Why Nudism? (Part 23)

[description: two figures in dated clothes use outdated media, while a nude person reads a book]
Because fashion trends come and go, but nudity is timeless.

There's a limit to how true this is, as things like grooming habits, hairstyles, glasses, body jewelry, and makeup all change through the years, and may still be noticeable on a person even if that person is nude. Plus, the technology itself with which we record images of ourselves evolves, so that even photographs of nudists taken in the twentieth century, for example, do not resemble those taken in the twenty-first. Nevertheless, there are few things quite so conspicuously dated as contemporaneous fashion trends, and I find that as an artist - if less so a nudist - it is easier to make a "timeless" visual statement by representing the bodies we've inhabited since the dawn of man, without being distracted by the passing clothing styles of the day.

Bananas

[description: three bananas in different stages of ripeness, are posed beside an erect penis]

"He who has the right to eat the fruit of a tree
may assuredly pluck it ripe or green,
according to the inspiration of his taste."

- The Marquis de Sade,
from Philosophy in the Bedroom

All three stages of this banana are edible, yet you may only eat two. Which two stages look most appetizing to you? In the absence of the middle option, would you prefer to eat the banana that is underripe, or overripe? What if you happen to have a taste for underripe bananas, yet I told you those were strictly verboten? That you may eat yellow bananas to your satisfaction until they're covered head to toe in brown spots, but that you best not even look at the green bananas with hungry eyes. Despite the fact that they are perfectly edible. And quite tasty. All because of an arbitrary standard that has shifted through the ages, and across different societies.

Hungry/Full

[description: naked selfie with a flat tummy, and one with tummy bulging]
Two pictures, taken on the same day -
one before breakfast, and the other after a hearty lunch.

Proposition: I look more attractive when I am hungry than when I am full.

True or false? There may well be a subjective element involved - although that pretty much guarantees that there will be at least some who think it is true. Are they wrong? And if so, is it possible to change their mind? But what if they're not? I must confess that I am attracted to slender frames, and I do think I look less attractive when I am carrying what you might call a "food baby". There is also the question of to what extent the food is responsible, because in either case - full or hungry - I can make the conscious choice to suck in my stomach or let it all hang out, and in either case, I think the sucked in stomach looks more attractive (provided it's not sucked in to an unnaturally excessive extent). On the bottom line, whether it's "true" or not, I think there are a lot of people in modern society who think that thin is attractive, and many of them are likely to come to the conclusion that less eating will make them thinner.

This is what I would call an inconvenient truth. Obviously, eating is not only important, but a necessary activity for survival. Starving oneself in order to look attractive is not what I would call a mature or even a sane perspective. Watching what one eats, however, is a healthy strategy. That some take this to an unhealthy extreme doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the inherent truth behind it. Even though it may be a sensitive issue that tugs on people's heartstrings. Even though it may trigger some people who have unresolved issues. And even though those who are unhealthy may use this acknowledgement to reinforce their toxic beliefs. Even to the extent that this may contribute to their self-destructive tendencies.

This is what I consider a mature, intelligent, evolved mind. A simpleton can only consider one variable at a time. Thinness is either attractive, or it is not. If it is, then people will starve themselves to become attractive. The only way to discourage people from starving themselves to become attractive is to convince them (and ourselves) that thinness is not attractive. But life is not that simple. The world isn't black and white. And this is not the approach that a competent, professional therapist would take, anyhow. The solution is to understand that there are multiple variables involved. That, just as eating sustains us, yet eating too much can kill us, it is also true that eating less may make you more attractive (albeit according to subjective standards - and also depending on an individual's metabolism, what you eat, and other factors), but eating too much less can kill you, too.

It's like acknowledging that bodies can be sexually appealing, and yet at the same time that nudity is not intrinsically sexual. That beauty has value in our society, yet you can strip your clothes off among nudists and relax and have a good time no matter what you look like. (It's worth having a conversation about how much beauty matters; because you don't have to be a model to be happy and have a fulfilling life). It takes a complex, evolved mind to understand these things. And I expect no less from Homo sapiens, even though I am frequently confronted with less than that. Are my standards too high? But this world would be a better place, and people would be happier, if they could live up to these standards. Is it fair for those of us who are evolved to live by the standards of the lowest common denominator? And is it merely egotism for me to say that, or do I actually have a point?

In any case, you can rest assured that I am not going to starve myself to look attractive. We all have good days and bad days. And I've learned that even more important than watching what I eat (because I still eat pizza and soda and candy - just not usually to excess - and look at me!) is getting regular exercise to keep me in relatively good shape (although your mileage may vary). I have a healthy, balanced approach to these issues - not a distorted one, which would be true if I thought I needed to starve myself in order to look attractive, but also if I tried to force myself to believe against belief that I didn't really think I looked more attractive with a flat stomach than a bloated belly (which I unequivocally do - think I look more attractive, that is. Your opinion may differ, and that's fine). Self-deception of any kind is not healthy.

