A Xmas Blues Tradition

I have these blue xmas lights in my old bedroom, that I probably put up back when I was in high school. I only plug them in one day a year - on Christmas. I'm not sure what exactly motivated me, but in 2009 (the year following my daily nude project, and my first year with a dSLR), I got up early on Christmas morning (I've always had trouble sleeping the night before Christmas), and I took a nude self-portrait under those lights. Apart from the moody lighting, it wasn't a spectacular picture. But two years later, I took a similar picture, again on Christmas morning (it must have been a little bit later, judging from the morning light coming into the room). It wasn't nude - I took one picture in my pajamas, and another stripping them halfway off, but it had the same spirit to it - me in my bedroom, in the antsy hours before the holiday festivities begin.

The following year (2012), I had moved out of state, so the picture (taken with my new cell phone camera) served as a naughty greeting to my living partner back home. I posed nude and hard, wearing nothing but a Santa hat, with alternatives of me in my panties, and in my robe. From there it became an annual tradition. The next year's picture was a pretty straightforward nude selfie, and the year after that featured a near duplicate, albeit with an additional naughtier alternative. 2015 was the year that I began to get creative. I brought back the Santa hat that I had used in 2012's picture, posing with it front, back, and hard; then I posed for a couple pictures (front and back) in my new, sexy Santa outfit. Which brings us to 2016. I brought along my fancy camera this year, in anticipation of taking some decent quality photos for a change. Here they are:

[description: series of bedroom portraits in different outfits under a string of blue lights]

Just out of bed on Christmas morning.

Sexy Santa in his festive red underwear.

Mrs. Clause - who is all hair and legs.

Time to open presents! Are you excited?

Idle Hands

"Idle hands are the devil's plaything."

[description: typical MySpace-angle nude bathroom selfie featuring a prominent erection]

Sometimes when I'm bored, I like to make pornographic pictures. And why not? The devil gets a bad rap. After all, he's a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

[description: nude torso selfie with hand on erection]

If Tantalus' punishment in Hell was to have satisfaction ever just out of reach, then what kind of God is it that would put such a fun toy at our very fingertips, and then expect us not to play with it? Huh? Think about it. Because I've known some sadists like that...

Public Nudity, Civil Liberty, and Community Standards

Expanding on an issue I addressed last March, I believe that in a nation that values individual liberty, the right to appear nude in public should be a guaranteed freedom.

Before you construct your arguments against me, let me make a few points clear. I have no issue with business establishments and private citizens designating dress code rules on their own property - punishable by refusal of service or ejection from the premises. Nor do I have an issue with safety or health code regulations requiring minimum standards of dress under certain circumstances, such as food preparation/handling and construction. A right to public nudity does not, necessarily, mean that you can get naked anywhere you want without repercussion. It only means that, within reasonable expectations, a citizen should have the freedom to dress him/herself - including the freedom to not dress him/herself - as s/he sees fit. Mainly, this would apply to publicly-shared outdoor locations like streets and parks, as well as indoor pools (provided the owners are okay with it), and private yards (regardless of who can see them from the street) - basically, places where, in a less neurotic society, nudity would make sense.

I still think there could be rules in place restricting so-called "lewd" (i.e., sexually suggestive or explicit) behavior, with penalties (fines, perhaps) for anyone violating basic sanitary measures (such as sitting on a park bench without putting a towel down first). Maybe these would be hard rules to enforce, but I don't believe the solution is to take away a citizen's freedom to be bare. Although, frankly, in our modern society, I think these things would pretty much police themselves - as anyone's misbehavior could easily be recorded on somebody's mobile phone, to be used as evidence. And, gradually, the public would learn how to behave properly (and how not to behave) while nude in public.

Regarding privacy concerns, as is already the case, people in public would have no expectation of privacy in terms of any restrictions on the possibility of having their picture taken by strangers. I imagine that taking such pictures without asking first would continue to be considered impolite, but I do not believe it should be raised to the level of a crime. If you're going to go nude in public, you have to expect the possibility that you will be seen. If you don't want someone snapping a photo of you in your altogether, then don't go out in public undressed - it's that simple. In time, I think that society will get more or less used to the sight of naked bodies, and sharing pictures of them (to the extent that this practice will never go away completely, as any voyeuristic street photographer knows) will come to be recognized as the mostly innocuous activity it is (barring the levels of harassment the paparazzi employ), once the stigma is removed - which will be a direct consequence of codifying the right to bare one's body in sight of God and man into law.

Ultimately, I believe this will be a positive evolution for society, as it will reduce the taboo on nudity, and improve people's relationships with their bodies, as a counter to the unrealistic (literally, insofar as Photoshop is a contributing factor) images of perfection we are bombarded with in the media. Practically speaking, while it may be the case in our current society that a minority of people have any interest in going nude in public (and many of them may have questionable motives - a factor that I think the normalization of this behavior would go a long way in mitigating, coupled with the self-policing I described above), this is not a justification for the restriction of what should be a citizen's inalienable right to walk the streets unashamed of the way God made him (or nature, if you're not religious), rather than feeding the neurosis of a population afraid of its own bodies. If you're among the majority, and don't relish the possibility of encountering nude people in public, you should be able to rest assured in the fact that if it were allowed, very few people would actually do it (at least at first), and it would be at most a minor inconvenience to you. Is eliminating this minor inconvenience, then, worth the cost of restricting people's (all people's, including yours) basic freedoms?

Perhaps it's apparent that I am very confident in my point of view here, but I don't actually enjoy being in the minority on something that I feel so strongly about. I'm genuinely interested in what counterarguments people have to make, in the possibility that I could be convinced that I'm wrong - seeing as the alternative is to believe that most of the world is wrong. And that's something that a person should feel strongly justified in believing, at the risk of otherwise stroking one's own ego. I'd be happy to discuss the practical implications of legalizing/decriminalizing public nudity that might lead to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea - because I think those issues are valid and important to discuss. But, as an idealist, the core of my belief is that there is no argument that could undermine the theory that the right to opt out of covering one's self with clothing while in "the public square" (i.e., non-specialized publicly-owned spaces shared by equal people of diverse beliefs and opinions which may clash) is a critical component of civil liberty.

To summarize: in my view, in a free country, I should be permitted to - as an example - walk my dog (which we have no problem allowing to be nude) in a public, outdoor park while nude, regardless of other citizens' personal opinions on my nudity, provided I am not engaging in lewd or harassing behavior, nor posing an unreasonable sanitary risk to others. Am I wrong? And if so, why?

*Postscript: After finishing this write-up, I came to an illuminating realization about a difference of opinion I have (with respect to the majority) on an underlying principle fundamental to people's conclusions as to what should and should not be considered "appropriate" in public spaces. Namely, it's the concept of "community standards" - which, frankly, I find outdated in today's global culture. I have, in the past, boiled my approach down to a pithy statement that I am rather fond of - "in a free society, you will be challenged, not comforted, by what you encounter in the public square" - but perhaps it deserves closer inspection, now that I've hit on the motivation behind people's adoption of an opposing stance (compared to mine) on what the purpose of "the public square" really is.

In short, the freedom to assemble dictates that citizens should be allowed to form communities of like-minded people - as in study groups or clubs or what have you - but, in my opinion, those public spaces that are open for all to use should not be "safe spaces" where everybody gets along, but rather a stimulating forum for at-times challenging (yet hopefully civil) interaction between diverse populations. This is not the world we currently live in, exactly - although in the case of protests and such, it sometimes approaches it. But it's the one I want to be a citizen of, as opposed to the world we do live in, where you can only truly be yourself behind walls and closed doors, because people prefer to close their eyes and their minds to alternative possibilities, and revel instead in the relative safety and comfort of familiarity and tradition. I guess we're just two kinds of people. The question is, how do we coexist? Do you have to live by my rules, or do I have to live by yours?

Free Society

If you believe, for example, that fornication is a sin, that the human body is indecent, that boys should be boys and girls should be girls, that men should only mate with women and vice versa, that modern medicine interferes with God's plan - I salute you, because we live in a free society. But if you want the law to assist you in forcing other people to live by these beliefs, or to pay lip service to them so you don't have to be exposed to anything that might offend your sensibilities, or to reduce your child's options, and limit their ability to consider beliefs and lifestyles alternative to the ones you've raised them with - because your own aren't strong enough to withstand scrutiny - then you are a threat to the principles of liberty and equality that democracy is founded upon.

Selling Nudist Fantasy vs. Reality

The issue: should nudism be presented to the world as a sunshiny utopia filled with beautiful people, or a casual getaway for more normal types? Is there room and utility for both?

(I considered titling this discussion "Nudist Poster Children", but it occurred to me that that could be construed as a lead-in to a discussion of whether it is appropriate to feature children in nudist promotional materials - a heated topic I'm not sure the community has the maturity to address in this country).

In days gone by, nudism (or naturism) was associated with "health & efficiency" - a generalized philosophy incorporating fitness and taking good care of one's body. So it's not surprising to find relatively fit and attractive people in vintage depictions of the nudist lifestyle - lots of young people playing sports out in the sun. Somewhere along the way, however, nudism (along with the rest of our society) adopted a more politically correct approach, and became a "safe space" for people with body image issues. This isn't a bad thing, of course - in and of itself. But I've talked before about my mixed feelings on the move away from a "body-healthy" to a more "body-positive" image of nudism. (Hell, even the allegedly "sex-positive" community insists on being critical of human sexuality; so why can't a person include a critical appraisal of one's physical state under the practice of "body acceptance"? If we can't uncritically accept all sexual encounters as unproblematic (as they are not), then why do we have to pretend that every body is perfect just the way it is? I know this isn't an easy concept, but accepting your body means accepting its flaws and limitations - not ignoring them).

