Shining light into the dark places.
[description: a nude figure kneels in the grass with butt in the air and cheeks spread]
I'll admit I have a little "thing" about exposure. I don't want to scandalize anybody. And certainly it's been a journey getting to the point where I'm comfortable photographing myself this way. But when you create a taboo, you're creating a vacuum - a black hole of censorship, beyond which you're not allowed to peek. And in the human mind, that invites transgression, in the form of curiosity.
Anyway, you can't get much more fully exposed than this (at least not without crossing some very weird lines that I am not interested in crossing). And in full daylight, too! Outdoors, no less! I guess I find that phrase "where the sun don't shine" a bit humorous. I mean, it's normally true. But it also kind of sounds like a challenge. Don't you think? Or maybe I'm just possessed by the Imp of the Perverse. >.<
Friday, June 29, 2018
Thursday, June 28, 2018
The Photoerotic Effect
In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation for the photoelectric effect, whereby a photon - a "particle", for want of a better term, of light - hitting a surface transfers some of its energy to the surface, sufficient to eject an electron (or, in a similar process, to create an electric current - this is how solar panels work). Similarly, when the warm sunlight comes into contact with my bare skin (especially if it's been a while since I've been out in the sunshine), occasionally it produces an erotic effect, causing me to become sexually aroused.
[description: video depicting non-contact arousal while laying nude in the sunshine]
In a nudist context, this can be somewhat inconvenient, although I have to wonder why this should necessarily be the case. What does it matter if the pleasure you receive from baring your body to the elements is sexual in nature? Presumably, nudists want to prevent nudist situations from "devolving" into licentious orgies. This is understandable. But if we separate "passively receiving erotic stimulation" from "active sexual behavior", then where is the harm in the former? This kind of sexual stimulation is independent of typical acts like intercourse or often even masturbation. For while I might gently caress or apply pressure to my genitals - simply because it feels good - I don't necessarily have the intention of initiating a full-blown masturbatory session.
This flies in the face of the sexist stereotype of the man who demands sex at the slightest provocation of penile stimulation; but that has never been my reality. Perhaps I am atypical, but insofar as there are people like me, who behave the way I do, I don't see what harm that kind of behavior could possibly do, even in the context of an "asexual" nudist environment. Whether the chemicals coursing through your body - the electrical charges, if you will - are the result of athletics, relaxation, massage, the alcohol in your system, your wife scratching your back, or any other "decent" source you can think of, or if they are erotic in nature, I don't see how there is any difference, aside from an unnatural and unhealthy taboo surrounding anything related to sex.
The same logic can be applied to finding nude bodies sexually appealing. As long as you're not some neanderthal that can't help grabbing your crotch every time you see a naked breast, there's no reason why nudists should disavow the very human realization that our bodies are fundamentally sexual in nature. Nudism is not about sterilizing life. It's about having a healthier approach to our bodies. Which means not denying basic truths (and in the process lending evidence to the rest of the world's suspicion that we're nutjobs who simultaneously can't keep our clothes on and yet adamantly refuse to acknowledge that there could be anything sexual about it), but just taking responsibility for our actions and maintaining civility in the face of a more natural, down-to-earth mode of living.
[description: video depicting non-contact arousal while laying nude in the sunshine]
In a nudist context, this can be somewhat inconvenient, although I have to wonder why this should necessarily be the case. What does it matter if the pleasure you receive from baring your body to the elements is sexual in nature? Presumably, nudists want to prevent nudist situations from "devolving" into licentious orgies. This is understandable. But if we separate "passively receiving erotic stimulation" from "active sexual behavior", then where is the harm in the former? This kind of sexual stimulation is independent of typical acts like intercourse or often even masturbation. For while I might gently caress or apply pressure to my genitals - simply because it feels good - I don't necessarily have the intention of initiating a full-blown masturbatory session.