Pi(e) Day

Celebrating the magical ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, with - what else? - pie!

[description: a nude figure sits on a table with a cherry pie poised between spread legs]
Do you want a piece of my cherry pie?

I do enjoy double entendres. And since we're on the subject of sex and pies - which, if taken literally, is a bit outside the realm of the ordinary - I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a discussion about the nature of fetishistic desires.

Regrettably, some people have a very limited imagination when it comes to the topic of alternative sexual desires, not coincidentally inspired by a very negative view of sexuality - that sex must be approached very strictly in a particular way, to avoid falling afoul of some arbitrarily designated rules of propriety. In other words, as an example, the edict that you must only have sex in the missionary position, for the purposes of procreation, otherwise you are committing a sin and shaming yourself and God. This is a disgusting way to view human sexuality - one that promotes shame (obviously) and self-loathing - and any God (or priest, or other social force, who wants to control the behavior of the masses) that would demand we hold ourselves up to such...not extraordinary, but inhumane standards is not worth worshiping or even admiring.

As a thought experiment, let's posit a hypothetical alternative sexual desire - say, a fetish for the warm, inner flesh of fruit pies. One can imagine that this desire may manifest itself in the unfortunate form of a man "demolishing" a pie in an uncouth manner. We view this behavior as deviant because it contravenes the standard use for a pie (namely, to be eaten). In light of that purpose, this alternative use may indeed be seen as somewhat disturbing.

But let's separate the act of demolishing the pie from the desire that precedes it. A man may choose whether or not to demolish a pie in this manner, but he does not choose his desires. And while it might seem natural for us to associate the desire with what we view as the inevitable demolition of pies, I'd like to point out that the desire itself does not necessarily incorporate demolition as an intrinsic aspect. The man does not desire to demolish pies, it is merely the case that the pie becomes demolished in the process of satisfying his desire for it.

This may seem like a niggling detail, but I feel that it is important in profiling the fetishist's psychology. The critical point is that, contrary to a sex-negative conception, the sexual desire itself is not a manifestation of hatred or violence, or even domination. A pie fetishist doesn't necessarily want to damage the pies he fancies. In fact, he probably regards them highly, as they are able to provide him with such positive feelings. And it may be conceivable that there could be other ways a man might satisfy his desire for pies that do not involve their demolition (e.g., via fantasy, or non-contact voyeuristic acts).

What I'd like to demolish is the stereotype of the out-of-control sex freak who, overcome by desire, cannot help destroying everything in his path in his myopic quest for sexual satisfaction - even (or especially) the very object of his desire. An exhibitionist does not require the shock and offense of unsuspecting innocents any more than a lover of women requires the humiliation and degradation of womankind. The behaviors of a sex pervert who happens to be criminally insane should reflect poorly on the criminally insane - not on sex perverts as a group.

The important conclusion to be drawn here is that the fetishist has the potential to be a well-adjusted, law-abiding, productive member of society - ideally, while still fulfilling his sexual desires. But this can't happen if we shame and marginalize him for the desires he can't control, which goes far beyond holding him accountable for the behaviors he can control. Insofar as the pie fetishist is able to browse a confectionary without behaving inappropriately, we should praise him. For resisting such powerful temptation, he deserves our sympathy, rather than scorn for what we suppose he might like to do with those pies in private.

And we're going to ignore the fact that the ultimate fate of the pie you purchased is to be devoured and digested, then excreted from your body and dispelled into the sewers. Because nourishment is considered a valid activity, but somehow, there is something "immoral" about the giving and taking of sexual pleasure. Your pie doesn't end up any better off than the fetishist's, necessarily. But you see, this isn't really about pie at all. It's about controlling other people's sexual feelings. Or trying to, anyway. Because you can't dictate what goes through anyone's mind while they're jerking off.

Why Nudism? (Part 22)

[description: a naked man makes a snow angel]
Because it puts me in touch with my surroundings. (Literally!)

I'll concede that the thought of diving into a snowbank naked - with nothing protecting your intimates from the frosty snow - is probably not the most inviting endorsement for nudism. Although, thrill-seekers might appreciate how exhilarating it is - polar bear swims are not unpopular among a certain segment of the population, after all. But I wanted to do something that would really drive the point home. When you're naked, your skin is exposed. Not just to the open air, but to everything your body comes into contact with. For hygienic reasons, nudists typically sit on towels, but aside from that, the nerve endings in your body's largest organ (your skin!) are not isolated from the environment the way they are when you are wearing clothes.