The lingering question that rests on my mind is this: should the nudist lifestyle be depicted (e.g., in promotional materials like websites and magazines) using "models" (i.e., persons of exceptional beauty) or "real people" (i.e., persons of average appearance)? From an advertising perspective, the classical approach would be to use the most attractive models you could find, so as to make the lifestyle look appealing. Lately, though, public opinion has been shifting, and it seems that a segment of the population believes that these images of "perfection" we are inundated with in the media are doing more harm than good to our psychological wellbeing. It's not entirely unlikely that a so-called "normal" person of average appearance (let alone the beautifically-challenged) might be discouraged from trying nudism if they were led to believe that it would involve getting naked amidst a crowd of beautiful people conscious of the way they look - as opposed to a welcoming and uncritical environment that is very accepting of diverse body types. After all, the end goal of nudism - which is to relax and have fun, free from the societal taboo on nudity - doesn't depend at all on what the participants look like.

That's the reality. So tell me, is it wrong if I have a fantasy of nudism - not public sex orgies, but nudism - wherein the participants are in consistently excellent shape and are exceptionally attractive? And would it be wrong, as an artist, to want to create images of this fantasy to share with others? To what extent would that be undermining the goal of the nudist "movement", in trying to demonstrate to the world that it is not vain, and is, rather, accepting of all body types? To what extent would I have to explicitly distance my fantasy representation of "nudism" from the reality of nudism, to avoid courting confusion? I don't want to hurt nudism. I support nudism. Wholeheartedly. But I also enjoy creating photographic fantasies that reflect (and, yes, exaggerate the prevalence of) the upper echelons of beauty that exist in this world. And I want to do so through (at least superficially) nudist environments. It's one thing to shoot a beautiful model in a studio setting. But the fantasy I'm interested in is the idea that you could (hypothetically) find these beautiful people in normal, everyday situations. And the fact that they're nude makes those situations quite similar to nudist ones.

So, I reiterate the question: should nudism be presented to the world as a sunshiny utopia filled with beautiful people, or a casual getaway for more normal types? And is there room and utility for both in this world?

The "Gift" of Nudity

You can't tell me you've never looked at someone and thought to yourself, "I wonder what s/he looks like naked." I don't think there'd be anything else in this world that would delight me quite so much as a supernatural ability to look at someone and have them appear to me to be naked. Obviously, the majority of the population would not appeal to me, and I might just learn to my chagrin that that beauty I thought looked incredible has something else going on entirely under her clothes (because some people look better naked, and others look better dressed). I don't actually want to violate anybody's sense of privacy, if they have a reason to cover themselves up, but there are some people in this world that are just a delight to behold in their altogether; and all too frequently, I fear, they are not the ones you get the pleasure of viewing that way. Inevitably, the pretty ones will be subjected to an inordinate amount of attention, and are likely to clam up as a defense mechanism - sadly.

And then you have the religious conservatives with their doctrine of shame and sin, and the average layperson who hypocritically (and self-destructively) degrades and insults the very women he appreciates seeing in porn, because...Madonna-whore complex or some bullshit like that. And that's not to address all the slut-shaming that goes on between women themselves, as well as the fashion industry's agenda to make women feel dissatisfied with their appearance - no matter how beautiful they are - so they'll shell out money on this season's hottest trends; and feminists' insistence that when men compliment your sex appeal, they are reducing you to an unthinking, unfeeling object with only two purposes: to be a sandwich-maker, and cum-receptacle. Tell me we don't have issues...

[description: fitting room selfie dressed in casual clothes, and completely naked]

While I believe that making nudity a strict taboo is downright unhealthy, allow me to humor for a moment one of the explanations people give for keeping the human body under wraps. From a certain perspective, you could consider nudity a gift. Clothes are the wrapping, and what's inside is something you want to save for a special someone - a reward for making a deep social connection with somebody. But the trouble with this view is that it's overly idealistic. Not everyone gets an opportunity to open this gift, despite it being one of the most desirable gifts in human nature. Some people only ever get one gift, feeling that that's not enough. What's more, if you keep the gift under wraps until you take it home, you might not like what's inside. That's like shopping for toys sealed up in unlabeled boxes. By the time you get home and open it up, you might find that it's not the sort of toy you like to play with. And by then, it's too late, because it's immoral to dump one toy for another.

Now, if this analogy makes you feel uncomfortable because it sounds like I'm "objectifying" the human body, that's good. Because that's exactly what's going on in this view. Can nudity be an exciting reward? Absolutely! Does that mean we should restrict people's individual liberties and construct an artificial and massively unhealthy taboo (that everyone must follow, whether they agree with it or not) that leads to neurotic sexual attitudes and body image disorders? Just because some special snowflakes want to go their whole lives without ever seeing more than one or two naked bodies? Uh, I don't think so. And should we punish people who don't have the requisite social skills (or other requirements for scoring a mate) by not letting them indulge in the nudity of consenting strangers, and stigmatize people for an arbitrarily "excessive" interest in and admiration for this gift, and those unfortunates who happen to find that the body(/ies) they desire are not those occupied by the person(/s) they meet in their lives with whom they are compatible and decide to build a life together?

God, people can be so uptight. The day we adopted freedom as a guiding principle for society is the day we sacrificed our expectation for other people to humor our personal delusions. You do not have the "freedom" to engage in a lifestyle that requires non-consenting others to behave in a particular way. Freedom means you can live your life the way you want to, but the limitation on your freedom is the restriction of anyone else's freedom. That's where equality comes into play - nobody is "more free" than anybody else. Yet it is human nature to try to expand one's own freedom at the expense of others. At the risk of getting political, this is why in a democracy you will inevitably have a tyranny of the majority - because in a system of majority rule, the largest group of like minds has the power to oppress anyone in the minority on any given issue. Unless we cling to the value of freedom, above and beyond the idea that the largest group of people should be allowed to bully the rest of the population, that freedom will be lost. Freedom is not comfortable; it is challenging. But it's worth it. I just wish it were easier to get that point across.

Moral Crusaders

Q: Are you concerned about the possibility of people (either people you know, or anonymous strangers) looking at pictures of you online and thinking "naughty" thoughts?

[description: portrait of a naked torso, lounging relaxedly in a chair]

A: Why should I be concerned? Is this supposed to be keeping me up at night? By and large, internet voyeurs are completely harmless. And even if I found some moral flaw in this behavior (not saying I do), it's the pervert's responsibility not to succumb to it, not my responsibility not to tempt him.

This is what I hate about imperialistic religions like Christianity. They can't leave well enough alone. It's not enough that they've chosen to follow a path of "righteousness", but they're invested in saving other people's souls as well - which is really just a clever recruitment strategy. Allowing you to wallow in your own moral destitution is out of the question, because they're kind and loving Christians (read: busybodies), who value charity and good will (read: proselytizing). So instead of just accepting that other people have different perspectives on life, and letting them make their own decisions, they're going to do everything in their power to force other people to live "wholesomely" (which they perceive as saving you from the eternal fires of Hell), and take away anything that might "tempt" someone (least of all themselves - ever notice how the most critical are always the ones with the most skeletons in their closet?) to the dark side. All I want to say is, God damn. Can't you just leave us alone?

The One Finger Challenge

Saw this on reddit [NSFW] and thought it looked like a lot of fun. It's a variant on your classic naked bathroom selfie, but the idea is to cover up your "naughty bits" using only one finger, taking advantage of the mirror image to cover both top and bottom (the logistics are a bit trickier for men, so I had to get creative). The fact that you're only using a finger places it in the realm of "non-nude, but pretty damn close" [broken link] - which is what makes it so exciting. Go ahead - give it a try! (And remember my tips for better bathroom selfies -_^).

Happy Cyber Monday!

I always want to do something special for Cyber Monday, because I think it's hilarious that society has actually adopted a holiday for "cybering" (I know, that's not what they meant, but it's impossible to ignore the double entendre). But then, what can I do? I don't even actually like cybering that much. At least, not in the traditional sense of a real-time text messaging encounter. I've always been drawn more to images than words. But I do images the other 364 days of the year, so it's not exactly special. I think it'd be fun to offer the rare opportunity to my fans (whoever is out there) to cyber with me, if nothing else, then in the form of some kind of live cam show. But I don't really have any direct lines of communication open for that sort of thing (and I actually kind of prefer it that way). So instead, here's a video I prepared that might be something like how it would look if I did a live cam show. Have a sexy Cyber Monday!

[description: x-rated video]

And if you like that, you can find more on my profile @ OnlyFans!

