to be born out of our collective cultural phobia surrounding adolescent sexuality. The lurid details [link to Wikipedia article] seem so weirdly specific as to resemble somebody's elaborate sexual fantasy. I'm surprised anybody ever believed they were a real phenomenon. I mean, how would that even work, anyway? The guys wouldn't be left with neat little rainbow rings on their cocks so much as a messy mishmash of colors, am I right? Still, I'm a sucker for any idea that raises perversion to the level of an art form.

[description: six lips in varied colors accompany an erect penis ringed with those colors]
The after-party

A Little Loose

[description: a man stands dressed in a fluffy pink robe, with erection sticking out]

It says a lot about a society that visual depictions of human sexual arousal can be considered not just impolite, but criminal under certain circumstances. Is an erect penis intrinsically vulgar, or can it be depicted in a tasteful fashion - emphasizing, perhaps, its beauty, playfulness, and ability to generate physical pleasure, rather than debilitating anxiety? And to what extent does that depend on society's attitude towards the inherent moral virtue of human sexual expression? I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where sex is considered to be an evil temptation, and not simply a way in which humans relate to bond and create mutual pleasure. Tell me, am I just misguidedly naive and idealistic? Because I don't subscribe to an agenda that seeks to control the way the masses wield their sexual identities? Or, rather, that if I could, I would enforce methods that would enable individuals to have more sex more pleasurably, while minimizing the risks of infection and undesired pregnancy? Instead of responding to the fear that they would not make responsible decisions by taking their pleasure away from them and replacing it with deep-seated shame? Because they're not only too stupid for their own good, but that they deserve to be punished for it? Please, tell me I'm the bad guy here...

Try This On For Size

[description: fitting room selfies fully dressed, and in panties]

Nothing soothes the wintertime blues like going out to the store and having an excuse to peel off all your layers of warm clothing. You grab a few swimsuits from the clearance rack, take them to the fitting room, and then try them on while fantasizing about those sunny days when the air is so warm that you can hang out in the middle of crowds of sexy people wearing the skimpiest of covering over their mostly exposed bodies. Am I alone in thinking this is one of the supreme delights that life has in store for us?

[description: fitting room selfies in different bikini bottoms, topless]

I swear, I envy girls for their sleek anatomy, that they can get by with wearing the skimpiest of coverings. Even if you examine the male equivalent (exclusively sold as fetish wear, it seems), full coverage requires a very noticeable bulge or pouch. Now, if that kind of thing were socially acceptable, I wouldn't care, but in this male-dominated, allegedly patriarchal society (I say to emphasize the irony and doubtfulness of those statements), you're not allowed to even hint at the suggestion of possessing male anatomy. If ever I were to get sexual reassignment surgery (and it's not on my agenda), it would be for the sake of fashion, and not to assuage any psychological distress at possessing the wrong set of genitalia.

I tried on some tops, too, but didn't get any good pictures. The problem with shopping for bikinis is that you can always find great tops or great bottoms, but so rarely two that go well together. So, you end up with a drawer filled with assorted pieces, and you can't really wear any of them because they don't match...

[description: fitting room selfies from front and back, in an off-white ruffled prom dress]

I also found this really cute dress, that looks very good on me, notwithstanding a little bit of bulge, that's partially (though not totally) obscured by the ruffles. It looks very prom-y, which is a plus, and I got it for a steal! It's got all its parts, too, and it's nice and stretchy, so I don't have to worry about it being too tight around the rib cage, as is so frequently the case with dresses like this. If only I had some place to wear it to. All the better if it was among a crowd that didn't mind the nature of my anatomy. Because why should having a little bit of a bulge prevent me from dressing up? It's not fair, I tell you.

[description: fitting room selfie, completely nude]

Until next time, thanks for joining me in the fitting room!

House Party

[description: clone shot featuring 11 nude figures scattered throughout the rooms of an apartment]

I spent a whole day working on this photo. I do believe it breaks my record for number of clones in one shot, previously set (if I'm not mistaken) by Harem no Jutsu [link to DeviantArt], which featured seven clones. I had planned on using ten clones for this shot, but managed to squeeze in an eleventh at the last minute. I used the nonstandard layout of the apartment to my advantage, although I got quite the workout running back and forth across the length of the apartment for those farthest clones. Anyone who doesn't think photography is work, is clearly not a photographer. Thinking back on some of my earliest clone shots [broken link], it was just point and shoot. But that was seven years ago, when I was still green, and excited just to see a representation of myself in a picture. Nowadays, I'm determined to take pictures with interesting poses, that show off the model's body in the most flattering way. Which is particularly hard, when you're a self-portrait photographer. But I've gone into all that before.

I started out with the intention of shooting all of the clones in such a manner as to obscure any so-called "hardcore nudity" - if only just to gain the advantage of potentially being able to show off the shot in wider contexts, but after eleven clones, I started running out of pose ideas, and I didn't want to have them all looking the same. I haven't lost any of my enthusiasm for those "hardcore nudity" shots (which will be obvious to anyone following my work), but there's something to be said for the "implied" or "near" nude approach. The suggestion is thrilling, and where you perhaps can't go exposing yourself wholesale in the public square, you might just be able to get away with drawing a larger audience to a chaster exhibition, while still managing to be titillating. It's one of those strategic tricks where if you go too far, they'll put you in the "adult" category and prevent as many people as they can from seeing your work, but even if you have to compromise on your vision a little to reach mainstream audiences, it'll just be that much more effective in potentially opening new minds.

Not that so-called "self-censorship" will ever be a legitimate substitute for free speech in my mind, but I consider it another tool to toss in my toolbox, that has its time and place. There's no reason whatsoever that the following two images can't both exist simultaneously, just as long as the one isn't necessarily precluding the existence of the other:

[description: two nude shower portraits - a man with a towel, and a man bent over the tub exposed]

A Few Photos

Happy Friday the 13th!

[description: portrait of a nude man sitting on a chair, with a Pringles can between his legs]

Inspired by a photo I saw on deviantART [NSFW]. In the "non-nude" tradition of showing as much as absolutely possible, while not going "all the way". Also, I thought the shape of the Pringles can was humorously suggestive.

[description: two nude figures sit on a couch, one relaxed and the other reserved]

Conversations With A Nudist, Part 3 - The Conversion. Because you knew it was inevitable. Be sure and check out Part 1 and Part 2, as well.

[description: a clothed figure shares a couch with a nude man displaying an erection]

Casual chat on the couch. Only after I took this shot did I realize it's a variation on a theme I've been enamored with going back at least to this shot from 2010 [broken link], and even earlier. I learned a long time ago that nudity is more stark when contrasted with a dressed figure, and the same is true of erotic subjects. Masturbating alone in private is one thing, but the suggestion of a figure doing so in the presence of others (or, in this case, being so comfortable as to sit completely open-legged with a hard-on) is even more exciting - especially if the other figure treats it casually like it's no big deal, instead of pandering to the stereotype of exhibitionists shocking innocent prudes. Images like this one concoct a fantasy utopia where people aren't afraid of human sexuality, enabling the viewer to let his imagination run wild.

[description: b/w portrait of a nude man standing erect in a brightly backlit kitchen]

And here's a shot I've been sitting on from a couple months back, that I keep coming back to. I really like it. It's one of those shots where you look at it and you have to admit that even with the blatant eroticism suggested by the erection, it's a beautiful and artistic portrait. How could anyone be offended by this? It's not vulgar. It's not disgusting. It's a compelling affirmation of life.

Spread Love

[description: a nude man sits erect on a couch, the words "spread love" written across open legs]

I was browsing pictures online one day, and I saw a photo of someone who had written the phrase "spread love" on the soles of their feet. Call me a pervert, but my first thought was, "then how come those legs aren't spread?" And that's when the idea hit me to do a spread eagle shot with the words "spread love" written along the insides of my thighs.

There's just something about a spread eagle shot that is so matter-of-fact. It's inviting, but it's also shameless. I think that's why a lot of people disparage it. It's too blatantly sexual. But that's what I love about it. There's no dancing around the issue - this shot is about sex. Maybe not the act itself, but certainly its direct implication. And there's something refreshing and free about that.

I imagine this image would make a bigger splash if the model were female, but I do what I can with what I have. I think it would be fantastic if this shot started a trend among all those who hold a liberal view toward pornography and human sexuality. Those who think the true obscenity in our culture is violence, not pornography. Those who embrace and celebrate sex and its role in providing pleasure in people's lives.

Or, just all those who love spread eagle shots and want to share that love with the world. So if you're one of those people, go ahead and take all your clothes off. Grab a marker (tip: use a washable marker) and write the words "spread love" along your inner thighs (remember to write from your right knee to your left, unless you're going to be shooting in a mirror). Then spread your legs and take a picture of yourself. Finally - and this is very important - upload it to the internet, and share it with the world!

Nudism vs. Naturism

[description: two portraits - a nude man doing house work, and a nude man in the great outdoors]

Question: Is there a difference between nudism and naturism?

Short Answer: The terms carry slightly different connotations, but practically speaking, they may be used interchangeably.