Whether it's the wind in your hair or the grass under your feet - or even the hot pavement - you are literally more in touch with your surroundings when you're nude. And though there are times when protective covering is beneficial (I don't like walking over sharp gravel in my bare feet, for example, and there is no shame in covering up when you get cold), it's also true that there may be physical and psychological benefits to exposing yourself to the elements, and not denying your skin that tactile feedback. Some may even interpret it in a spiritual way, as it contributes to a feeling of oneness with nature, and the world around us. If you've never danced naked in the rain during a summer storm, you haven't lived, my friend.

Self-Consciousness

I'm not sure if it's a blessing or a curse - I imagine it contributes a great deal to my social anxiety - but I have an overactive sense of self-consciousness. Some people might call it narcissism, but it's not that my ego is inflated - I'm actually highly critical of how I present myself to others and the world (which cripples my spontaneity to a considerable degree). The fact of the matter is, I'm very introverted, though not oblivious (quite the contrary) to the existence (and projected thoughts - as I can only imagine them) of the people around me.

As it is - and this is greatly facilitated by the presence of mirrors throughout my living space - I sometimes get a glimpse or a sense of myself, doing whatever it is I'm doing, naked (or, sometimes, appealingly dressed), and consider what it might be like from a third-person perspective. Most people sitting on the floor at a coffee table in front of the TV would focus on the show they're watching, but sometimes my mind wanders to what it might be like if someone else were to be treated to that kind of a scene.

And, naive though I may be, I can only imagine my own delight were I to find myself in that position; the thought that somebody could be scandalized or offended or disgusted is almost inconceivable. I know it's unreasonable to expect that everyone (or at least anything more than a small minority of the population) would like the view, but it goes back to one of my fundamental beliefs in nudism - that seeing a thousand unattractive people naked is worth the one the mere sight of which sets your whole world a-spinning. I lament the fact that the rest of the world's priorities is probably reversed - that they would gladly give up that one vision of euphoria to avoid having to endure the sight of a thousand bodies they find, to a greater or lesser degree, "revolting".

[description: top-down selfie of a naked body sitting in front of a coffee table]

Of course, this image is a first-person perspective, because I was in the middle of a show, and I didn't want to take the time to set up a tripod just then, and it was not a mirror image, but the sight of myself as I looked down at my body, that inspired me to grab my camera and snap a shot...

You can call me crazy if you like, but the thought of me being in that position - not being the viewed (as I am typically represented by my photography) but the viewer, happening upon a scene as innocuous and everyday as sitting in front of the TV, but involving an attractive person lounging in the nude - well, it just delights me to no end. And it is exceedingly rare, unfortunately, as I know few people (none, really) I am both strongly attracted to, and that are, in terms of wardrobe preference and disdain for textile taboos, just like me.

But I have sufficient presence of mind to know that I could be that thing to somebody else, and almost as a way of paying it forward, that's one of the reasons I consider it my duty to be a model, and document myself for the benefit of those that can appreciate it. Because I know that I would want somebody I find attractive to do the same thing (in a perfect world), and it only seems fair.

Surveillance Cameras and Indecent Exposure

I was reading an alarming and insightful article in National Geographic on the proliferation of the modern surveillance state, and a thought occurred to me. It's similar to a question I've asked before: if a man strips in the woods, and nobody is around to see it, is it public indecency? To take it a step further, if a man strips on a street corner, but there's no one around to see it (let's say it's before dawn on a Sunday morning, and most people are still in bed), is it public indecency? It depends on how the law is interpreted. Is it illegal to be exposed in a public place, or is it simply illegal to expose oneself (knowingly or otherwise) to a non-consenting other? Does it become a crime before or after it creates a victim?

To complicate the issue, let's consider the case that the "other" isn't a person, but a security camera. In the past, there was the presumption that you could maybe get away with a little hanky-panky in public, as long as you were discrete and didn't get caught. We're not talking about behaviors that are illegal in and of themselves - for example, dealing drugs, or engaging in violence. We're talking about a crime that only becomes a crime because somebody who isn't involved happens across it, and doesn't like it.

But does that extend to security footage? If there's a man on the other end of that screen watching, could you be unexpectedly exposing yourself to someone even if you're all alone? (And what if that street cam happens to be peering into your window, or back yard?). Even if there's nobody watching while it happens, law enforcement could conceivably review the footage at some later point in time, and attempt to charge you with exposing yourself to a lamppost.*

Is this as ridiculous as it sounds, or is it something we should legitimately be afraid of? It goes against my belief that if you make a reasonable effort not to disturb anyone (which is quite different from going around intentionally flashing people, as the stereotype goes), it should be considered "no harm, no foul". Certainly, on the list of crimes, with things like mass shootings and terrorism at the top, a naked stroll ought to be considered fairly innocuous. But in this day and age of sexual harassment allegations flying around, not to mention the draconian penalties of the sex offender registry, one can't be too careful.