The Inevitability of Nude Selfies

[description: typical MySpace-angle nude bathroom selfie]

I'd like to share this article with you because it demonstrates the propagation of a perspective I've held for years now, and I've been hoping for a long time that people's beliefs would eventually shift in this direction. The horrors of sexting are not typically generated by those involved in the more or less private sharing of harmless "sexy" pics (including relative internet anonymity), but by those who would pass judgment on those who engage in this very common, human behavior - the bullies and the demagogues, always ready to sling insults, and looking to make an example of some poor soul who dares to transgress the moral code of God and society. Never the perverts - the voyeurs and the exhibitionists who delight in taking and sharing these photos with each other, although they bear the brunt of the stigma because they are the engine that drives this "despicable" activity. When, in reality, sexting is merely the inevitable analog of an ages-old practice between young (and old, too) people, who are programmed to flirt and frolic, and are now doing so on a digital landscape. It's not going away. And I don't see why it should. That people take and send and share nude and sexy pics of each other is a wonderful thing. They should do more of it. And they should be commended for it, as I have always said. Those that would shame and bully and stigmatize them - sometimes to the heartbreaking extent of suicide - they are the real poison of our society.

“What seems more difficult for youth, as for adults, is to imagine the possibility that girls are legitimately entitled to digitally mediate sexuality or express sexual desire, for example, through taking, sending or posting images of their bodies via phones privately, or on social network sites more publicly,” she said.

I was pleased to find this quote in a related article, since I had recently been milling about the topic of moral conservatism - the kind rampant in under-progressed countries where women are treated like chattel. And I came to the conclusion that the foundation for this kind of patriarchal worldview is the oppression and subjugation of female sexuality. It ties in to the troubling Madonna-whore complex, whereby a man wants his woman to be a sexual object, but only for him. Thus, any public expression of sexuality, or any expression of sexuality outside of accepted bounds is shamed and shut down. (Usually, in this context, the father owns his daughter's virginity until the day it is sold at a premium to her husband-to-be - with severe penalties in place for so-called "damaged goods"; which is an exceptional way to police women's sexuality).

As I see it, female empowerment can only come through owning and expressing (not repressing) women's sexuality - on women's terms. Ironically, a significant subset of feminists are in bed with the very same religious conservatives they should be at odds with. They slut-shame as much as the patriarchal men do - maybe even more so, since they (mostly) don't harbor a secret, un-politically correct sexual desire for women that they can't quite reconcile with their wish to own the woman's sex, at the behest of the rest of the population. These self-styled "feminists" have nothing to gain from women's sexual empowerment, and potentially everything to lose from an increase in competition on a rubric they might very well not be able to compete on. Yeah, that's a low blow. I admit it. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

Gymnophilia

A person who is himself not a nudist might wonder, if it's not for sexual reasons - as nudists typically profess - why do nudists enjoy being naked? If the nudity really is a non-issue, then why do people bother, sometimes going far out of there way to engage in nude recreation? If a nude activity is exactly like its clothed counterpart, except that everybody just happens to be naked, then why are those people naked?

The truth is, there are a lot of reasons people become interested and involved in nudism. Personally, I think it's often more comfortable being nude, and not having to get dressed eliminates the stress and anxiety that often comes along with figuring out what to wear in any given situation. And people who do engage in nudist recreation often come to enjoy it, because it's a friendly, laidback atmosphere with (usually) nice people. And, once you're mired in the lifestyle, it's easy to become a champion of its virtues, such as body acceptance, and the healthier alternative it provides to our society's toxic and unnatural taboo surrounding people's bodies. (Which is not to say that it doesn't have its drawbacks, too - like the lack of pockets, or the increased risk for skin cancer).

But, for sure, not everybody just "falls" into nudism. Some of its most fervent advocates are probably like me - driven to disrobe at any reasonable opportunity (and not a few unreasonable ones). I describe myself as an exhibitionist - and that's true - but it wouldn't be fair or accurate to explain away my interest in nudity by conflating it with a sexual fetish. Now, I adhere to a fluid worldview in which human sexuality and sensuality infuses much of what we do in life outside of the bedroom; and, like Jock Sturges, I'm not willing to deny - for the sake of political expediency - that there is any potential for nudism to contain a sensual element.

"It would be disingenuous of me to say there wasn't. There it is; so what?"

Indeed, that's part of its unspoken charm. But when I talk about a "sensual" element, it has nothing whatsoever to do with wife swapping and lawn orgies and what have you. That's overt sexuality. Perhaps I occupy a different mindset from those who, upon contemplating anything remotely sexual, require immediate satisfaction, and cannot enjoy the background buzz of eroticism that permeates much of human life, viewing it only as an insufferable tease, and not a pleasant reminder of the very reason we exist.

To be honest, I think there is something exciting about nudity (as I wrote about two years ago), and it's not strictly sexual, although there can certainly be an element of that involved. (I look forward to the day when we will no longer be compelled to bend over backwards in an attempt to disassociate any given activity from the potential for sexual interpretation in order to earn the badge of "legitimacy" - because lord knows if there's anything sexual about it, then the government and the public will feel justified in restricting, legislating against, and censoring it, because it's not safe for "moral, god-fearin' folk" - or, to better effect in this increasingly secular world, children).

It's about vulnerability and transgression - baring it all and exposing what's supposed to be covered up in places and situations where it's meant to stay hidden. This does not, as a frequent criticism of exhibitionism claims, generally involve the predicted expressions of horror and disgust on unsuspecting people's faces, but delight in the surprise of one daring to break such arbitrary and restrictive rules (as in the case of the innocuous practice of "streaking" which, in yesteryears, people were ironically not quite so draconian in their attitudes towards) may be included. In a sense, frolicking rather than prowling; with mischief in mind - not criminal intent.

Bottom line being that, while this is not true of all nudists - so don't assume that when they say there is "nothing to it", they are concealing a forbidden truth - there may well be an aspect to nudity (in whatever context: be it at home, alone, outdoors, or in a group) that makes it appealing in and of itself. And this fact does not presuppose (nor entirely preclude) the existence of a sexual element that would cause it to be deemed unfit for "polite" society. For even the most innocent cherub may delight in the joy of freedom from clothes - a joy that renders the experience not indistinguishable from its clothed counterpart. Not "normal, just naked", but "naked - more fun than normal!"

Guns vs. Porn

There's a gun shop I drive past sometimes that notably hangs a flag outside its window displaying the national colors (red, white, and blue). And it got me to thinking, how come members of the gun culture are so proactive in stating their patriotism and constitutional right to engage in their lifestyle, when porn shops and their customers, on the other hand, are so filled with shame and secrecy, despite coming under just as much fire? Guns are not any more legitimate than pornography, which is no less protected by the Constitution (in theory, if not practice); although the two have been treated quite differently throughout history. But if pushed, I'd have to point out the fact that the former is a weapon designed to kill, while the latter revolves around the process by which life is created. Just saying, you know?

[description: closeup of a handgun held side-by-side with an erect penis]

I've always been more concerned with the First Amendment than the second one. I know the second one is important - it's literally a life-or-death matter. But I'm a lover, not a fighter. What's more relevant to my life is my freedom to express myself. I've never understood the divide between liberals and conservatives, and this is an issue on which they agree, if for different reasons. (See the collusion between feminists and religious fundamentalists: conservatives want to take away your nudie mags because they're immoral; liberals want to take them away because they're "degrading" - what's the difference?). Tell me, do either of these sides actually support free speech? Liberals want to police the way we talk, so that we avoid offending anyone. File this under "good intentions" and hand it to the construction crew paving the highway to hell. Conservatives may be more likely to defend your right to be a bigoted asshole, but that's not really what interests me. I'm more concerned with my freedom to read all those gratuitously violent and sexually explicit books that keep getting thrown into the fire. Authenticity in human interaction is of utmost importance to me. I'm not interested in filtering human nature (one way or another) to suit an agenda. I don't want someone else deciding for me what I can be exposed to, even if what I am exposed to ends up "corrupting" or "offending" me. That's my choice, and my responsibility. Don't take that away from me.

Sex vs. Violence

[description: infographic contrasting a handgun to an erect penis]
I'd rather be shot at by one of these than the other.

Now, I'm sure I could be accused of "minimizing" the crime of sexual assault with this photo concept. But I only want to put things into their proper context. We have a twisted conception of sex and violence in our culture. Certainly, the combination that results in violent sexual assault is uniquely heinous, and, even devoid of physical violence, sexual assault can still be psychologically damaging. Nonetheless, I fear that exaggeration of its horrors is not only counterproductive to the goal of supporting those unfortunate victims who need to know that they can rise above it, and that they are not "damaged goods" who cannot even speak openly and honestly about their ordeal, but that it also harms our general relationship towards our sexual natures, which has the effect of sabotaging any attempt to promote a sex-positive attitude.

For any tool can be used toward evil ends, but while weapons were designed to hurt people, sex organs were designed for pleasure - and we should not forget that. This is by no means an excuse to justify any act of sexual assault - for taking one's "pleasure" at the involuntary expense of another's suffering is an unconscionable crime - but merely a plea not to give it more power over us than it needs to have. Surely, no one wants to be sexually assaulted (and those who do the assaulting certainly ought to get the punishment they deserve), but truly, I would rather be "pawed at" than punched; because I give no special meaning to the condition of my sexual "purity", and I'd rather the sanctity of my "holy temple" be violated, than to be the victim of a potentially life-threatening act of violence. For those who hurt in the pursuit of pleasure are in desperate need of guidance, but those who seek to hurt from the outset are the ones that worry me even more. Yet sex offenders carry a stigma in this society unrivaled by that of violent offenders; I fear that our priorities are mixed up.

[description: infographic contrasting a kitchen knife to an erect penis]
I'd rather be penetrated by one of these than the other.