This flies in the face of the sexist stereotype of the man who demands sex at the slightest provocation of penile stimulation; but that has never been my reality. Perhaps I am atypical, but insofar as there are people like me, who behave the way I do, I don't see what harm that kind of behavior could possibly do, even in the context of an "asexual" nudist environment. Whether the chemicals coursing through your body - the electrical charges, if you will - are the result of athletics, relaxation, massage, the alcohol in your system, your wife scratching your back, or any other "decent" source you can think of, or if they are erotic in nature, I don't see how there is any difference, aside from an unnatural and unhealthy taboo surrounding anything related to sex.
The same logic can be applied to finding nude bodies sexually appealing. As long as you're not some neanderthal that can't help grabbing your crotch every time you see a naked breast, there's no reason why nudists should disavow the very human realization that our bodies are fundamentally sexual in nature. Nudism is not about sterilizing life. It's about having a healthier approach to our bodies. Which means not denying basic truths (and in the process lending evidence to the rest of the world's suspicion that we're nutjobs who simultaneously can't keep our clothes on and yet adamantly refuse to acknowledge that there could be anything sexual about it), but just taking responsibility for our actions and maintaining civility in the face of a more natural, down-to-earth mode of living.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Helpless
I was chatting with an art aficionado over at deviantART, and he introduced me to a new fetish - something that seems to be referred to as "lift and carry". It's something I'd seen before, browsing through other people's favorites, but this was the first time I'd had a chance to actually talk to someone who has the fetish.
[description: series of b/w portraits of a nude figure draped over a chair]
As an amateur sexologist, I find the mechanisms and diversity of human sexual desire to be fascinating. I'll be the first one to admit that some of those fringe desires seem downright weird to me, but I know this is all subjective, and as a sex-positive activist, one of my goals as an erotic artist is to make people feel more comfortable with their potentially weird desires.
As such, I like to be nonjudgmental, and occasionally enjoy exploring new avenues of erotic expression if it doesn't take me too far outside of my comfort zone. And as far as fetishes go, lift and carry is pretty benign. I don't have any real strong attraction to these particular sorts of poses, but I could certainly see the appeal in them, the same way I am sympathetic to the BDSM scene (in all its diversity), while not necessarily considering myself a true practitioner.
In this case, I think the appeal of the fetish has something to do with helplessness - being carried limp in another person's arms (I had to shoot these "draped" over a chair because my photography is a solitary craft). There's a power dynamic - dominant/submissive, strong/weak, alive/dead. But it could be viewed in sympathetic terms - one person taking care of another. Power imbalances are not intrinsically negative, or abusive. They place a lot of responsibility on the one with more power, but it makes the relationship all the sweeter when that person cares enough about the other not to abuse that dynamic, but to use it instead to protect and guide them. (Of course, power abuse is its own kind of fetish, but I don't believe that should be the default assumption in these cases).
Then again, there could just be some aesthetic appeal to these poses. I, for one, already appreciate the way the body looks when it's all stretched out - back arched, arms above the head. It emphasizes the bone structure - which not everybody likes, but I find appealing (when not taken to unnatural extremes).
Anyway, I have to admit to a curiosity about what it is - in our psychology or whatever - that makes us drawn to certain types of things. People with fetishes can often (although not necessarily always) recall experiences early in their lives related to the subject of their fetish - e.g., watching some old horror movie where the monster lifts the damsel in distress.
But what makes me wonder is whether it's the experience that molds the fetish (imprinting on a person's mind in their formative years), or if it's the dormant fetish that's actually responsible for a person finding themselves drawn to these moments in the first place. Kind of a nature vs. nurture question, I guess.
But if you can have two kids watch the same cartoon where the villain ties some girl to the train tracks, and one of them grows up to have a bondage fetish, and the other one doesn't, that seems to suggest to me that there's something already there in the psychology that's merely being triggered, and not entirely manufactured by the stimulus. As I said, human sexuality is a fascinating thing.