Long Answer: There is no official consensus about how and why and in what contexts each of the two terms is used, or where their definitions overlap. In some cases, "naturism" can be understood to be the European analog of "nudism", and so the two terms are really interchangeable. When somebody says that they are a naturist, or are practicing naturism, then unless they go into more detail, you may infer that they are really just indicating that they are a nudist, or are practicing nudism.

That having been said, some people do differentiate between the two terms. Naturism seems to take on an added connotation above and beyond nudism - one that may, depending on who you ask, encompass associations with outdoor recreation and/or a "healthy living" perspective. By this logic, you could consider all naturists to be nudists, but not all nudists to necessarily be naturists.

Some people prefer the term "naturism" because of its connotation with nature - it is a more innocuous (and less conspicuous) word to use in mixed company, and avoids the stigma that many textiles associate with the word "nude". I, however, prefer the term "nudism" in part because I support transparency - if the lifestyle is about going nude, then why not just own up to it, instead of trying to beat around the bush with less suggestive, and thus more opaque, terms?

I also prefer "nudism" because it doesn't carry the added weight of "naturism"'s connotation with nature. Not that I don't like that connotation - as a nudist, I am very pro-nature. But I find that it can be a bit limiting in some respects, as if to suggest that if you practice at home, indoors, or if you live what some may deem an unhealthy lifestyle (e.g., one that involves drinking, smoking, lazing about instead of getting exercise and fresh air and eating healthy), or if you engage in arguably "un-natural" grooming practices (like shaving), or have any tattoos and/or piercings, then you're not really a part of the lifestyle.

As important as I believe nature is to the enjoyment of nudism, the bottom line is that it all boils down to the fact that what makes nudists and naturists different from the rest of the population is that they like to be nude! So why make it more complicated than that? The term "nudism" is pretty all-inclusive - you don't have to join a club and pay membership dues, or follow any kind of esoteric rules. If you like being nude for anything other than sexual reasons, then you are a nudist! (Not that there's anything wrong with liking to be nude for sexual reasons - it's just that that isn't nudism).

Conversations with a Nudist

Inspired by this article [broken link], today we ask an unconventional nudist his opinion on some common nudist taboos.

[description: portrait of a nude man and a clothed woman engaged in lively conversation]

Q: Thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions. Let's start with the issue of "clothing optional" versus "nude only" resorts. Do you have a preference?

A: As a die hard nudist, who prefers to be nude wherever and whenever possible, there are times when even I prefer to wear clothes. So I don't really see the problem with a "clothing optional" dress code. After all, it's a vast improvement over "textile only"! And it's more inclusive, right? On the other hand, I think nudists and would-be nudists sometimes need a little push, to maintain the proper environment of a nudist venue. What's nudism without naked bodies? It should be a soft push - not "disrobe or get out!" - but a push nonetheless. That's why I support having conditional rules, like "nude only" in the pool area, or in the sauna, or during sports competitions, weather-permitting. That way people can opt out if they're not feeling adventurous, but if they want the full experience, they'll have to join in.

Q: As any man who has ever considered engaging in nudism knows, the fear of getting an erection can be the source of much anxiety. How do you feel about nudists' approach toward erections?

A: The default policy among nudists on erections is to cover them up, but I'm not sure this is the best approach. Like nudity, arousal is a state of being, not doing. Sexual behavior is frowned upon in nudist contexts for legitimate reasons, but sometimes arousal occurs unexpectedly. Although it should not be encouraged, rushing to cover up just emphasizes the idea that there is something vulgar or shameful about the male genitalia in its engorged state. On the contrary, like flushed skin or hardened nipples, it is a natural and beautiful part of the human anatomy. So why hide it?

Q: Why, indeed. On the other hand, it could encourage a more sexually-charged atmosphere. Do you think nudists are too strict when it comes to the topic of sex?

A: Not necessarily. My views occupy a subtle middle ground. I think we should strive for a compromise between a sex-positive approach and a family-friendly atmosphere. I don't claim that will be easy, however. What I don't want to see is nudism being swallowed up by the swinger lifestyle. I believe that life is a sensual experience, and I think nudism is compatible with that view, but out-and-out sexual activity is another matter. When I engage in nude recreation, I want to relax with friends, and play outdoors in the sunshine and fresh air. I don't want to be propositioned by strangers looking for sexual encounters.

Q: I'm sure a lot of nudists feel the same way. You said that your view of life as "a sensual experience" is compatible with nudism. What's your opinion on exhibitionism?

A: To be perfectly honest, I am an exhibitionist. But before you jump to conclusions, I'd like to state that I don't regard the stereotype of the trench coat flasher with much esteem. I find the idea of "exposure" to be exciting, but not purely in a sexual way. Besides, even the fear of a negative reaction is enough to trigger anxiety. That's why I like nudism - I can be exposed in a welcoming atmosphere. That doesn't mean that I'm constantly aroused - 95% of the time I'm engaged in nude recreation, I'm not even thinking about exhibitionism. But if it adds a little spice to the experience, like the jalapeno on top of your burrito, then all the better. I'd be surprised if a large percentage of nudists weren't exhibitionists to at least some extent. As long as they're capable of behaving themselves, and following the rules against open sexual displays, where's the harm?

Q: I'm definitely getting the sense that you walk a fine line between what one may consider "conservative" and "progressive" views of the nudist lifestyle. Are you more likely to support beauty pageants or body acceptance?

A: I don't think beauty pageants are evil in and of themselves, but body acceptance is definitely important to the nudist ethos. I'm a person who appreciates the beauty of the human body, but I don't believe you need to be "beautiful" by anyone's standards in order to be happy, or to enjoy yourself, or just to be comfortable in your own skin. If you look good (or think you look good), that's a bonus, not a requirement for living. Nobody deserves to be criticized for their looks. Everybody has bad hair days - even supermodels - but that doesn't mean you have to give up on it being a good everything else day.

Q: I like that approach! We've talked about exhibitionism - how do you feel about voyeurism? Is it okay to look at people's bodies?

A: Sure! Witnessing the great variety of bodies people have is one of the hallmarks of the nudist experience. As long as you're polite - no staring or rude insults, and no sexual behavior or creepy come-ons - there's nothing wrong with looking. And occasionally you're bound to see something you like. That's one of the privileges of being a nudist. Being able to acknowledge the beauty of the human body is one of the things that separates nudists from the rest of the population. In the textile world, voyeurism is too often accompanied by an invasion of privacy, but nudists don't consider the sight of their naked bodies to be private in the same way.

Q: What about so-called "gawkers" - non-nudist outsiders who get a thrill from peeking at nudists? Nudists aren't generally kind to them getting an eyeful, are they?

A: No, not generally. Nudism isn't really a spectator sport - unless you're actually playing a spectator sport nude - and having people peering over the fence snickering at you is rude and uncomfortable. Those people deserve a stern warning. But otherwise, I think a lot of people are just really curious about nudism, even if they're not ready to try it themselves. Sometimes they respond in an immature way, but I think that can be part of the long process of acceptance. What the world needs is more exposure to nudism, not less. Except insofar as it protects us from very real external hostilities, I think it's time for nudism to go mainstream, and stop hiding itself behind tall fences in hidden compounds on the outskirts of nowhere.

Q: That's ambitious! Now, you said that nudists don't consider their bodies to be private, and that nudism needs more exposure. I'm curious what your opinion on photography in nudist venues is.

A: I said that nudists don't consider the sight of their naked bodies to be private, but even that is too often restricted to narrow contexts. Nudists seem to have an unholy fear of cameras. As a photographer, my opinion may not reflect the majority of nudists, but I think this is extremely unfortunate. The fact that there are a lot of unscrupulous voyeurs out there prevents me from photographing one of my favorite subjects - nude recreation. And it's ironic, because of all people, why should a nudist care if somebody snaps a picture of them naked?

Q: Right. Why do you think they care?

A: It's a complicated issue. Some nudists keep their lifestyle a secret, and are afraid that they would lose family, friends, or their job, if it should get out that they enjoy nude recreation. Frankly, I think the solution to this is for nudists to come out en masse. There are plenty of perfectly normal people in the population who are nudists - not freaks or fringe perverts - and the more the public realizes this, the less stigma people will be exposed to just for engaging in nudism. That more people would probably become interested in nudism as a result of its increased awareness is just a bonus!

Other people are concerned about anonymous perverts on the internet doing "unholy" things with their pictures. I don't know how to say this more delicately, but...who cares? Who does that hurt? To me, it seems to be nothing more than an extension of the puritanical mindset that envisions sex as a sin and a vice - that for somebody to experience pleasure from an unapproved source is unacceptable, and that we have a social responsibility to prevent that from happening. But if you ask me, if some anonymous stranger who I will almost certainly never meet - or even speak to! - happens to derive a little bit of enjoyment in what could quite likely be an otherwise dull and depressing life, just from viewing a picture of me, that's no skin off my back. More power to them.

Q: That's a noble - even humanitarian - perspective. But are there limits? What about children? Do you think it's acceptable to photograph children in nudist contexts?

A: I think it's important that we all take the necessary precautions to protect our children from the dangers that lurk out there in the "wilderness" of modern society. But I also think it's our responsibility not to take those precautions too far, to the point that they're doing more harm than good. Photographs do not capture people's souls. They're just images. And yet, it's become very rare to see depictions and advertisements of the nudist lifestyle that feature children. And I think this does a grave disservice to the lifestyle.