Skirt & Socks

[description: car selfie in knee-high socks, with erection exposed under a pink miniskirt]

More evidence of the reason why men don't wear skirts as often as women. (Although that's no reason why they should never wear them!). And I know it sounds exciting, but you never know when you're going to be waiting on a breezy sidewalk in the midst of a troop of Girl Scouts (I'm not even making this up!), silently praying that the wind doesn't pick up, and that you won't be spending the night in a jail cell, lol. So just keep that in mind the next time you pull that miniskirt out of the closet. :-p

Say Yes to the (Prom) Dress

I had a few moments to spare in a motel room the other day, so I turned on the TV and ended up watching a few episodes of Say Yes To The Dress. I don't get misty-eyed about weddings - frankly, I think marriage is an antiquated concept. But I love trying on pretty dresses. Only thing is, wedding dresses are kind of boring to me. They're all white (not that I don't like that color), and they all look pretty much the same. I was thinking how much fun it would be if they did a show about teens going around trying to find the perfect prom dress instead. Now that would be interesting to me. Prom dresses have such variety - just think of the colors! And they run the gamut from elegant to flirty. I know they sell whole thick catalogs of prom dresses in the spring, so I think this would be a popular theme for a reality show.

[description: fitting room selfie in an elegant but form-fitting strapless white dress]

Anyway, I found myself in Macy's later that day trying on some prom-like dresses. I wish I could afford to spend $50-80 (or more!) each on dresses for my wardrobe. It's hard for me to find nice dresses on the cheapie racks that I both like, and can actually wear (and let's not talk about finding the right shoes to go with them!). I was telling my friend that if I could afford it, I would wear prom dresses everyday. I'd wear them just to lounge around at home. I'd wear them to do chores, or run errands. I'd wear them to the grocery store, or the park. I'd even play sports in them. When you don't have a lot of money, and you buy a fancy dress, you want to keep it nice, of course. But if I was like Pete Townshend, who can afford to trash a guitar at every concert, I'd totally buy up a bunch of prom dresses and then just wear them out, one after another. It would be fabulous.

[description: fitting room selfie of a nude figure bending out of the frame, dresses hung up]

This is me trying very hard to take a "fitting room picture" that doesn't look like all the others. There are only so many poses you can do standing in front of a mirror. There aren't many objects to pose on/with, other than the clothes you bring in with you. And you're limited by the scope of the mirror, and your ability to hold the camera steady (which is harder than it sounds - many of my potentially favorite shots have had to be discarded due to blurriness) and in the right position. Plus, you only have so long before the fitting room attendant is bound to start getting suspicious, so there's a lot of pressure. But still, after taking hundreds of pictures that all look very similar, I find myself desiring to innovate.

Motel Moments

[description: a clothed figure peers through a motel window at a nude man lying erect on a bed]

I don't get motel room windows. There's just one thick curtain, and no blinds. No hope of frosted glass, either. So it's all or nothing. You can't let the sunshine in in the morning without completely sacrificing your privacy. I may be an exhibitionist, but I don't want just anyone walking by to peek in on my business. It would make me feel too self-conscious, like I was in a zoo exhibit or something. The only exception would be if I were naked or engaged in sexual activity, because then there'd be some excitement in it for me, too. And I know you're thinking, "it's a motel, it's a hotbed for illicit activities!" But not out in the open. This isn't the red-light district. God forbid some old lady with her grandchildren in tow should walk by on the way from church on a Sunday morning, only to be greeted with a live demonstration of anal insertion. "Gammy, what are they doing?" "Well, kids, when two men love each other very much..." For better or worse, that's something that could land you in serious trouble. (I mean, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where people could approach this sort of thing without blowing a gasket? In keeping with the zoo metaphor - like when animals do it. It's just a fact of life. You can turn away if you find it distasteful, but nobody's throwing the animals in prison for "public indecency"). So the blinds are there for you to open them when you don't want to, but not when you do. It doesn't make any sense. It's stupid.

[description: series of nude portraits depicting various shenanigans inside a motel room]

The Best of Cocktoberfest

A few years ago, I got it in my head to celebrate "Cocktober" by taking a picture of my penis every day for a whole month. Why? Because I'm a twisted pervert, of course - and, I relish an artistic challenge. Informal, cell phone photography seemed a perfect fit for this project, so it basically turned out to be a month-long series of sexting pics. Now, lord knows men don't need any more incentive to take pictures of their dicks, but I thought that the pressure of taking a different picture every day (because nobody needs 30 copies of the same picture) would push me to be creative, and raise the bar for the "dick pic" standard. And that can only be a good thing, right? So let me now present to you the highlights of my Cocktoberfest celebration. And men, the next time you find yourself pointing a camera at your cock, think about how much more interesting that picture of your penis will be if you get a little creative with it. Remember, the goal is to make people smile and laugh, not cringe and scramble for the "block" button. -_^

Guitar Cock

Try posing your cock with various items of interest. Showcase your hobbies. Personalize your penis pictures.

Country Cock

Outdoors and exhibitionism-style pics are always exciting! But be aware of your surroundings - you don't want to get into trouble.

Porno Cock

Don't be afraid to use this as an opportunity to express your sexuality. Penises are for pleasure - so what gets you turned on?

Cupcake Cock

Sex and food go hand in hand, so serve up that gluttony with a heaping spoonful of lust!

Shower Cock

Soft, hard, or somewhere in between, penises are fascinating organs. See how much different you can get it to look from one day to the next.

Splatter Cock

Hey, this is October! Don't be afraid to get dirty. This is me having fun in the shower with some red face paint.

Hot Dog Cock

Fancy a footlong? We've got bun length wieners! (Don't tell me you've never wanted to try this :-p).

Crystal Cock

Put your cock to work. This one is purely ornamental. >.<

Hentai Cock

A demonstration of how Japan does censorship. (Weird, I know).

Rainbow Cock

Show your support for tolerance & diversity! Try shining some sunlight on a flipped-over CD for brilliant colors!

Glasses Cock

A perennial classic. Penises make great funny noses. Also popular are elephants' trunks.

Monster Cock

Forget Ken, let's see how you handle a real man, Barbie. Do you think you can take it all?

Trouser Cock

A.k.a. the ol' Jim Morrison. Just hangin' out. :-D

Hand Cock

Make sure you give that cock a nice, firm grip.

Squished Cock

Try to find new and original angles from which to photograph your penis. Some of them will naturally be more flattering than others. This is your chance to experiment!

Torpedo Cock

It's fun to play with the viewer's perspective. And if it makes you look even bigger, I guess that's an added bonus!

Long Hair Cock

Use your natural qualities to complement your anatomy. Whether it's your legs, hair, chest, or even your face, include it in that picture of your penis.

Cauldron Cock

Double, double, toil and trouble; fire burn, and cauldron bubble. Halloween must be fast approaching! (Always remember - safety first. You don't want to injure your precious organ).

Costumed Cock

My penis dressed up as a fairy princess for Halloween. What about yours? A pirate? A zombie? An astronaut ("to boldly go...")? Show us!

Try This On For Size (Halloween Edition)

I would have loved nothing more than to have put on a Halloween costume fashion show for you, but the fitting rooms at the local costume shop are horrendous. The lighting is dark, the mirrors are smudged, and there aren't even any benches or hooks on which to hang your clothes! I have to wonder if it's an intentional strategy, designed to imitate the real world conditions in which you're going to be wearing your costume - either out on the streets in the dark, or drunk and half-lucid at a costume party. But I'm probably giving them too much credit.

[description: fitting room selfie in a Poison Ivy costume]

Anyway, the costumes weren't inspiring me as much as I expected them to. With all this talk about how Halloween costumes are too "slutty", I had a hard time finding ones that looked sexy enough (or skimpy enough) to me. Has our erotophobic culture finally influenced the pendulum to swing back in the other direction? Sure, you have plenty of corset-like tops and ruffled, pleated miniskirts - which are flirty - but what, pray tell, is sexy about Darth Vader or a Ninja Turtle? Where are the French maid outfits? The witches and Roman goddesses who don't wear full-length skirts? There's a whole rack filled with fairy wings, but no fairy costumes to go with them, unless you're shopping in the tween section (which is great, but those costumes won't fit me...).

And that's another thing - sizes are all over the place. Stock is limited, so if you can't find a particular size, you're screwed. There were a few costumes I liked the look of that I couldn't even try on because they didn't have any sizes remotely close to what I imagined might fit me. And I had to discard two of the three costumes I ultimately tried on because one of the pieces was either too large or too small. I tried on a harlequin ensemble, and the skirt was cute, but the top was way too small - I couldn't even zip it up! Then I tried on this brown suede hippie costume that looked groovy, but the skirt wasn't very forgiving of my "bulge", and the top was too big - I couldn't dream of having the bust to fill it out! Also, the fringes covered up a lot more skin than I expected them to.