[description: series of b/w portraits of a nude figure draped over a chair]
As an amateur sexologist, I find the mechanisms and diversity of human sexual desire to be fascinating. I'll be the first one to admit that some of those fringe desires seem downright weird to me, but I know this is all subjective, and as a sex-positive activist, one of my goals as an erotic artist is to make people feel more comfortable with their potentially weird desires.
As such, I like to be nonjudgmental, and occasionally enjoy exploring new avenues of erotic expression if it doesn't take me too far outside of my comfort zone. And as far as fetishes go, lift and carry is pretty benign. I don't have any real strong attraction to these particular sorts of poses, but I could certainly see the appeal in them, the same way I am sympathetic to the BDSM scene (in all its diversity), while not necessarily considering myself a true practitioner.
In this case, I think the appeal of the fetish has something to do with helplessness - being carried limp in another person's arms (I had to shoot these "draped" over a chair because my photography is a solitary craft). There's a power dynamic - dominant/submissive, strong/weak, alive/dead. But it could be viewed in sympathetic terms - one person taking care of another. Power imbalances are not intrinsically negative, or abusive. They place a lot of responsibility on the one with more power, but it makes the relationship all the sweeter when that person cares enough about the other not to abuse that dynamic, but to use it instead to protect and guide them. (Of course, power abuse is its own kind of fetish, but I don't believe that should be the default assumption in these cases).
Then again, there could just be some aesthetic appeal to these poses. I, for one, already appreciate the way the body looks when it's all stretched out - back arched, arms above the head. It emphasizes the bone structure - which not everybody likes, but I find appealing (when not taken to unnatural extremes).
Anyway, I have to admit to a curiosity about what it is - in our psychology or whatever - that makes us drawn to certain types of things. People with fetishes can often (although not necessarily always) recall experiences early in their lives related to the subject of their fetish - e.g., watching some old horror movie where the monster lifts the damsel in distress.
But what makes me wonder is whether it's the experience that molds the fetish (imprinting on a person's mind in their formative years), or if it's the dormant fetish that's actually responsible for a person finding themselves drawn to these moments in the first place. Kind of a nature vs. nurture question, I guess.
But if you can have two kids watch the same cartoon where the villain ties some girl to the train tracks, and one of them grows up to have a bondage fetish, and the other one doesn't, that seems to suggest to me that there's something already there in the psychology that's merely being triggered, and not entirely manufactured by the stimulus. As I said, human sexuality is a fascinating thing.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Filtering
I'd been sitting on this theme for a long time, but I wanted to shoot it last (yes, this is the last planned shot in the Why Nudism? series - I managed to complete it within a year!) because it stands out in the sense that, while every other shot highlights a reason to practice nudism, this one emphasizes the importance of a nudist to be able to overcome the hangups that prevent textiles from practicing nudism.
[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars over chest and hips]
I knew I wanted it to be a play on the black censor bar cliché; the only question was where to shoot it. I picked this spot because it provides a nice, clean background (plus, I think nudity has slightly more oomph when it's outdoors), but it turned out to be a great complement to the theme of the shot, because the lines behind me kind of look like the backdrop to a police lineup, even down to me holding a black board in front of me! A little nod, perhaps, to all the legal issues that are involved when it comes to nudity.
Anyway, I was thinking about the subject of censorship in preparation for this shoot, and I came across an article [broken link] arguing that censorship is good for photography. Basically, because it maintains the "shock value" of controversial images. I don't necessarily agree that the need for censorship is good for photography (i.e., that art wouldn't flourish in a more liberated culture) - although I cannot deny that there is some satisfaction in violating taboos - but I'm inclined to agree that artists should not be so quick to decry the censoring of photography (e.g., adding black bars to a nude photograph), at least insofar as it enables controversial (albeit modified) images to reach wider audiences, who then still have the option of accessing the original work. Certainly, though frustrating it may sometimes be, I feel like I have only grown as an artist by catering to the slightly less liberated audience of deviantART (provided I still have other outlets for my more risqué works).