I've had a relatively lax perspective on privacy for a long time now - obviously, I'm an exhibitionist, and I don't mind so much if people watch. But I'm still afraid that someone will try to reduce my freedom because they simply don't like the way I live. An ever increasing loss of privacy is probably inevitable at this point (if it's not already too late), and there are some advantages such as reducing crime, but for an open world to work (and be anything other than a soul-crushing dystopia), the public and the state both must be perfectly just and tolerant of human diversity. And we're simply not there, yet.

[description: porch cam footage of a man stripping nude and masturbating]

*To get even thornier, if the miscreant happens to be a minor, who gets charged with the production of child pornography? If I were still seventeen years old, I'd totally go around masturbating in front of security cameras just to screw with people. When I was a teenager, I did actually like to sneak out sometimes under the cover of night, to feel the open air on my skin. If I were growing up today, it's entirely possible that I'd be caught - not by a person, but a camera.

And with the proliferation of nanny cams, I wouldn't be safe even in the privacy of my own home anymore, when the parents are out! What worries me is the chilling effect this knowledge might have on this kind of behavior. Sure, we want to discourage criminals, but surreptitious public indecency (not trying to be seen, but trying to avoid getting caught) is fun, totally harmless behavior that I'd like there to be more of in the world, not less. :-(

Keeping Nudity in the Wardrobe

[description: a nude figure stands among a row of clothes hanging in the closet]

I've said this many times already, but though I would enjoy living in a nudist utopia, I'd be willing to settle for a textile world that merely accepts a nudist minority among its folds, without discrimination. You see, I don't want to actually force anyone who's considered nudity and rejected it to remove their clothes. I just want to ensure that nudity remains an option, and that those who might like to try it are not discouraged by other people's beliefs and opinions.

Because that's what our culture is doing. People who might enjoy and voluntarily choose to engage in nudism (or even just casual nudity without calling it nudism, and thereby invoking all the baggage that comes with being part of a "lifestyle" or "movement" - because the important thing isn't whether you call yourself a nudist or identify with nudism, but whether or not you like being naked) are being repressed by mainstream values. Ours is a culture of conformity, and not one that values individual diversity. And I think we're worse off for it.

It becomes even more insidious when we consider gender imbalances. "I can't go naked because I'm a girl!" Is it any wonder nudist demographics skew male? It's not because men have any more to gain from nudism, but because we commodify women's bodies and then strive to maintain an economy of scarcity (and girls pick up on this from a very early age), which has ties to the barbaric and antiquated practice of a father selling his daughter's virginity to the man she is to marry (so you'd better stay pure to maintain your market value!).

I want to create a better, happier world for us all, but I'm woefully outnumbered and overpowered. And I can't help anyone if the world ignores or disagrees with me. All I can do is hang my head and sigh, dying a little more each day. As I once wrote in a poem during my angsty teenage years, "I offered you the key to the gates of Paradise, and you turned me down." I've been wondering for a long time why people refuse to let themselves have things that would make them happy, only because they contradict some arbitrary code of morality or propriety.

Although, more often than not, it's people preventing other people from being happy, only because they can't be happy themselves, in a vicious cycle of communal flagellation. When people try to control other people's behavior, it's usually a reflection of their own insecurities. But isn't life hard enough? What's the point in making any of us suffer more than we have to, and denying us things that could make the suffering more bearable? Not things that are dangerous, just things that, as I said, are arbitrarily considered to be "immoral" or "improper".

That rules out true crimes like stealing and raping and murdering, as well as the imbibing of illicit substances that are experientially and scientifically proven to destroy our minds and bodies. And I don't mean anything in excess. For all we talk about how activities like drinking and smoking are toxic (and they are), they're still national pastimes. But flash a little too much skin in public, and who does that hurt, really? What is the big deal if somebody sees "too much" of your body? God forbid you should give some total stranger a fleeting moment of joy. It may be considered a "vice", but I don't believe it even belongs in the same category as those others.

You know, re-reading that last part, it occurs to me that this is undoubtedly exacerbated by, as much as I hate this term, "rape culture". In a world where women are sexually harassed without consequence (although that is changing), and a man may blame his sexual frustrations on the women who inadvertently trigger his desires, covering up is merely self-defense. But how sad is that? That's not the world I want to live in. I want to live in a world where women feel comfortable walking down the street naked in public, and men have the maturity and the responsibility to conduct themselves with dignity. Is this too much to ask? The world says yes, but I desperately want to believe the answer is no...