[description: comparison selfies in fringed brown suede and green ivy costumes]

The one costume I tried on that I really liked was this generic Poison Ivy-themed outfit ("Lethal Beauty" - some of these names designed to avoid copyright infringement are ridiculous). The skirt had this string running through it that you could tie off to cinch up one side of it, which looked really sexy. And the ruffles went a long way in disguising my bulge. It had a bunch of accessories, but I wasn't allowed to try those on. Still, I fell completely in love with it. I wanted to buy it so much, but - let me tell you, some of these costumes are way overpriced. With the holidays looming on the horizon, I don't think I can afford to spend over fifty bucks on something I'll probably only wear once or twice. :-(

[description: fitting room selfies in a dazzling, midnight blue "galaxy" dress]

By comparison, I tried on this dress at my favorite cheapie clothing warehouse. Despite being something I might wear more than once, I still thought it was too expensive. And it was "only" $30. I loved it, though. It was very shimmery. And it had a weight to it; it felt like you were putting on a lead apron - but I liked that. It felt like I was wearing something of significance. It was a little tight around the shoulders/chest, which is not uncommon for me, but I was able to get it on and off. Nevertheless, it went back on the racks. Lol, I can't even afford to keep decent clothes to wear (to quote blues legend Otis Rush). I guess it's a good thing I don't mind going naked. If I were a beggar, I'd have to carry a sign that reads "will strip for clothes." But then, isn't that pretty much the reason every stripper gets into the business? -_^

[description: naked fitting room selfie]

Closeted

[description: a nude, long-haired figure stands tucked inside an open closet]

I don't really consider myself to be "closeted" (but the concept does make for some wonderfully evocative imagery) - my closet door's open, and anyone is welcome to take a peek inside, provided they have the courage to do so, and the maturity to deal with what they might see - although I do generally have a personality that causes me to keep people at a distance. But I'm proud of who I am, even if the world isn't quite ready to accept me, and I'm willing to stand up for what I believe in, and hopefully be a role model for others who might not be quite so confident yet. Together we stand, divided we fall.

A Man in a Dress

I resent the fact that male-to-female "cross-dressers" are visualized in the public mindset as essentially the punchline to a joke - a humorously unappealing juxtaposition of feminine clothing and male features, as exemplified by, say, a pair of hairy legs in a skirt and heels, or heavy makeup on a bearded face. Men and women are typically subjected to very different standards of grooming (and women are generally subjected to many more standards than men). I don't like the assumption that cross-dressing consists of simply putting women's clothes on a stereotypical male. Even if you're a man, if you're going to make yourself up as a woman, it makes sense that you would not only apply women's rules of fashion, but also their standards of grooming. It doesn't mean that you necessarily have to, for example, wear makeup, or grow your hair out, or whatever - there is always room for experimentation with the norms. As a matter of fact, there are people who actually appreciate the "genderfuck" nature of the juxtaposed male and female cues I described above (more power to them, I say - I just don't want people assuming that that's what all cross-dressers intend to or end up looking like). But before I ever began to wear women's clothes in public, I got into the habit of shaving regularly - including places I'd never shaved before! - because I knew I would look much better that way.

This is a dilemma that women have - whether to succumb to society's pressures to look a certain way, based on a shared (and some would argue arbitrary) sense of aesthetics. And while it is true (and unfair) that men have more freedom in the grooming parlour - because they are not judged on and valued for their appearance nearly so much as women are - I would make the argument that certain things like body hair are generally less attractive, on both women and men. But unless your goal is to combat these stereotypes (because certainly there are people out there who are attracted to body hair on men, if not women), and emphasize the imbalance between the sexes (and again, if you are, more power to you - I just don't want people thinking that that's the only reason a person might choose to cross-dress), then for better or worse, if you're going to adopt the aesthetics of femininity, then these issues that women have to deal with now become issues that you need to confront (even if you do ultimately end up rejecting them). Because, in the end, it is not inevitable that if a man puts on a dress, he will end up looking like some kind of unappealing freak of nature, as opposed to a beautiful, perhaps androgynously feminine, creature.

The Naked Housemaid

[description: portrait of a nude man in the kitchen holding a mop]

What's wrong with having a little eye candy in your life? I mean, seriously, what's so terrible about that? I feel like I'm living in the midst of this civilization (although I use that term lightly) of instinct-driven animals, who, upon the sight of another naked human being, can't think of anything other than fucking - right then, right there. And that, to prevent this civilization from devolving into a constant, massive orgy (although honestly, would that be so bad?), all we can do is hide our nakedness - out of sight, out of mind. And though there are some self-styled "luminaries" in this world who perceive this carnal instinct as a moral failing, distracting us from more cultured pursuits - the sort that esteem us as an allegedly intelligent species above the rest of the animal kingdom - I feel like I can enjoy the sight of a naked human body, appreciate the way that it makes me feel due to evolutionary biology, and yet still conduct myself as a cultured, higher being with dignity and possession of self-control. And I feel like this - not turning your back on your prime directive and pretending (against all belief) that you are a pure and sexless being - is what it means to be "evolved" or "enlightened". Not to run from your baser instincts, but to gain command over them.

Decent

I would say that I look pretty decent naked. Wouldn't you? So then, tell me how exactly this qualifies as "indecent":

[description: artistic b/w portrait of a nude man seen from knees up, lit from the side]

Take a look at this body. This is what offends me - when people tell me to cover up, suggesting that there is something undesirable about looking at me unclothed. I know that people have subjective opinions, but you don't tell the curator of a museum to take down a Picasso just because you don't have much of an appreciation for it. Just because your hairy ass looks disgusting doesn't mean that I should have to cover mine up. Do we all have a right to equal opportunities? Yes. But we're not all equal. Privilege comes to those who earn it. And I won't deny the part that luck plays in my appearance, but I work to maintain my physique, and I should be rewarded for that effort by being granted the privilege to show it off.

What really confuses me is how anyone could disagree with the notion that being able to look upon a chiseled naked body - a living, breathing work of art - could be considered anything other than a reward. Again, I know that people have subjective opinions - especially about beauty - but even if you're not "into" my type (or sex, or whatever), what harm does my presence actually do you? Why do we honor people's superstitions about the naked human body so much more than a person's individual liberty to choose how or whether to dress themselves - even in the privacy of their own homes? I thought this country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Because there is no scientific evidence to back up the claim that exposure to nudity causes psychological trauma. And if it's merely a question of aesthetics, then there should be no problem with fit, well-groomed individuals walking around naked in public.

The government needs to stop indulging this mass hysteria right now. Possessing direct, firsthand knowledge of human anatomy should never be a crime! If you have something against seeing people's naked bodies, then you're more than welcome to try and construct an atmosphere where you will not be exposed to them, just as I am welcome to try and construct an atmosphere where that sort of thing will be commonplace. But what I can't stand is the thought that you forcing your views on me is permissible, while me simply exercising my views could be considered a punishable crime, due to "exposure" laws. In other words, this is not just a civil dispute - the government is taking a stand against my beliefs on nudity. So forgive me if that pisses me off.

Underwear Model

[description: torso closeups from front and back, in sheer yellow hipster panties]

Honestly, I'm wondering where you have to apply to become an underwear model. Because I think I would be a great underwear model. But do they even hire men to model women's underwear? Because I look a lot better in women's underwear. Women's underwear is more attractive in general than men's underwear, which is so utilitarian (or more concerned with comfort than appearance - I don't know how anyone could find boxers to be attractive). But men need to know how their package is going to sit in a pair of women's underwear before they shell out their hard-earned dough for it, right? And hell, I don't doubt you could sell men's underwear by having women model it - half-naked women can sell anything! So why shouldn't the opposite be true? Tell me, women, would you buy a pair of underwear for yourself (or your boyfriend -_^) if it was modeled by a man? I think that would be cute and funny. It's not like those models (regardless of gender) look like the people actually buying these clothes in most cases anyway, am I right? So we might as well have some fun with it!

[description: torso shot in sheer yellow panties, with erection peeking out]

I can't get over how much this shot of my torso looks like a "yum" face - with two eyes, a nose, and a tongue coming up out of the corner of the mouth. Lol. Bodies can be such fun to play around with. Why do people have to be so uptight?

[description: torso shot in yellow panties, erection visible through the fabric]

Do you remember what I said about the waistband trick a couple weeks ago? Well, my preferred solution is a supportive pair of briefs. I'm sure all the members of the boxer rebellion are scoffing right now, but rest assured, we've come a long way since the unappealing "whitey tighty" (honestly, does anybody actually guide their soldier through the tunnel - because it's much easier to just climb the fence). Enter the modern day "fashion brief"! Now you, too, can look like an underwear model (or porn star).

[description: torso closeup in black fashion briefs, and with briefs lowered to reveal erection]

The Bathroom Mirror

[description: bathroom mirror selfie in polka dot panties with erection peeking out]

Serious question: are you getting tired of seeing pictures of me in the bathroom mirror? (Because, clearly, I'm not getting tired of taking them). I know they're common, but that's for a reason. As a self-portrait artist, mirrors are a major source of inspiration. You gotta see what you're shooting to get inspired. And though I like to put mirrors all over the place (to the extent that I can), the one hanging over the bathroom sink is generally the one you tend to look at the most. It's also located in the one part of the house where you're most likely to have a significant portion of your body uncovered (which, as a nude and erotic photographer, means something to me).

And though you might say, "but zharth, bathroom mirror selfies look so amateur! Why don't you grab your dSLR whenever you get inspired, and take a real picture?" And my answer to that is, I often do. And you know what my experience has been, a lot of the time? That when you see a certain something while standing in front of a mirror, it's really hard to recreate it after you've stepped away from the mirror and set the camera up, in a different room, with the light coming from a different direction. It's that photographer's impetus - when you see something, you snap a picture before it's gone, because moments like that are ephemeral.