A lot of people question if nudism is appropriate for children, when the truth that any parent knows, is that children are literally born nudists. They have to be taught to wear clothes. People also frequently confuse nudism for an adult lifestyle. What are we telling the world when the only people who appear in nudist images are adults? We're giving them the impression that when we say nudism is "family-friendly", we're lying to them. And then when people do occasionally see an image of a child engaged in nudism, it's that much more alarming. I think nudists need to embrace nudist photography featuring children, to show the world that we have nothing to hide. Because nudism needs children - they're what's keeping it wholesome and pure.

Q: Thank you for your time. This has been a very enlightening discussion. I'm sure it will give me lots to think about over the next few days!

A: It was a pleasure!

Fitness, Virility, Nudism, and Revolution

[description: fitness diptych featuring a nude man with erection from different angles]

Honestly, I considered shooting these without the erection. I even considered putting on a pair of briefs, to cover the nudity and make them more accessible to a wider audience, as a "safe" demonstration of the aims of fitness and physique. But in my work, the art always runs the show. The shots were just more interesting with the erection, and I find it counter-productive to cover up the human body when you're putting it on display. These shots are honest, and if some people can't handle the truth, then it's their misfortune to be distanced from it.

As far as realism goes, it's difficult to keep up an erection for an extended period of time when you're exercising (the rest of your body needs that blood flow), but this isn't a documentary of a fitness regime, it's a symbolic representation of what fitness stands for. What it aims for. And, quite frankly, I think there's a sexual component inextricably linked to that. It's not PC to say so, but I'm concerned with reality, not illusion. There's something instinctively sexual about the virility of a finely toned body - by the presence of the erection, I'm merely making explicit what usually remains implied. And while some will argue the merits of a more subtle approach, part of my intention is to force people to think about that sexual link, when most of the time it passes through the subconscious mind unnoticed.

[description: fitness diptych featuring a nude man with erection from different angles]

I think the ancient Greeks understood that the human body is a work of art - especially when sculpted to perfection (and I'm talking about flesh, not marble). They painted and sculpted representations of it, but they also celebrated its source, in the form of athletic competitions ("Olympic Games") that were an equal blend of aesthetics and practical demonstration - the virtue of beauty not just as a theoretical principle, but as a pragmatic one as well. I might gain some enemies by saying this, but I think this is what modern nudism should be about. We should resurrect the ancient Greek ideals that link beauty with bodies. I'm not opposed to the principle of body acceptance - I think people who do not have sculpted physiques should in no way be criticized or disadvantaged, or made to feel inferior, and there's no reason their bodies can't be celebrated as beautiful in their own way. But I don't want to pretend that there are not benefits to be gained from putting physical work into your body, and that one of those benefits is the aesthetic principle of beauty.

I would love for modern nudism to incorporate the tradition of admiring beautiful bodies into their curriculum. It doesn't have to be in the form of the much-maligned beauty pageants of the past, but sports competitions - like volleyball tournaments and nude races - are a great start. It may even be a good way to get younger demographics - athletic types more or less in the prime of their youth - to join nudism. Along with this adoption of the notion of "body beauty" it would follow that cameras and nude photography would have to be re-accepted into the lifestyle. Instead of a blanket prohibition, there would be an allowance for those wishing to capture the beauty of the human body on film. I find few themes more inspiring than beautiful bodies photographed in the practice of nudism, and yet modern nudism is a huge obstacle to this discipline.

I feel as though it is not "kosher" to talk about beautiful bodies in a climate where body image disorders are an epidemic, and especially not to talk about the sexual appeal of bodies when you practice a lifestyle that goes to great pains to divest the public of the notion that there is any intrinsic connection between naked bodies and sexual feelings. I do not intend to be a maverick, a subversive agent, though it may be true that I am. I am certainly not unsympathetic to the plights of those who do experience body image distortions, or an inordinate amount of stress and pressure to adhere to unrealistic standards of beauty, or to those who do practice a lifestyle centered around nudity that would be thrown into chaos and destruction with the introduction of sex.

I am merely acting from a perspective in which aesthetic, erotic beauty - of the human form - is a priority. It is a priority to me because it affects me very profoundly, in a way that I could only describe as rapturous. Happiness is a vague and elusive feeling. Companionship is hard to find, and rife with complication. Beauty, in my eyes, is pure, and total. I choose to pursue it, and yet I find my pursuit frustrated at nearly every turn, by outside agents - agents of a society that is either prudish to an extreme, or otherwise obsessed with vulgarity. I do not prioritize the pursuit of beauty over the well-being of others, but neither do I believe that the pursuit of beauty is inherently damaging to others. To whatever extent beauty may cause another problems, I am willing to address those problems and search for a solution whereby the suffering of others, and of society on the whole, is alleviated, without obstructing the pursuit of beauty, and without contributing to societal decay by humoring the toxic neuroses of others.

Tell me, then, how there is anything wrong in what I am or what I do, or those ways in which I might propose to remodel society, or certain subsets of it, for my convenience, but not my convenience alone? And if there is nothing, then please explain to me why the public obstinately refuses to stand aside of my way.

Summer Storm

[description: series of nude selfies with erection in a fogged up car]

I consider getting caught in a thunderstorm to be a rite of passage for the summer. Some people are afraid of thunderstorms - I'm not. They invigorate me. So I'm not daunted when I'm out getting exercise and a storm moves in. I think it's thrilling. And there are times when it's more inconvenient to be getting wet - if I've been exercising in the summer heat, I'm likely to be covered with sweat anyway. And minimally dressed (although not as minimally as would be ideal).

It would have been nice to frolic in the rain naked, but at least the car windows fogged up enough to offer me some privacy. Perhaps if I had not been alone, I might have been inspired to engage in some "illicit activity". That's what life is all about, after all. What better way to spend a stormy summer afternoon? As it was, I took advantage of the situation to snap some rare pics with my cell phone.

"Thy Rod and Thy Staff, They Comfort Me"

[description: portrait of a nude torso with prominent erection]
"...thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."
Psalm 23:4

I'm always down for some good old-fashioned blasphemy. I don't like to disrespect other people's beliefs on principle, but when they don't respect my beliefs, turnabout is fair play. I consider sexuality to be sacred, but Christianity views it as a sin. Therefore, any way I can sexualize the Holy Scripture feels righteous to me. If that makes me a devil in their eyes, then so be it.

"Don't feel like Satan, but I am to them."
- Neil Young

Pet Peeve: Defenders of Private Censorship

I've talked about this before, but it's something that comes up again and again, so I think I'm justified in complaining about it again. Let's start with this comic.

Now, I'm a huge fan of xkcd, but just because Randall Munroe made a comic about something doesn't mean that it's beyond criticism.

I consider myself a progressive. I also consider myself to be liberal - but in the sense of being in support of liberty, not in the sense of belonging to the liberal hivemind. There are a lot of things that mainstream political progressives have got wrong. One of those is their single-minded dedication to political correctness. It comes from a good place - compassion for one's fellow man, and a desire to oppose bigots and bullies. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and this approach all too frequently positions itself in opposition to the freedom of speech.

If you know anything about me, you probably know that I'm a pretty staunch defender of free speech. Now, it's a nice fantasy to believe that free speech can be absolute, but even I am willing to make certain concessions. But there's an important distinction here between singling out specific subjects of speech to be disallowed, and specific ways that speech can be used, almost like a weapon. The fact that you can't shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theater (unless there's really a fire) doesn't concern me - because the subject of fire is not being made into a taboo. You and I can still sit down in a movie theater and discuss fire, we just can't use our speech about fire to create unnecessary panic that could likely lead to distress or injury.

Similarly, I sympathize with the goal of progressives in stamping out hate speech, because when people talk shit about other kinds of people, it's pretty ugly. But the same principle applies. If two people want to get together on an internet forum and discuss the reasons white people should be exterminated, for example, I believe they should have that freedom. It's only when they start using that speech to harass other people, by bullying and directing slurs against specific individuals, that it reaches a point where the impact is wholly negative, and retaliation is deserved.

Now, you might have a hard time figuring the positive impact of letting people speak in support of prejudice (in a non-directly harassing context), but that's built into the very concept of free speech. Either you support that concept or you don't. And if you don't, that's okay - it's a perfectly valid opinion to have. But if that's the case, I would appreciate it if you didn't erode the very concept of free speech by claiming you believe in it when you clearly don't. It makes it harder for everyone else to understand just what constitutes free speech after all. If you support free speech, then you support the idea that people should be able to say things that are offensive. Not because you don't care about people's feelings getting hurt, but because you think the freedom of people to think and say things that might be unpopular is more valuable than creating a sanitized, baby-proof society in which nobody is allowed to do or say anything that carries the remote possibility of offending anyone else.

I know, it's hard to justify the merit of certain subjects like racism, and sexism. In my previous post on this topic, the issue was tumblr's exclusion of speech supporting self-harm and eating disorders. This time, the forum that brought the issue to my mind is reddit, and while I don't know the specific details, I think that it may be related to a similar subject - body shaming. Hell, I'm a staunch opponent of a similar form of hate speech - slut shaming - but I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to vocalize sex negative opinions. I'm merely saying that I think people who do are misguided and insensitive. I may suggest they change their tune (because that's pretty much the whole point of debate), but you don't see me advocating for passing new laws to restrict that kind of speech. It's an important distinction.