And even if you're shooting a person, that person is constantly in motion, their body position changing - even with so much as a breath or the slightest slouch. And cell phones are really handy. You just rush into the other room and pick it up (or pull it out of your purse), while the moment is still fresh, and snap away. (Incidentally, this is also the reason that it's so hard to forget to wipe the mirror down before you start taking selfies in it - but I tell you, it's worth it, because photoshopping out those really unsightly smears is a pain in the ass).

---

All this talk about mirrors makes me think about the fact that so many people have a love/hate (or just plain hate) relationship with them. Which is unfortunate, but understandable. We live in a culture that puts a lot of pressure on people to look perfect. So much pressure, that even beautiful people often don't realize they're beautiful. And there's this unspoken rule that you're not allowed to feel good about the way you look, because that's narcissistic, and it means that you're full of yourself. It's tragic.

Now, I'm pretty good looking. I came to that realization based on the opinions of many others beside myself. If it weren't for them, I'd have gone on the rest of my life thinking that I was unattractive (I really honestly thought that for most of my life). I really think that's what people need - somebody in their life who genuinely thinks they're beautiful to tell them that, regularly (and it doesn't count if it's your mom, because you know a mother will say that whether it's true or not), and it's unfortunate that not everybody gets to have that. But now I'm a model, and I actually think of myself as being "model caliber". Obviously, I'm not perfect, and even now that I've lost a lot of weight I didn't need, and I think that I'm in the best shape of my life, there are still parts of me that I don't particularly like. And there always will be. But there's enough there that I like, that I don't need to dwell on the negative. And that's a good thing!

I imagine that for a lot of people, looking in the bathroom mirror represents this dreadful daily challenge to accept one's looks, and exert maximal effort in primping themselves to meet society's standards. I don't know what I could possibly do or say to change that, but I wish people had more grounded expectations, and more to like when they look in the mirror. To me, the mirror isn't my dreaded enemy, but a good friend hanging around who is always ready to give me a compliment at a moment's notice. You probably hate my guts right now. But I'm not trying to brag, I honestly wish more people could experience this kind of a relationship with their mirror image.

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

Have I shown off this dress yet?

[description: fashion selfie in a pink, fractal-patterned dress with floor-length skirt]

This is such a pretty dress (I wore it to the mall the other day, and I actually got compliments from two teenage girls!). Amazingly, I bought it at one of those dollar stores a year or two ago - but not the kind where everything is a dollar. The kind where everything is priced in multiples of dollars (I think? I dunno, it's confusing).

Anyway, I usually prefer miniskirts (the shorter the better!) to dresses with full length skirts like this one, but this one is just so pretty. It's soft, too; but if I have any complaints, it's 95% polyester, which means it's a magnet for static electricity - which, with my long hair, is a recipe for disaster. It's also starting to stretch out at the knees (and I've only worn it a handful of times!). The top doesn't do much for my chest, either - as pretty as it is, it's the sort that seems designed for your breasts to "fill out", and so it kind of emphasizes the flatness of my chest. Not that I don't think my flat chest is sexy, but it's not very feminine.

If I were to start a clothing line featuring feminine clothing for men (because men's clothes, even when trying to imitate women's styles, tend to be so big and bulky and just generally too masculine) - which I would love to do, but I have no experience working in fashion, much less contacts in the industry - I would definitely want to look into creating styles that flatter a, um, well...flatter chest. You could do this either by effectively imitating the curvature of breasts - as some dresses do with shaping and padding - or not trying to hide the flatness of the chest, but emphasizing it in a more feminine way.

How could you possibly accomplish that, you ask? Well, I would use little girls' clothing as inspiration - nobody would argue that their clothes are feminine (not in a "this is what a woman's body looks like" but more of a "girls are awesome!" sort of way - which is just as good to me); and, while many parents do lament the encroachment of padding into their daughters' wardrobes, many of those clothes don't attempt to hide the fact that little girls have flat chests at all.

Here's a cute story: I spied an adorable one piece ballerina's leotard + tutu on the children's racks recently and I wanted one just like it that I could wear. But it looked small enough to fit a pet dog! Even if they made cutesy leotards like that in adult sizes (why do adult women insist on being all "mature"?), my body frame is a bit larger than average for a female. And even if I could find one in a bigger size, there is the delicate issue of my "equipment" (although I'd like to think the tutu would help to hide that), which is another problem that I would want to explore solutions to if I had a clothing line - how to enable men to wear tight-fitting dresses and clothing without making their bulge the centerpiece of the dress. Because that's all well and good if, say, you're attending a fetish ball, but not so much in everyday situations, especially if you're trying to pass.

I can tell you, I have tons of dresses in my closet that I would just love to wear, but they really aren't practical because they don't sufficiently hide my bulge, and as much as I would be fine wearing them anyway, and telling people to just deal with it - people are not capable of dealing with this sort of thing in a mature manner. It annoys me to no end that there are beautiful things women can wear to look pretty and sophisticated, but if I were to try to wear them, the overwhelming impression people would have of me is that I'm some kind of sex freak, and why am I incapable of keeping that in the bedroom? I guarantee a woman wearing a tuxedo would not be subjected to the same kind of negative attention (which, incidentally, is why I'm not a feminist).

Is it because everything men do is about sex? But even if that were true, so what? Sex is a driving force. Why can't we acknowledge its role in our lives? Why can't we talk about it? Why does it have to be this "inappropriate" thing? There are ways to talk about sex that aren't vulgar. But most human beings are not capable of subtlety. So we have to design our society around the lowest common denominator. It's tyranny of the lowlifes. I wish I could move to a more enlightened community (maybe on Mars or something?). I'm sorry. It's very frustrating living in a world that's not run the way you want it to be, and you don't have the power to change it, and when that fact impacts the way you must live (such that you are reminded of it every single day of your life). I try very hard to make the best of it, but sometimes "good enough" just isn't good enough.

A Model Photographer

[description: b/w portrait of a photographer reflected in the mirror between a model's legs]

It annoys me the way web-based art communities discriminate against self-portrait photographers. I know we're rare, and it makes sense to split the field into models on one side, and photographers on the other, but is there not even a tiny niche where we can fit in? There's also a lot of vitriol in the artistic community levied against "selfies". The honest truth is, selfies can be artistic as much as anything else (and mature artists will recognize this). On the other hand, they are easy, so a lot of people are going to take a lot of them that are simply not particularly good or artistic. It's just the argument about "snapshot" photography all over again. Is it not obvious, however, the difference between an artistic self-portrait and an ill-composed "selfie"? (You tell me).

Yet if you want to try to sign up as a "photographer", you will be expected to have experience with more than one model, and if all your pictures are pictures of yourself... Sigh. Our brains are designed to create shortcuts wherever they can (processing the world we live in would be an insurmountable task otherwise), and stereotyping (which often leads to discrimination) is one of those. I hate human nature sometimes, but I guess that's the price I have to pay for delighting in being eccentric - someone that refuses to fit into your mass-produced, standard sized boxes. I just don't want to be like everyone else. But I still dream about finding other people in the world that think like me... Diversity is great, but taken to its extreme - down to the smallest minority (the individual) - it can be very lonely.

Anybody Home?

Like a cop without a search warrant, if you open that door without knocking, you waive the right to complain about anything you might see inside. I don't mind if anybody sees me naked, or even engaged in a sex act. In fact, I'd be happy to grant you admission if you're interested in being a spectator. Just don't bitch about getting a free show after you've invaded my privacy.

"So I broke into this guy's house the other day, and you know what indecent acts he was committing in total privacy, behind closed doors?! There should be a law against that or something!" *swoon*

I hate humanity sometimes.

[description: one person peeks around a door to witness another engaged in masturbation]

I have to apologize, but I'm in a ranting mood lately. If you like my photography, you can probably skip this next part.

Before you say there's too much distracting clutter in this image (and relax - I agree, but it doesn't mean the photo's not worth taking or that it doesn't have any merit as it is), you should know how much clutter I removed from the image already, before taking it. Am I supposed to strip down a whole corner of my house every time I get the inspiration to take a picture? (If you only knew how much heavy lifting was involved in taking the pictures for this post). I don't live alone, so at least half this stuff isn't even mine (before you decide to judge my personality and living habits - it drives me as crazy as it drives you. I have to live with it, you only have to deal with looking at it in a picture. So chill), and I don't particularly like moving other people's stuff around. This is a house - lived in. Is it aesthetic? Probably not. Am I shooting professional studio photography? No. If I had a choice, would I shoot against a cleaner background? Absolutely! Would I rate this among my all-time best images, that I would show off to somebody as an example of the kind of work I'm capable of producing? I doubt it. Unless we're talking about one of the many diverse facets of my art that isn't technical aesthetics - such as, oh, I don't know, the mixture of themes of eroticism and humor, my clever and creative use of clones, a statement on gender fluidity, or the normalization of nudity (and sex) in the home, et cetera.

I swear, there are few things that annoy me more than somebody who insists on judging you as an artist from a single piece of art, or considering the fact that not everything you produce is a masterpiece is some kind of reflection of your skill. Rather than presenting only your best face (which is good for, like, job interviews, but not making long-term friends and contacts who need to know who you really are, behind the professional facade - oh, how I loathe the very concept and mindset of "professionalism"), I've always been about being down to earth and demonstrating that I am a real human being, and art is a spontaneous, fluid thing, and that if you want to creat great works like I (occasionally) do, you have to follow your inspiration, and take time to learn, and be willing to produce works that are not flawless, but may still be worth creating and having and sharing, because they push you and others forward, like a creative springboard, to other works of varying quality in the future. Art is a process. It's a living, breathing animal. And unless you've spent time with it day in and day out, you can't judge the kind of person I am, or even the kind of work I produce - not from a single or cherry picked group of images.