In the end, the more exceptions we carve out from the carcass of free speech, the more legitimate the act of carving out exceptions appears to be. And the more exceptions there are, the greater the chilling effect that occurs, and the fewer daring thoughts that fewer daring rebels are willing to express. (Consider the vague and odious - yet nearly ubiquitous - restriction against the "sexualization of minors". It would seem that authorities want to restrict you from even suggesting the possibility that a 17 year old could be sexy, and that's not just ridiculous, it's terrifying! Like, fascist regime terrifying). This is dangerous, because it's exactly what free speech protections were designed to prevent. If you want to harass someone - for any reason, whether it's because of their body or their race or their sex or what have you - then I support you being punished for it. But making any of those subjects taboo means we can't even talk about these issues in anything but black or white terms. And that's completely in opposition to truth and reality. I believe in being free to talk about things as they are, even if sometimes the truth hurts people's feelings. You know, that's kind of a characteristic of truth - and I value truth more than I value people's feelings. That doesn't make me insensitive, because I'm actually a highly sensitive person, it just means I have priorities.

Getting back to the xkcd comic I linked. What's being described in that comic - being shown the door - is what I envision as being a reaction to harassment. Also, I agree with the part about the First Amendment not shielding you from criticism or consequences. But none of this is an excuse for making any topics taboo, which is exactly what these arguments are frequently used for. Also, there's this sticking point about state versus private censorship. Free speech detractors just love to harp on this point - if it's not the government, then it's not an infringement on your free speech. Like as if the government has a monopoly over censorship. The fact that free speech appears in the Constitution means that the government's not allowed to make laws promoting censorship (not that it's ever stopped them). But that doesn't mean that private companies can't have a commitment to free speech, nor that private citizens can't have the belief that a commitment to free speech entails private as well as public forums.

Now, this gets particularly muddy when we talk about semi-public forums - like popular internet forums (also, when private corporations become nearly as powerful as the state, but that's another discussion). If you own some obscure backweb discussion group - e.g., eating disorder haters united - then sure, you can practice a regime of censorship and silence anyone who speaks out in support of eating disorders (the law certainly doesn't prevent you from doing that). But when we're talking about massive, major public forums, like reddit, or tumblr, or YouTube, or what have you, then I think the fact that you're privately owned doesn't exclude you from having certain responsibilities to the public. And I guess we have different ideas of what those responsibilities are - I believe they include a defense of free speech, but the people in charge of these forums seem to have latched on to the progressive idea that sanitizing the public forum so as to avoid offending anybody is a greater priority.

Now, at the end of the day, they may have every right to make that decision themselves - and I will go on exercising my free speech right to criticize them - but the one thing that really sticks in my craw is how frequently these places pay lip service by including in their principles a support of free speech. You cannot support free speech by imposing a regime of censorship. If you don't believe in free speech - that's your right. But please, own up to that belief, and stop going around pretending otherwise. Because the result is just more and more confused people who don't understand what free speech is really about, and who start making a bunch of arguments like the one in that comic, and like the ones that are all over reddit right now.

Second Thoughts on Vice

I stand by what I said in my last post - I don't think the state has any business policing vice. But I was thinking about it, and I realized that I may be giving off the wrong impression. I don't live a life filled with vice - aside from the fact that there are naked pictures of me on the internet, otherwise I'm pretty much a real straight shooter. I don't ingest any illegal substances, I don't solicit prostitutes...I don't even indulge in the legal vices - I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't gamble, I don't even play the lottery. At the risk of sounding like an insensitive prick - and, as a disclaimer, I know decent people who indulge in many of those vices, so it's not as if there aren't exceptions - I think those activities are for the weak-willed and the weak-minded.

Now, I have some pretty liberal views on sex, but I'm not even promiscuous. I'm not a sexual anarchist, I just don't believe in hiding or being ashamed of our bodies or our sexual desires. My approach isn't so much free love as it is sexual innocence - not to be confused with ignorance or inexperience (requisite link). And I want people to know that - that if they get involved with me, whether personally or for business purposes, that's not what they're getting into. I'm not all about vice, I just want to elevate erotic beauty to a level of sophistication. And I don't mean to say that sharing naked pictures, for example, is a vice, but that it's okay, because vice is cool. Rather, I'd prefer to change people's perspective so that sharing naked pictures isn't even viewed as a vice, but a natural part of our social bonding conventions that is not uncommon, and ought to be free from any stigma.

If you ask me, activities like smoking and drinking and gambling - and, yes, even promiscuous sex - are dumb and self-destructive. Just because I think you ought to be comfortable posting naked pictures of yourself on the internet, doesn't mean I'm going to try to entice you into those other vices. The thing is, I don't want the naked pictures thing to be considered a vice in the first place, because frankly, I don't see why it should be. Smoking and drinking destroy your body, and because they're addictive, they should be avoided. Promiscuous sex is forgivable if you're safe and responsible, but it's perfectly possible (and less risky) to have a satisfying sex life while utilizing some discretion. But voyeurism and exhibitionism in the form of photography, or non-contact activities like nudism, is safe and enjoyable - and, if you ask me, wholesome - so long as you don't view the basic fact that human beings are sexual, sensual organisms as itself something to be ashamed of. That way, how you indulge your desires (i.e., whether responsibly or not) determines your moral value, and not the simple fact of having them.

I want people to view me as an example of a good role model. The fact that I embrace the sexual side of my existence is merely a demonstration that I accept myself wholly (instead of living in shame and repression - how is that a good example of living?), and the way that I do it is intended to demonstrate how that part of you can be a source of pride and pleasure. That's why I've always stood behind what I do, and took it seriously - instead of blurring my face out and tacitly acknowledging that I'm ashamed of what I'm doing (I'm not). At the same time, it keeps me from doing anything stupid, because I refuse to do anything that I don't have a convincing justification for. That's why you'll never see me hang my head and apologize just because the wrong person found out what I was doing. I hope that's something that people get from me through my photography and my writing. At the risk of sounding like a lunatic (though it probably won't be the first time), we have a long way to go yet before this kind of lifestyle is free from stigma, but it is my goal to serve the role of a sort of wholesome, family-friendly sex icon.

The Separation of Vice & Crime

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." - Matthew 22:21

Now, I'm not religious - in fact, I'm a pretty passionate atheist - but I was raised Christian, and there are a lot of Christians in a lot of positions of power in this country, and it helps to know your enemy. Intriguingly, this oft-ignored passage is evidence that no less than Jesus Christ himself was a proponent of the separation of church and state. (But no less than the Mahatma Ghandi has pointed out the difference between Jesus Christ and modern Christians - here, also, is an excellent comic on that same subject).

Another way I like to interpret this passage is as a criticism of the common trend in America towards legislating morality. If you engage in immoral acts, that's something you should have to take up with your God. The state has no business punishing you for it. So when, for example, you rape, murder, or steal from someone, you are infringing on another person's basic rights, and that's where the police and the justice system should step in. But if you choose to watch porn, hire a prostitute, smoke dope, or anything like that, where the only "crime" is against the purity of your immortal "soul", then that's between you and God or your pastor. None of that stuff belongs on the law books.

I Know What You Did With My Photo Last Night

And I don't mind.

I am an erotic artist. You could also call me a pornographer - you wouldn't be wrong; I just don't like to define myself by the pornography I produce, because it's simply not my central focus. It's something I occasionally do on the side, for fun. But erotic art is my passion. Even so, I am not naive about the ways that my audience (at least the part that appreciates what I do) is bound to respond to my work. That's kind of partly the point. A proper appreciation of my work encompasses more than merely a sexual response, but I do not disparage the part that includes that sexual response.

In my time on photo-sharing sites, seeking out other model photographers, I've come across a certain subsection of self-portrait photographers like myself - frequently, for some reason or another, teenage girls, often with quite a bit of talent. Their approach to their work (which does not always include nude or erotic portraits), and their perspective on the accepted range of responses to their work, varies. Many of them, denying their fundamental nature as socio-sexual organisms, do not like the idea of people viewing images of them in a sexual light. Very few, in my experience, are as open as I am (here is a recent, refreshing example).

Some of them occupy a middle ground, however, where they accept the reality of people having a sexual reaction to their work, but simply draw the line at these people communicating their reaction. A sort of "out of sight, out of mind" approach. "You can think it, you can do it, but just don't tell me about it, 'cause I don't wanna know." My own personal approach is informed by the sense of being shamed for being attracted to those who I am attracted to - which has inspired the reactionary attitude that is encapsulated in the ethos of this blog; that is, being truthful about where you find beauty in the world. As a result, I want no part in the machinery of making anyone else feel ashamed for the sexual response they have when (at the very least) privately observing images of the bodies of others.

At first, it was awkward for me, being the subject of sexual comments from anonymous strangers - almost exclusively from people I have no attraction to. (I didn't realize at the time how true it is that men are far more predominantly the consumers of visual sexual material than women, regardless of whether that material features men or women). I've pretty much gotten used to it by now, although depending on the level of explicitness, it may sometimes make me feel a little uncomfortable. But I still don't disparage my fans for that. And the easiest way for me to do that is simply to turn the situation around. I hate the inequality between the sexes as much as anyone, but I'm not sure to what extent women can ever understand what the male condition is like (in terms of sex).

But I can. Whatever my gender might be, and even if I have a low sex drive, I know what male sexual desire feels like. And I know how insistent it can be, and how fantastic it feels to indulge it. I would probably never actually make the sorts of explicit comments I'm talking about, mainly because I know that most women wouldn't appreciate them, and I don't want to make them uncomfortable (and if there are a few who like that sort of thing - which I have encountered - I don't really feel free to jeopardize my reputation in front of a global audience that might be judging me on my overall treatment of women). But when I get a comment like that, all I have to do is imagine that it's me reacting to some internet model that I think is insanely attractive.

And even if, in that case, the model wouldn't be nearly as accepting, I know where that feeling is coming from, I know how powerful and yet harmless it is (by itself), and I would be a hypocrite to criticize it. It's true that you don't necessarily need to vocalize those kinds of things, but I know what it can mean to do so, and especially when the one you are vocalizing it to acknowledges it. So while I'm not going to go out on a limb and feign interest where it's not forthcoming, I will permit such comments to be made, all in the name of being open and supportive of the myriad wondrous ways that human sexuality manifests itself.

The Pornographer's Stigma

I find it so incredible that something can be considered so vulgar and disgusting and shameful, and yet give people (not necessarily the same people, but in some cases it is) such pleasure that they actively seek it out.

I'm very liberated, and I'm pretty desensitized to materials of a sexually explicit nature, but I'm not completely alien to the basic foundation of mainstream thought. I think sexually explicit materials can be very appealing, but at the same time, they do probably have a time and a place. Aesthetic beauty is a completely different matter, but I usually have to be in the right mood to appreciate the really vulgar stuff, and even then, my tastes are very particular - so the same kind of behavior engaged in by different people can mean the difference between what I find attractive and what I find disgusting.

Yes, it is true that I am an exhibitionist, but I like it when people get enjoyment from looking at me - I have no desire, and derive no pleasure from, exposing myself to people who are bound to react with displeasure and disgust. I don't see any appeal in that. So, on the one hand, I have no problem exposing certain intimate parts of my body and sexual behavior to complete strangers, in a context where they can seek it out if they are interested, but at the same time I'm not asking for permission to masturbate openly at my next family reunion.

What gets me is the way that people will think less of you if you participate in those activities, even if you keep them confined to their appropriate spaces. And I don't mean the bedroom. Everybody uses the bathroom, and that is generally considered a vulgar and disgusting act, but it is a necessity, and there is no shame in engaging in it. We typically keep it behind closed doors because, barring a minority of perverts, there is no pleasure to be derived from sharing that experience with others. Human sexuality is decidedly different, though - and for a majority of the population (however reluctant they may be to admit it).

If posting a video of myself masturbating on the internet draws in people who derive great pleasure from viewing it, then where is the shame in providing that public service? Does it make me a bad person? You don't have to like it. Not everybody has to like it. But the point is that some people do like it, and it's those people - the people who like it - those are the ones I'm doing it for, not you. So why can't you just let that be? Let those people get their pleasure from my act of public service, and if you don't like thinking about it, then just avoid interfering in that part of my life. Why should that impugn my reputation? I'm not even necessarily saying that I think the same way as the people I'm serving - that I'm the same level of pervert, or that I like the same kind of things - I'm just being kind enough to care enough to throw them a bone. And that makes me worse of a human being? I don't get it.

Two Sides

[description: diptych of two portraits of a nude man, from front and back]

I get self-conscious sometimes about the clutter that so frequently litters the backgrounds of my images. Since the beginning, I've maintained that I like pictures that look like they were taken in spaces that occupy the real world, and not abstract studios. And I genuinely do feel that way, but in the back of my mind I worry if that's not just an excuse for me not having more professional habits.

The clutter is distracting at times, and not always aesthetically pleasing, but I don't have the patience to clear out a work space every time I take a picture, considering that this is the home that I inhabit - it's bound to look lived in. I don't really have enough space to set aside an empty corner to use as a photo studio. And besides, the construction of this building is atrocious, and I find that when I do clear the clutter away, the emptiness just emphasizes how crooked the doors and walls and floors and ceilings are, and that's frustrating in a completely different way.

On the other hand, I want to improve my photography, and produce images that are more flawless, so that more people can admire them and recognize me as a serious photographer. To that end, I'd also love to buy some nicer lenses, and maybe some lighting equipment that I could learn to use, but I'm poor, and photography is not a cheap hobby.

I know what they say - and I'll be the first person to agree - that the talent exists in the photographer, and not the equipment he's using. The same is true of musicians. And I think I've taken enough remarkable pictures with the cheap equipment I own to prove that. But I wonder if there isn't a point at which it's like you're filtering your talent through a cheap lens, and it would just be represented that much better if you had a clearer one.

But equipment is only one of many improvements I suppose I could make. Still, it's one that's pretty straightforward. It's times like these that I resent being self-taught. Which is another thing. I feel so disconnected from any kind of photographic (or modeling) community. Communication with fans on photo sharing sites rarely goes beyond the superficial level, and all the other photographers seem like isolated pockets, absorbed in their own work, with no talk of craft - not boring stuff like what gear they have or what filters they use in Photoshop, but things like how do you find your models, what's it like working with them, where do you scout locations, etc.

I imagine it's even worse being a nude/erotic photographer, because everybody just assumes you're a pervert who shoots porn. Without disparaging the human sexual impulse, I want to be taken seriously, to the point that people want to join me and help me and work together with me to create beautiful art - but not people who are simply perverts looking for ways to get around the normal social prohibitions against promiscuity. "Oh, it's art, so it's okay". I mean the people who share a genuine interest in art with me, even if it's of the erotic variety. Maybe another big problem I have is that I live in the middle of nowhere. But it's not a simple matter for me (mainly due to my anxiety) to just pull up my roots and move to New York or L.A., or what have you. As much as I might dream about it...

Trouble In Paradise

[description: a male and a female figure dressed in vines stand in an idyllic garden]

I've been waiting to take this photo for over a year. I scouted this location last summer, just days before the parks department came in and razed everything to the ground (I have no idea why they would do such a thing). It didn't grow in fast enough to appear lush again - like the Garden of Eden - by the end of the summer. So I had to wait the winter out. Ever since this spring, I've been keeping my eye on it, waiting for it to grow sufficiently full, all the while worrying that any day the parks department might come in and raze it all to the ground again.

It's also located in a relatively populated area, so finding it empty enough to go about my business was another challenge (though I was not "illegally" exposed at any time during this shoot, I really didn't want to deal with the stress and the distraction of having spectators). As is always the case when shooting outdoors, the lighting and the weather was another factor. I had to go and do the shoot when the right opportunity came up, not necessarily when every condition was perfect. And I couldn't take a lot of time to tweak every little detail, since every minute I spent there was another minute somebody might walk around the corner and spot me.

All that having been said, the opportunity I had worked out pretty well. I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with the result, but at least I can say that I did the best I could under the circumstances. And it certainly doesn't look bad. I really wanted to emphasize the dual nature of my gender, with a focus on my more masculine front, and my more feminine back (more or less). And what more famous minimally dressed male/female couple is there than Adam and Eve? And though I'm not religious, I like the symbolism of the Garden of Eden, as a Paradise on Earth, where I like to imagine that people (if they ever make it back there) can live in sexual innocence (not to be confused with ignorance) once more.

Let's Talk About Pubic Hair

I can't decide if it sucks or if it's awesome that I feel the need to write a several-paragraphs-long disclaimer in order to make an observation about people's grooming habits, but I guess that's just the way I am, so for better or worse...

I try not to make my preferences on this issue too vocal, because after all, they are only my personal preferences, and there are a lot of politics involved with saying you like women to groom themselves one way or another. A lot of people think that if you (especially if you're a man) say you prefer one style, then you are demanding every woman in the world adhere to that personal preference. Which is ridiculous. But the sentiment is not completely unmerited, on account of the fact that, as an avid admirer of women, I've seen lots of men make disparaging comments about women's grooming habits that they don't like. (This is true of pubic grooming, but becomes much more pronounced when we talk about hair on other parts of the body, that women are traditionally expected to shave regularly).

The nastier of these comments are just rude and unwarranted - I've always felt that way - but at the same time, women should keep in mind that what any one or another man likes shouldn't dictate their own grooming habits. The only exception is if it's someone they are intimate with, or someone to whom they are attracted, and whose sexual preferences they therefore want to conform to. But there's no reason why you have to meet the expectations of the majority of the male population with whom you will never so much as go on a date. My belief is that, in a healthy, responsible relationship, each partner's grooming habits should be an agreed upon compromise between each partner's preferences, and what each partner likes and is comfortable with for themselves.

My own personal preference is for a smooth, hairless body, because I'm simply not attracted to body hair. It would be nice if the whole world could just agree that whether you like body hair or not - it's simply a matter of preference. There is no right and wrong view to have. In this day and age of regular bathing, I don't think there's any significant hygiene difference either way. And saying that people who like women to shave themselves completely smooth are repressed pedophiles seems to me to be no more accurate than saying people who like body hair are into bestiality (as I'm sure any pedophile will tell you that adult women's bodies are as alike to children's bodies as they are to animals). As a matter of fact, when I was a child, I once had an accidental closeup view of a woman's entire pubic mound, and, quite contrary to developing an attraction for it, I've come to associate untamed pubic hair with older women - in the terminology of the pagan threefold Goddess, the mothers and the crones - rather than the young maidens evolution has taught me to consider as potential mates.