The Making Of: Government in the Bedroom

[description: two nude figures on a bed ready for sex are watched by a man in a suit]
An alternate version

I like to illustrate my posts on this blog. I don't always do it, but I like to when I can. Sometimes I produce images I want to share, but I don't really have anything to say about them - because the picture speaks for itself. And other times, I'll find a topic I want to discuss, but I won't have any relevant pictures to use as illustration. It happens. But I like it when I've got something to say, and I have a picture (or pictures) to help illustrate my point. Sometimes it'll be the case that I'll start writing, and I'll think of a picture I'd taken earlier that fits the theme of my post. And other times I'll look at a picture I've taken, and it will get me thinking about a topic I want to discuss. As a photographer, I've found that spontaneity can sometimes be lucrative (and other times not), but some of my favorite photo shoots are ones where I start out with a concept - an idea I want to illustrate in a photo. It can be frustrating when you're not getting the results you want, but there's nothing like the thrill of creating a beautiful picture that also expresses an idea that's important to you.

In any case, I started out writing Government in the Bedroom as an offshoot of some of the themes I'd been thinking about while writing other posts (as sometimes happens). But I had several posts queued, and I don't like to post more than once a day (because I don't post often enough to warrant it, and it's easier to archive that way, plus it keeps my blog active over longer stretches of time, instead of having a dozen posts over the course of a couple days, and then a month or two of silence), so I postponed publishing it for a few days. And when its time came, I thought to myself, you know, this post would really benefit from an illustration - a bedroom scene with a government agent standing off to the side. A picture like that - it could be sexy, funny, and thought-provoking (and maybe a little scary), and it would serve the topic of the post perfectly! So, I set out to produce just such an image, and got it done - from conception to completion! - in a few hours time.

I shot the bedroom clones first, and they came out looking really good (I've got "bedroom scenes" down pat, lol :p), which gave me confidence that I could produce an image I'd be happy with. But then I had a lot of difficulty with the "government agent". Cliché or not - honestly, clichés can be helpful, when used as a visual tool to tell your audience what you want them to see - I figured I could model a government agent by wearing a suit with dark glasses. Only problem is, I don't wear suits and ties, I wear dresses and tiaras. I didn't even have the right kind of sunglasses - I had to dig out the 3D glasses I saved from a movie showing (for just these sorts of occasions). So I tried to model the "dark jacket over white shirt" look, but I just wasn't getting the proper feel of "men's formal wear". Then I remembered I actually had a couple of suits in the back of my closet that I got as hand-me-downs. I liked the darker of the two better for the government agent, but the lighter one looked better against the dark background of the image, so I chose that one. It didn't fit me perfectly, and I don't own a tie to save my life, so with the 3D glasses, the resulting impression is probably a lot goofier than what I intended.

But it's the best I could do with what I had, and I think I managed pretty well, all things considered. Still, I've learned recently that people aren't going to stop to consider your limitations. They only care about the finished result. And they're going to compare it to the finished results of others who haven't had to work under your limitations. The only thing that matters is whether it's any good. So if you have limitations (and I've got my share), you can't let them hold you back, or use them as an excuse not to work harder. You can still be as good as anyone else, even if you have to work twice as hard. And if you do succeed, people will be impressed by how much harder you had to work. But nobody is going to pat you on the back just for trying, and they're not going to give you a free pass, either, just because you're at a disadvantage. It's a hard lesson, but I'm trying to incorporate it into my work ethic from here on out. It'll either destroy me, or make me a better artist. But I guess that's what it takes if you want to be serious.

Networking For Models

(An open letter)

I am a self-portrait photographer looking to network with models in my area so as to expand my portfolio and gain experience working with other models. I have a serious interest in the aesthetics of the human body, and I like to create thought-provoking works that challenge people's preconceived notions about gender and sexuality. My work is undeniably taboo. But I do not "peddle smut". I am keenly aware of all the different rules about what is appropriate in different contexts and on different websites, and am diligent about following the rules - because you can't network with a deleted profile. I want to have confidence that I will not be discriminated against because I do have an association with works that are taboo, and because I currently occupy a niche, since I have not yet had the pleasure of shooting an endless lineup of young women in makeup and lingerie. I would also hope not to be categorized as an amateur just because I take self-portraits. I do not have a lot of expensive equipment, and I do not have room in my tiny apartment to set up a studio. But I am very serious about what I do, in spite of my limitations (which I am hoping to expand by gaining experience working with other models), and I want to create technically proficient, but also emotionally and intellectually stimulating works of art. I'd like to think that my art speaks for itself, but sometimes people tend to jump too quickly to conclusions.

Government in the Bedroom

[description: two nude figures on a bed ready for sex are watched by a man in a suit]

"The government doesn't belong in the bedroom" means there should be no restrictions on what people do sexually in private as long as all parties are consenting. And I only say "private" because public acts inevitably involve non-participants without warning, which could be considered a violation of their consent (or in this case, lack thereof) to participate. In my view, seeing somebody engaging in an activity that you could easily turn away from doesn't count as participation - you don't become a player the instant you notice somebody playing tennis (that's what the term "spectator" is for - and even then, it only applies to people who specifically stick around to watch). But bringing sex acts out into public adds another dimension to the argument, and right now I want to focus on the importance of government not sticking its nose where it doesn't belong - in the privacy of people's bedrooms (and I define "bedroom" loosely, as any private place people might engage in any kind of sex or sex-related act, which includes masturbating in front of your home computer).

Potential problems I could see arising from the government not spying on people's sex lives is the possibility of 1) coercion (forcing somebody to engage in a sex act against their will, either by force or persuasion), 2) deception (obtaining consent for one act, and then switching the reel mid-show), and 3) casualties of ignorance (e.g., getting a girl pregnant because she wasn't aware of the importance of contraception). But I don't know that surveillance would even solve any of these problems. Nothing but the victim's own savvy and the possibility of outside intervention will stop a coerced sex act from occurring. But even if the government had a spycam in your bedroom, it presumably wouldn't stop the act from occurring, it would just make it easier to prosecute. Which is not a bad thing - but is it worth the government watching you every time you attempt to have an orgasm? You tell me. Their track record for permitting consensual acts of pleasure is not very good (remember when gay sex was illegal?), and I certainly wouldn't want to have to get a notarized warrant every time I wanted to search a person's orifices, much less have a chaperone supervising. Would you? This is one of those cases where we just have to trust to human nature. There will be people out there who will try to take advantage of others, and sometimes they will succeed. It's unfortunate, but it's inevitable. The best thing we can do is look out for each other, and try to identify and reduce the triggers that would cause a person to prioritize their own desires over the fundamental sanctity of another person's body and will in the first place.

As for the casualties of ignorance, I don't see how preserving ignorance by emphasizing abstinence (proven to be ineffective) is a superior methodology to simply combating ignorance by emphasizing education. At the end of the day, you're just not going to be able to prevent those who are intellectually disadvantaged and incapable of making good decisions in any context from failing to engage in proper safety practices. Perhaps you could make an argument for denying these people access to sex outside of supervised encounters, but I'm not sure that's the most effective or humane approach, and either way, it shouldn't affect the way the rest of us have sex. You put slow kids in slow classes with other slow kids. You don't slow down the regular class with the faster kids. I understand that the religious conservatives are doing everything in their power to keep the public ignorant of sexual matters, in the hopes that their decree that punishment awaits anyone who engages in "immoral" acts will actually prove to be true ("we said you'd pay for your sins, and by golly, it will be true, even if we have to be the ones doing the punishing!"), but how that's a platform anyone with one iota of good sense or compassion for their fellow man would support - I have no idea.

When it all comes down to it, there are not moral or immoral sex acts. Or if there are, it's your responsibility to choose whether or not to engage in them (and what happens as a result) - not to decide whether or not your neighbor gets to. If two (or more) people decide they want to engage in an act, it's their and their decision alone whether or not to go through with it. The extent to which they should be barred from doing so on account of consequences they may or may not be taking into consideration (which it is, at least, the government's responsibility - if they have any concern over people's sexual health at all, instead of people's sexual purity - to educate the public about) should, at most, determine which acts may or may not be "sponsored". (What I mean to say is, there should be beginner, intermediate, and advanced sex acts, instead of legal, questionably legal, and illegal sex acts). Barring individual considerations (which are always important, but never to be used to draw society-wide generalizations), I cannot see any justification for the criminalization of such acts, at the very least, as naked exhibition, vanilla masturbation (i.e., not involving, like, fists or gigantic cucumbers or power tools or whatever), or the pursuit of climax via gentle surface touching, or the recording and dissemination of recordings of such acts, when committed by consenting parties. There is no room in this society whatsoever for the shaming and stigma of people who claim their basic human right to pursue sexual pleasure and satisfaction within reasonable bounds. And if you want to pick up that power tool? As far as I'm concerned, have at it. But if you've got to sign a waiver or something, to avoid unexpected future litigation, the option should at least be there.

Modeling Industry Standards

It shouldn't be surprising to learn that the modeling industry has very high standards. I mean, that's kind of the point. But sometimes when you watch shows about modeling, it seems that their standards are ridiculously high - rejecting girls who would turn heads just about anywhere (notwithstanding those features the modeling industry loves that maybe a lot of "normal" people aren't so keen on, like exceptional height, and sharp jaw lines, and whatnot) for the tiniest of "flaws". Again, I guess that's the point (although I don't see why they have to be so cutthroat about it - making girls feel "fat" or "ugly" just because they're not in the top 1%). Having to reject beautiful women because I have even more beautiful women to work with is a problem I want to have!

But there's a mindset I've encountered, where girls who can't cut it as "traditional" models are left with recourse only to do either "art" modeling (because I guess art serves a wider diversity of goals, and isn't restricted to the "survival of the prettiest" approach of commercial modeling) or porn. I take exception to the notion that porn should get the industry's rejects. But it's true. The only thing you really need in porn is a willingness to do porn. It helps if you're moderately "attractive" (in some subjective sense), but even if you're not, chances are there's a fetish market still open to you. Regular models don't do porn because they don't have to - they can get regular work. And apart from personal preference and interest, porn occupies a lower tier because of the stigma associated with it. So if you can do regular work, you do it. If you're doing porn, chances are, you're desperate.

I find this state of affairs deplorable, because I take pride in the erotic arts. But I don't know how to change it without eliminating the society-wide stigma surrounding sex and especially sex work. Which I'm working on. But it's not something I can affect by myself. Society has to want to change (or at least a considerable and powerful portion of it), and that's a very slow and reluctant process. But I've noticed that I really appreciate erotic works that make use of very attractive, physically fit models - as rare as they are. I mean, if you're that fit and attractive, surely you can manage to get better work than porn. But what a shame that is. For the sake of the porn - or, more importantly, the erotic art - it suffers from these top tier high quality people not offering their services to it, and on account of porn's dismally low standards ("can we stick a couple of dicks inside you and then cum all over your face? Good, you're hired").

I guess to put it in economic terms, the supply for traditional modeling outstrips the demand (every girl who's ever been told she's "pretty" thinks she can be a model, despite that just being a thing guys say to girls to get them to take their clothes off (I hate humanity sometimes)), so they can afford to be choosy, whereas the demand for erotic modeling outstrips the supply (every guy with a camera wants to find girls willing to take their clothes off, but what are the girls getting out of it? (why the hell don't we treat these girls as the civil servants they are, instead of slinging mud at them? - talk about cutting off your own foot!)), and they have to take whatever they can get. I know this is a natural law, and it can't be changed other than by artificial means, but isn't it sad that the world doesn't get treated to quality erotic works on account of the fact that only a minority is interested to see such a thing? I think that's tragic! I mean, I'm not asking for this kind of stuff to be shown on the nightly news - it doesn't have to be popular (although I suspect that if it existed, a lot of people would be into it), I just want it to be an available option. But as it stands, if a "real" model actually wanted to do erotic work (you know, because it might be interesting/exciting/edgy/whatever), she'd be unduly discouraged from it on account of the stigma. That's not fair.

Well, that's the way things are, and I alone don't have the power to change it. But I'm making a statement - a commitment to endeavoring to produce higher quality erotic art with respectable modeling standards. I've already done it with regards to myself - I've produced a fitter, more attractive model than I had to work with when I got started in earnest almost a decade ago. If I ever get the opportunity, I'd like to expand that to working with other models, too. But - sigh, I'm not going to hold my breath on the remote possibility that some breathtakingly beautiful model out there is willing to do this kind of work, and that if there is, I'd ever be able to meet her...

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

A Saturday morning special!

[description: fashion selfie in a pink, midriff-baring crop top and pajama pants]

I had to rush out to the post office this morning (even before breakfast!), so I threw on my latest pajamas. I normally don't like to wear clothes for sleeping or lounging around the house in (and when I do, the less the better), but I've been trying some new things lately.

Even though I don't generally go for the "pajama pants" look (a shirt and panties are more feminine, and infinitely sexier), I wanted to get a pair recently so I would have something warm and comfy to sleep in on those occasions when I'm out camping in a tent, and the nights are cooler than I'd like. And I found this adorable pair that just screams me - they're a beautiful shade of oceanic teal, decorated with The Little Mermaid! (Who, if you don't know, was my first cartoon character crush, and one of the first times I remember in my childhood being completely entranced by a pretty girl - so, even though I'm more of a faerie than a mermaid guy, Ariel has a special significance for me).

As for the shirt - which I love - before you accuse me of narcissism, I never would have picked it out for myself, but my roommate actually bought it for me because she genuinely believes that I am flawlessly beautiful even when I've just rolled out of bed. Hey, I'm not going to complain - it's nice to have someone that feels that way about you, even if I try to keep in mind that her perspective is biased. But now I can wear the shirt both unironically and without guilt, and I love having an excuse to put it on whenever I haven't had time to properly wake up and shake the dreams from my hair (in a manner of speaking).

[description: fashion selfie with pants removed to reveal Disney Princess panties]

And, here's a version without pants - just for fun, and because I've been told I have great legs, and I think legs are really sexy, and in the spirit of Ariel getting her own pair (which I suspect may be the cause of my own interest in legs).

Mental Ableism in the Realm of Sex

(This is a rant aimed at society's despicable morality police - especially those of which who try to convince themselves that they're actually "sex positive" - the only ones they're fooling are themselves).

I am so sick of "mental ableism" in the realm of love and sex. I have a personality disorder that makes it difficult for me to build social contacts and meet people. But just because I cannot find a relationship that satisfies your definition of normality, I'm not allowed to seek intimacy and sexual pleasure on other terms? You have every right to believe that things like pornography and prostitution are "immoral", just as I have the right to disagree. And you have every freedom to choose not to indulge in or support those things. But you cannot pursue measures that would make it harder for me to do so - because that is an infringement on my freedom.

Maybe if I had a perfect mate who is and does everything I could ever want or hope for, I'd be satisfied, but that is an idealistic fantasy, and real life doesn't work like that. If you've managed to convince yourself otherwise, then congratulations, but don't make me suffer for your delusions. I make no apologies for the fact that I am a pervert, but I try very hard not to be a "creep". I don't want to go around making people uncomfortable, committing acts of dubious moral integrity - spying on people, lying to people, and things of that sort. But that's what happens when you attempt to suppress people's sexual expression.

I want there to be sexy people out there who want to share their sexiness with the world - and there are. But all your petty, conservative restrictions do is make it hard for me and other people like me to find them. Laws against coercion, deception, violation of consent, privacy, et cetera are perfectly acceptable and expected. But they should not be thinly veiled covers for anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-contraceptive morality statutes. You do love and sex your way. But don't you dare try to legislate how I do my love and sex.

Spectrum-Based Perversity

So, I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but I'm working on writing up a Sex Positive Manifesto (seeing as everybody I've ever come across who's claimed to be "sex positive" does not conform to what I believe a sex positive perspective ought to be). It's taking a while, because it's hard to write something that you intend to be definitive - I want to make sure I hit all the bases, while still being general enough to cover the entire playing field. It's a challenge, but something I'd really like to complete.

Anyway, this idea of "spectrum-based perversity" or sexuality or whatever is one of the ideas that will be going into the manifesto, but I wanted to give you a sneak peek at what that concept looks like. This also ties in to another idea that's going into the manifesto, which is a rejection of the paraphilic approach towards sexual diversity - which is what the clinicians do when they look at alternative interests (fetishes and such) as diseases and mental disorders instead of wonderful expressions of natural human diversity.

Basically, to put it in BDSM terms, it's the concept (and it's terrible that I even have to point this out) that not everyone who likes spanking owns a sex dungeon, and also that not everyone who owns a sex dungeon is a serial killer. Because people just love to jump to conclusions, right? Here it is in terms of a so-called "fetish" that affects me personally:

---

I want people to understand that "voyeurism" and "exhibitionism" are not simply sexual perversions that cause people to commit antisocial acts against non-consenting others (such as flashing strangers, and putting mirrors on their shoes), but psychological interests that exist on a wide spectrum, encompassing such benign activities as, for example, "people watching" and performance theater; and that, even when they develop as sexual interests, they can be practiced in healthy and consensual forms - such as the voluntary production and enthusiastic consumption of pornography. Defining these terms only by their worst examples is unfair, and damaging to those who have these interests, and are seeking ways to indulge them responsibly, if at all possible. Tell a mouse he's a monster for wanting a cookie, and he's more likely to resort to monstrous acts in order to get that cookie, than change his mind about how hungry he is.

---

I think that one of the big differences between me and the rest of the world is that I have compassion for sexual minorities. I don't look at them and think, "ew, gross! You're a monster! What's wrong with you?" Rather, I'm more likely to think, "it's unfortunate that you have such inconvenient tastes. But it's fascinating, too. Let's see how we can incorporate you into the fabric of society."

So am I wrong? Am I the bad guy? Am I forcing the majority to "suffer" the participation of these unliked minorities? Or is there some virtue in the idea of equality, and some value in fostering diversity? I believe there is. But I ask again, am I wrong? Am I the bad guy? Because if that makes me a bad guy, then I'll be the bad guy. But I just don't think it makes sense that way. And nobody who's ever disagreed with me has ever convinced me otherwise. So why is it okay for the majority of the population to go on being wrong, when being wrong does real harm to real people? Can you answer me that?