The bottom line, in any case, is that if someone has a preference for any particular grooming style, that's legitimate - a person is allowed to like certain things more than other things, regardless of the reasons why. Now, the way you behave as a result of your preference is your own responsibility - if you like one thing, that doesn't mean you're justified in being rude to people who have a difference of opinion. Some critics argue that a man preferring a woman to shave her pubic hair is a hypocrite if he's unwilling to shave his own pubic hair. Certainly, no man who prefers a shaved pussy is justified, when confronted with a woman who likes shaved men, in saying that she's "out of luck if she can't handle a man with hairy balls."

But I don't think that most men are this inconsistent (or even this much of a dick). And there's nothing wrong with a man liking women who shave, but not liking to shave himself - provided he's polite about it, and recognizes the imbalance, and is maybe willing to make up for it in other ways (additionally, we can't assume that all women like their men to be shaved). Certainly, having a willingness to come to a compromise with one's partner's preferences is commendable, compared to a stubborn mule who won't budge. (On the other hand, if your preferences and that of your partner strongly conflict, then you may not be all that compatible, and might be better off seeking somebody else whose preferences more closely mesh with your own).

Personally, my distaste for body hair is not simply something I impose on women as a requirement for me to be attracted to them - it's something that applies when considering my own body as well. Since my physical sex is (by all appearances) male, I have more body hair than the average woman, but at the same time, I'm lucky in that I have less body hair than the average man. Still, I make a concentrated effort to regularly groom it - on my face, my underarms, and my arms and legs, in particular - so no woman can tell me I don't know what it's like to have to adhere to these particular standards of beauty (although I adhere to them because I want to, not because I feel like I'm supposed to).

In my case, as an erotic photographer, I spend a lot of time examining and admiring nude photos of women, and I've gained an appreciation for women with different looks. Surely, I have my own preferences, and some of them are indeed strong, but I can appreciate a variety of women who may not be my preferred type. And when it comes to pubic hair grooming habits, I'm pretty liberal. Where closeup shots are concerned - which is usually in the realm of pornography - smooth or at least tamed is preferable. And that makes some amount of sense, because the hair can obscure what you're looking at. It's no surprise to me that this style is popular in porn, and I don't think it's fair to blame porn if people see it and happen to like it.

But most of what I like and look at is more holistic, in the sense of being pictures of women, and not pictures of women's body parts. And I can appreciate either the look of a shaved woman, or the look of a natural woman - they both have an aesthetic consistency. But one thing that's really popular that I don't think looks very good is the so-called "landing strip". It's so arbitrary and unnatural! If you're going to go to the trouble to shave, why would you leave that strip there? I could understand trimming the whole thing down to a manageable length, without completely shaving it off. I do that myself sometimes, since it gets uncomfortable if I go too short in that area. I could even understand grooming it into a shape - like a heart. That sounds cute. But a strip? Or even a triangle that doesn't cover the entire pubic area? You're still getting this weird juxtaposition of smooth skin and hair. Every time I see it, I can't help thinking that it looks artificial. And yet it's enormously popular. More so, probably, than either of the extremes - leaving it alone, or shaving it all off. But frankly, if I had to choose between the two, for aesthetic reasons, I think I'd take either extreme over the man-made airstrip. But then, I'm not a fan of tattoos and piercings, either, so it could be my naturalistic bias...

Body Appeal (And Other Issues)

[description: series of portraits of a nude man with long hair, framed by a doorway]

Is it narcissistic to photograph yourself instead of other models? Is modeling inherently narcissistic? I didn't believe I was beautiful until other people started telling me so, so it's not like I started out with an inflated sense of my own attractiveness. But over time, I've cultivated my beauty through hard work - via fashion, grooming, and fitness - like anyone whose career depends on their physical appearance might. I take self-portraits because I am introverted, and I have social anxiety, not because I think I'm the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the planet. And if a lot of people think I'm attractive, does it make me a bad person to acknowledge that - even take advantage of it - rather than insisting upon feigning a false sense of modesty? Am I not allowed to take even a reasonable amount of pride in my appearance? No, that's part of the truth about beauty, too.

(And while I understand how easy it is for attractive people to be unaware of their beauty, there's nothing more frustrating to me than a beautiful girl who won't even let you compliment her, because she doesn't believe that she's pretty. I appreciate girls who are confident about their looks, and not afraid to flaunt their assets. There's no greater crime than a beautiful figure being hidden under unflattering clothes).

Why do I photograph beauty? Because it moves me. It moves me and it thrills me. I suppose that when you photograph beautiful bodies, you're contending with a primal urge to copulate. I'm not saying that only a thin line separates the photographer and the model from rapacious intercourse - after all, if it were sex, and not beauty, that I was interested in, I guess I'd be a player or somesuch, instead of a photographer. But no, beauty is something that you see, and feel - but not necessarily touch. Some people might say, "what is the point of looking at beauty if you cannot take it?", but that has not been my experience of life. I see beauty all around me, practically every day, and the vast majority of it remains out of my reach. Yet, if I could just show the world what it is I see, how profound its effect on me is, that alone would be enough to satisfy me.

[description: series of portraits of a nude man with long hair, framed by a doorway]

A lot of my photography is based around the concept of "aesthetic eroticism", which is a phrase I've gotten into the habit of using to describe the particular sort of aesthetic beauty that revolves around the human body, that therefore may involve an erotic component (as opposed to people getting turned on by pictures of beautiful sunsets). But what is eroticism? I find that eroticism is hard to define. It deals with sexual desire, but I don't think that it's as simple as that. It may be instinctively driven by the urge to copulate, but exactly what part, may I ask, of the appreciation of erotic art (not pornography) involves sexual intercourse?

Is there an overlap between sex and the beauty of the (especially unclothed) human body? When we admire Greek statues as skilled representations of the human physique, are we merely admiring the body as an amazing machine, or are we also recognizing its instinctual erotic appeal? I think it would be stunningly naive to suggest that the admiration of physically fit bodies has no erotic component, and yet these statues stand proudly in public museums all across the world, as a testament to the legitimacy of the experience of admiring them.

But like I've said, acknowledging the erotic component is leagues away from engaging in sexual intercourse (either with the statue, or just inspired by it). Certainly, some may react to the appreciation of a piece of art by engaging in sexually explicit activities (whether alone or with company), and that's fine as long as they're not doing it right there in the museum (unless it's a really progressive museum :p). But now we're talking about what people choose to do with the inspiration that art gives them, and not what the art itself involves. There will always be that one weirdo who feels the urge to touch himself when viewing the Mona Lisa, but we should not treat the Mona Lisa as if it were pornographic as a result.

[description: series of portraits of a nude man with long hair, framed by a doorway]

So is it a legitimate practice to admire the human body, even in spite of its erotic component? When I say "legitimate", what I basically mean is that it does not require the special 'content filter' (in whatever form it may come in) that is usually placed over pornographic and sexually explicit material. "Legitimate" practices can be engaged in (or discussed) in 'polite' company, without restricting access (usually to children). Many people in modern society are of the opinion that nude bodies are not legitimate (by this definition), although nudism proves that belief to be arbitrary. And, besides, mainstream culture is infused with a certain baseline eroticism (what critics call the "pornification" of society and the media), even without the exposure of nude bodies.

So is the appreciation of the aesthetic eroticism of the human body a "legitimate" activity or not? And what about non-traditional bodies? If we acknowledge that the aesthetic appreciation of the human body may carry an erotic element, then is that necessarily true for any body? And should we restrict the kinds of bodies we can display as a result? If some people think it's distasteful to view older bodies with an erotic interest, does that mean we shouldn't depict those bodies out of deference to that view? Also, is there no legitimate reason to study or admire the bodies of children, therefore, on account of the possibility that somebody may exploit that opportunity for questionable reasons? (I happen to think the process of adolescence is nothing short of fascinating, and one of the ultimate secrets of the universe, but I am often made to feel like a criminal for having that view).

Even what eroticism may permeate our experiences as sexual creatures is not the same thing as sexual intercourse (however pervasive that activity may be). If there is an intrinsically erotic element to the unclothed human body, nudists once again prove that its expression in overtly sexual ways is not necessarily inevitable. Should we, then, treat it the same way? I ask these questions - and I'm concerned with their answers - because I do feel as though I am being "lumped in with the pornographers". And while some of my art is undoubtedly pornographic, most of it is not, and I put in a lot of effort above and beyond what any pornographer is willing to contribute to create beautiful works of art - that just happen to focus on the potentially erotic subject of the unclothed human body - and I feel like I deserve to be recognized for that.

I don't want to be seen just as a pornographer, but as a talented artist with an eye for beauty. And I want people to recognize that erotic beauty is not the same thing as sexual indulgence. It is purer, and prettier, and gentler, and altogether more moving on everything but a pure physical level. I want people to respect it as such, and I want people to trust me to apply my photographer's eye to other human subjects, confident that I will be able to find and bring out that same beauty I've found in myself, in others.

[description: series of portraits of a nude man with long hair, framed by a doorway]

I feel like I'm stuck in a world where (almost) the entire population either cannot recognize beauty, or misinterprets it for sexuality. Never in my life have I denied the erotic element inherent in the beauty of people's bodies, but it just seems like so many people see the eroticism and stop there. I don't feel like I'm being taken seriously as a photographer of beauty - I'm just being taken advantage of by people who think I'm hot. And as long as the vast majority of people who respond to my work do so primarily on account of its erotic - and not aesthetic - appeal, I will be lumped into that category, and the people who may be able to appreciate my aesthetic eye, but don't care much for the erotic element, are going to look me over.

So far, I haven't cared much to appease the more prudish elements of society, but enough time has passed that I am beginning to crave wider recognition, and the sorts of opportunities that are not usually handed out to pornographers. I'm caught in a bit of a bind, because I don't in any way want to become conventional or mainstream - I think a large part of the value of my work comes from my unique and unyielding perspective. And nothing inspires me and inflames my passion more than taking pictures of beautiful bodies. But at the same time, I want to be taken seriously by people who maybe aren't ready to hear everything I have to say about the philosophy of art and human sexuality. And so I'm not really sure what to do...

The Hypocrisy of Chastity

I don't understand why people get so upset about the visceral reaction humans are programmed to have to other humans' bodies. It's like, our sole purpose as living organisms is to procreate, and towards that end, nature has given us "physical desires" - and we've even used our intelligence to enable us to extract the pleasure from sex without getting tangled up in the complicated process and extended responsibilities of procreation.

But still, people in "polite" society insist on believing that if you acknowledge or indulge in these physical desires, then you're sub-human. I doubt that the Christian church is solely responsible, but their emphasis on the divinity of celibacy doesn't help. So we all go through life more and less (mostly less) successfully pretending that we're not moved by one of the greatest pleasures of our mortal existence - the pleasure of the flesh - when we all know in our hearts that we're just miserable hypocrites.

I feel like I just want to scream at people, "get real!" Life is short, and I don't have time to deal with society's institution of face-saving lies.

"Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
 - Bob Dylan (from All Along The Watchtower)

The Straight Dope on Prostitution

Can we just acknowledge that:

1) prostitution may not be the most glamorous job in the world, and it's probably not anybody's first choice for a career, but that doesn't change the fact that people can consciously (and sanely) choose to engage in it, and still maintain a personal sense of dignity, and even take pride in their vocation; and

2) if we want to help prostitutes, it's better to improve the conditions of prostitution (starting with not automatically making anyone who engages in it a criminal, thereby giving them no recourse to the law) than it is to forcibly take away their livelihood (either by "rescuing" prostitutes from their jobs, or by stigmatizing and even imprisoning their clients, who are only expressing a basic human need); and

3) if we want less people involved in prostitution, then we need to confront the issues that lead people to resort to prostitution to make a living in the first place (chief among them most likely being poverty, drug addiction, and poor education), instead of obsessing over the sensationalized narrative of "human trafficking" (a.k.a. so-called sex slavery), and focusing on abolition, which targets the symptom - out of a misguided sense of moral obligation (sacrificing civil liberty in the process) - rather than the disease.

Okay?

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

[description: in-store mirror selfie wearing a pink mini-dress and flip flops]

Did I mention that this pink mini-dress (actually a pool coverup, I think) is one of my favorite summer outfits? It doesn't do the best job of hiding my masculine features (it tends to emphasize my broad shoulders and flat chest, although it's pretty good at obscuring my bulge), but sometimes you wear things just because you like them, not because they help you conform to society's expectations of how you should look. And this little slip-on is not only cute, but skimpy (the short skirt emphasizes my legs, which are one of my best features), and easy to put on (or pull off) - yet the strings that tie around the neck help to keep it in place.

This picture also demonstrates that, in light of my recent discussion of being bigendered, even when I'm shopping at a sporting goods store - which, not to gender stereotype, as women are just as interested in physical fitness as men, albeit sometimes in different forms, but being surrounded by sporting equipment and hunting and fishing and camping gear feels very male-centric (especially compared to the environment in, say, a department store) - I still like to look cute and girly and feminine. I've also noticed that this is the only kind of store I've come across that sells men's Speedos, though unfortunately in very limited varieties.

Freedom and Anarchy

So I've been thinking lately about the justice in decriminalizing public nudity, versus the potential merits of keeping it criminalized, and it has me wondering about some things. I see virtue in permitting free citizens the choice to be nude in public places, but I am obviously in the minority, and it's easy for me to wonder, in occasional moments of weakness, "could the majority of the population be right, after all?" Obviously, I don't think they are, but I have to think long and hard about the reasons I have for disagreeing with them, because I want them to be legitimate.

But it's easy to fall into the pattern of thinking that the way things are, are the way they should be, just because that's the way they've always been (in your experience), and you couldn't imagine how they could possibly work out any other way. But sometimes they can - observe the march of progress throughout history. Ask somebody fifty years ago if homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Ask somebody a hundred years ago if women should be allowed to vote. Ask somebody two hundred years ago if blacks should be entitled to the same freedom as whites.

Obviously, there has to be a limit - when we let murderers run rampant and unchecked, we've gone too far - but the difference between progress and regression should be determinable by the proper application of reason. It's hard to see through the prejudices of the time - at any point in history - but looking back and seeing how many things we got wrong in the past, leads me to want to lean toward a radically tolerant perspective so that we don't continue to make those mistakes with different groups of people well into the future.

I can't make a convincing argument for the legitimacy of murder, but if I think a person's equal rights should be infringed just because they're different from me, or seem strange from my perspective, then that's a huge red flag. I just worry that in spite of all this talk about liberty and justice and civil rights, we're really just reassuring ourselves that we're justified when we do the same thing everyone else in the world is trying to do - enforce their own standards of living on everyone else. That's why these kinds of decisions need to be based on impartial logic, and not any form of prejudice.

And I think that in most cases, it ultimately boils down to consent. We have ideas about what constitutes a good life, but others may have a different idea, and who are we to impose our perspectives on others? Human rights violations occur when people are not given a free choice of what kind of environment to live in, and they do not have a free choice in the absence of education. That's why if a woman chooses to dress in a burqa in America, she should have that freedom, and the rest of the population should respect her decision.

But at the same time, if a whole population of women are being forced to live a lifestyle of oppression without access to, or even knowledge of, any alternatives, then that may perhaps justify intervention - depending on how committed a given society is to bestowing its own vision of basic human rights on other, potentially oppressed populations. Which is up for discussion. Do we have a responsibility to rescue those in need? Do we have a responsibility to spread our perspective of human rights to other populations? I think that generally the answer is yes, but that may depend on how accurate our conception of human rights is - and how can we, as fallible intelligences, ever be completely sure?

I came up with this thought experiment. Some people believe in anarchy. Anarchy doesn't really work because not everybody believes in anarchy, and the people who don't believe in it would be disadvantaged if we adopted it. But should people who believe in anarchy have the freedom to live in anarchy, at least among other individuals who believe in anarchy? It's kind of like creating a BDSM community where the participants all consent to be abused, which makes it okay.

Logistically, it may not be realistic (on this overcrowded planet) to take all the anarchists and [voluntarily] transplant them to some frontier town (in return for the freedom to live in anarchy like they desire). But perhaps in the future when we've mastered interstellar transportation, and have countless planets to colonize, we could set one (or more) aside for all the anarchists. Then everybody who goes there, having been sufficiently warned, will have necessarily consented to live in anarchy, and as long as their anarchy doesn't spread to other colonies with different rules and systems of rule, they can be left alone to do their thing.

It would be an interesting social experiment, at the least, to see what happens. If they eventually all kill themselves or otherwise die out, or if they manage to create a stable system, or even give up and change their minds after a while. Who knows what's possible. But there's a problem. It's fine if the only people that go there have consented to live in anarchy, but what about when those anarchists start having children, and those children haven't been exposed to any alternatives? They haven't consented to live in anarchy, because they don't know of any alternatives (and certainly don't have access to them). And surely their anarchist parents are going to tend to influence them in their formative years to support anarchy.

But is this fair? Is it humane? Do we have a responsibility to interfere in these children's lives, to provide them with the knowledge of (and access to) alternatives? Would it be fair to tell anarchists that they can go and live in anarchy, but they have to be willing to give up their children? Would anarchists ever go for it? Would it be enough to keep every citizen keyed in to a universal database of knowledge and resources, and would that even be compatible with anarchy? If we do take children away from their anarchist parents, would that even be humane, or is it just a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils?

I don't think I have a solution to this problem that doesn't involve radically restructuring the way parenthood works, and that's not something that the entire human population would necessarily agree with. Still, this is a problem for a fractured society, designed in the interest of maximum freedom for alternative lifestyles. The current model seems to favor universal standards applied across the board. In that case, though, I think a radical dedication to liberty and tolerance is necessary. It can't be based, as it currently is, on a majority deciding how people have to live (or at least behave in public), with a list of protections the average citizen has from exposure to things that might challenge or offend them. Rather, it should be based on a foundation of freedom - freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of self-expression.

Contemplating a Nudist-Friendly World

I suppose that a true nudist utopia would be a world (or at least a society) in which everyone is a nudist. Perhaps this would work in microcosm - like within the context of an enclosed nudist resort, but maybe extended to the level of a whole, functioning city (why do we not already have one of these?). And that would be nice. But it's a little much to expect the whole world to get on board with the nudist philosophy, especially if, like me, you believe in the virtue of diversity (as a direct consequence of liberty; i.e., the freedom of choice). As such, I would be perfectly content to settle for a world that simply tolerates the practices of those who do choose to go nude (responsibly, in reasonable contexts).

Which is to say that this society would not consist of everybody being nude all of the time. Not even nudists at nudist resorts are nude all of the time. If you don't want to be nude in public, then by all means, wear clothes. And those who are nude would still have to follow the basic rules of etiquette that are already hard-coded into the nudist experience. Particularly, this would mean no sexual shenanigans, and carrying a towel when necessary, to use when sitting down - especially on public chairs and benches, and the like.

Also, nudity wouldn't necessarily be allowed just anywhere. Already in this society, we have a population that is capable of differentiating those contexts in which shirts and shoes are required, and those in which they are not. You have to be fully dressed when you go into a store or a restaurant, but nobody bats an eyelash at all the exposed skin at the local pool or beach. While it would be nice to have stores and restaurants that cater to a nudist demographic (and why not?), they don't all have to be, and I would be satisfied simply with a reasonable compromise - for example, clothing optional pools, but clothing-required grocery stores. (By the way, there's no reason there couldn't be sanitation requirements that dictate that all workers, even in nudist-friendly stores or, especially, restaurants, be clothed while on duty - this is not uncommonly the case at snack bars even at nudist resorts).

So, you see, it doesn't have to be a nudist free-for-all, just an elimination of the grand nudity taboo. It's no big deal if somebody takes the garbage out in their boxer shorts, so why do we make such a big fuss if somebody walks out to grab their morning paper in the buff? Doesn't it make perfect sense for somebody to gather up their dirty clothes, take them to the laundromat, and get them washed without wearing anything (except maybe a pair of flip flops, and a purse for their change)? A person shouldn't be required to wear a legally-mandated minimum of clothing for doing yard work on his own property, regardless of who might be able to see him from the street. And if somebody wants to go jogging at a local park on a hot, summer day, and doesn't like wearing sweaty clothes, they should be allowed to!

Implementation

Textiles have a lot of anxieties about what goes on within the boundaries of nudist resorts. But the existence of those resorts proves that nudists have it figured out. (And also that nudists aren't stupid - they'll wear clothes when it makes sense to, like when it's cold). Getting past all the logistical non-issues that we've brushed on above, a more legitimate concern about transitioning to a nudist-friendly society would be how the rest of the population (the non-nudists, that is) deal with the nudity.

As I've already mentioned, we would have to first get past the nudity taboo for this to ever work. Nudists prove that this is a fully surmountable obstacle - surround yourself with naked bodies, and you become desensitized to them. But that doesn't mean that this is an obstacle everybody wants to overcome. The majority of the population is probably perfectly comfortable not being desensitized to seeing ugly, naked bodies (not because naked bodies are inherently ugly, but because some of them are inevitably going to be). Is it fair to force them to acclimatize themselves? The answer to this question hinges on which you think is more important - the freedom of a person to choose how to dress, or the "right" of a person not to be exposed to certain sights, even in public.

Uncomfortable though it may be for some, I think any honest reading of the consequences of liberty would favor the former over the latter. As much as some people may be disgusted by public exposure to, for example, things like homosexuality, country music, or urban fashion, that's just a consequence of letting individuals choose how to live their own lives. The public space is a shared space for everyone to use, not a space where the dominant majority gets to dictate how everyone else will behave, forcing minorities to keep their "abnormalities" hidden behind tall fences, shuttered windows, and closed doors.

If enough of the population wants to be free from the sight of public nudity, they're welcome to try to band together and create isolated textile-only communities (and if you think that's backwards, do you think homophobia should be the default just because gay people are a minority, or do you believe that citizens of a free country have a responsibility to tolerate the proportion of their population that is gay?), but laws and restrictions against a person's freedom to choose how to dress (or not dress) in public spaces should not be tolerated in this free country.

Pitfalls

That having been decided, the remaining problem is the behavior of non-nudists confronted with the public exposure of people's bodies. One of the advantages of isolated nudist resorts is that they can control who gets to be there, which means they can weed out the people who can't behave or don't fit in, and all that's left are the friendly nudists. Like spreading Shaolin Kung Fu to the masses, the blanket freedom to be nude in public would be like opening the gates and letting just anyone stroll through.

Certainly, isolated communities could continue to exist even in the wake of decriminalized public nudity - so that those nudists who prefer not to be "gawked at", and don't want to have their pictures taken while nude, can limit their nude recreation to these semi-private places, like they do already. Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy some additional freedom to live our lives the way we want to. Plus, the erosion of the nudity taboo would drastically minimize (if not completely eliminate) the problem of naked pictures of you getting out, and would hopefully temper people's reactions to seeing naked bodies (if they're all over the place), similarly to the way it already happens to nudists in nudist resorts right now.

What's left? The people who aren't willing to play nice, and aren't satisfied with just snapping a picture from afar. We have enough problems in society today with people criticizing rape victims for wearing too little - what happens when creeps start harrassing nudists? I don't take that to be an argument against public nudity (just as I don't take it to be an argument against wearing miniskirts), but it is something to consider. We can hope, in an idealistic sort of way, that exposing the population to nudity would temper their behavior like it does with nudists, but the reality is probably that there will still be wild cards out there. And if anything, that's the one thing that might legitimately keep public nudity off the books.

A related issue would be people taking advantage of the freedom to be nude in order to more readily engage in sexual activities. As I've said, nudist resorts can exercise some control over what goes on inside their fences, but we obviously can't force the entire population to constantly be on their best behaviors. It would still be on the police to enforce rules against things like public indecency (re-written to include "simple nudity" as an explicitly allowed exception), but we all know that the existence of rules (and the threat of punishment) doesn't preclude people from breaking them.

Obviously (judging from my stance on this issue), I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if people were more open about sex in public, but that's a different hypothetical than the one we're talking about here. Still, even if public sex acts remain illegal - which would go a long way in discouraging them, if not quite eliminating them - I honestly don't think that seeing a rogue stiffy here or there is going to traumatize anyone, especially in a society where nudity itself is no longer taboo.

Liberty & Justice

To pursue a relevant tangent, I once read about a case where it was reported that masturbation was prohibited in prison, and I felt that that was kind of inhumane. But the rationale for that rule was as follows: if any prisoner used masturbation to intimidate or offend one of the [female] guards, it would be a simple, cut-and-dry matter to punish the prisoner, by only needing to prove that they were masturbating, rather than the subtler claim that the masturbation was being used to intimidate or offend. It shifts the burden of proof in order to favor the victim; but I'm wary of this practice, especially when it involves potential civil rights violations like restricting a person's freedom to masturbate (the restriction of which, barring in specific temporary contexts - like during a polite dinner party - should never be tolerated in a humane society, even among prisoners).

In reality, the rule is (allegedly) not widely enforced in contexts other than the one it was written for, but the fact remains that the law is written in an overly broad fashion, which opens the door wide open to abuses of authority. Just because the restriction against mere masturbation is not usually enforced, doesn't change the fact that masturbation is technically not allowed, and that whenever anyone does it, they are in breach of the rules, and subject to the whim of a guard who may (possibly unfairly) interpret it in such a way as to choose to enforce the infraction. I don't believe that's the way rules should be used.

When everybody is a criminal for engaging in normal, everyday behaviors, then those who are in authority are free to use their personal judgment in determining who among the entire population gets to be punished - and that judgment can be influenced by prejudices, or prejudiced superiors, or simple selfishness or cruelty. I feel sorry for victims of intimidation and such, but their plight does not justify a violation of the very principle of civil liberty and the right to a fair trial. (The issue of whether convicted prisoners deserve to have human rights is a separate one; I believe they do, but as this situation can be extrapolated to non-prisoner-related cases, I feel it is a moot point).

Anyway, I see the same kind of thing being tied in with the nudity taboo. Yeah, a lot of people are uncomfortable with nudity alone, but I feel like a lot of it is simply to shift the burden of proof. If somebody is committing public acts of lewdness, it is a lot easier to prove that they had exposed themselves than that they were doing anything specific while exposed, or for any specific (subjectively interpreted) motivation. Opening the door for the allowance of public nudity means that a person can whip their cock out at any given time (provided they're in a clothing optional zone), and for any given reason, and it would be tough to prove that they were doing anything wrong.

Still, as above, I don't think this is a justification for writing overly broad rules that restrict people's basic liberties (in this case, the liberty to be nude in public). And, as I've said, nudist resorts do a pretty good job of weeding out the creeps, so why can't law enforcement simply learn from them to tell the difference between somebody who is exercising their freedom to be nude versus somebody who is making a nuisance of themselves in a sexual manner? I think the world would be a better - not worse - place if that were to happen, and if we all, meanwhile, became more tolerant of seeing people's unclothed bodies.