But that, really, is a pretty narrow context for censorship, and what I would argue constitutes something closer to a form of filtering, than the active suppression of speech that the term "censorship" is usually linked to. Censorship, in its truest form, is somebody (whether it's the government or not) dictating what you're allowed to see/read/consume. It may involve actual destruction of information - as in the iconic example of book-burning - or, more commonly, a destructive modification to the source material (e.g., applying the black marker). Even the simple act of a gatekeeper preventing certain materials from reaching an audience can be considered censorship. The common theme in all of these cases is that somebody else is making a decision for you about what kind of information you're allowed to be exposed to, whether or not you have knowingly and willingly granted them this authority.
Filtering, by contrast - while sometimes having the superficial appearance of censorship - distinguishes itself from that practice by preserving the individual's choice. It recognizes that some subjects are contentious and potentially offensive, and that a significant portion of the population may prefer not to be exposed to them without warning. It makes no moral or ethical judgments about the effects certain kinds of information may have on people. It merely lets the individual decide for themself what they're comfortable with. For this to be possible, there must always be some kind of click-through enabling the viewer to consciously choose, if they so desire, to view the original, uncensored work.
[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars to the side, exposing what was behind them]
I feel a bit like I'm taking the devil's advocate position here, as I am not a fan of trigger warnings and "safe spaces" - and I still think the marginalization of sexual speech does the subject a severe disfavor - but as I've said in the past, I'm willing to make reasonable compromises, and though I consider myself to be somewhat radical in terms of some of my beliefs, I still believe that the moderate position is usually the sanest and most advisable one. So as an alternative to "hard-line" censorship, I'm willing to live with a filtering system (as I did, mostly happily, during my flickr years) as an acceptable compromise, if not the ideal situation (which would be a more tolerant and open-minded culture).
Now, when I say that there must be a click-through to the uncensored work, I will allow that this may involve cooperation between separate sites/companies. A website needn't permit the hosting of information it deems objectionable, as long as there exists an alternative host, and the filtering site does not actively obstruct access to it. A site that prohibits linking to the original, on the other hand (as deviantART not only prohibits the hosting of "pornographic" content, but also the posting of links to sites that include pornographic content), is engaging in active censorship. The crucial difference is the preservation of choice. You may place the controversial materials behind a curtain, but not a locked door. Because you still have the freedom to pull back the curtain if you wish.
Unfortunately, what makes sexuality (and also nudity, insofar as our culture links it with sexuality) different from other forms of speech - such as crude language and violence - is the fact that there are laws with potentially severe penalties for anyone responsible for allowing minors to access such content. Choice has been removed from the equation, and the government has unilaterally (and in opposition to science and reality) deemed such speech a public menace. You may be criticized by your peers for letting your preteen watch an R-rated movie, but nobody's going to jail or losing custody of their children over it. For those of us, however, who recognize that the human body is not synonymous with sexual activity, and, to go even further, that knowledge of the carnal act is not toxic in the same way that other forms of potentially offensive speech (e.g., hate speech) may be, this is a distinctly frustrating state of affairs.
[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars over chest and hips]
I knew I wanted it to be a play on the black censor bar cliché; the only question was where to shoot it. I picked this spot because it provides a nice, clean background (plus, I think nudity has slightly more oomph when it's outdoors), but it turned out to be a great complement to the theme of the shot, because the lines behind me kind of look like the backdrop to a police lineup, even down to me holding a black board in front of me! A little nod, perhaps, to all the legal issues that are involved when it comes to nudity.
Anyway, I was thinking about the subject of censorship in preparation for this shoot, and I came across an article [broken link] arguing that censorship is good for photography. Basically, because it maintains the "shock value" of controversial images. I don't necessarily agree that the need for censorship is good for photography (i.e., that art wouldn't flourish in a more liberated culture) - although I cannot deny that there is some satisfaction in violating taboos - but I'm inclined to agree that artists should not be so quick to decry the censoring of photography (e.g., adding black bars to a nude photograph), at least insofar as it enables controversial (albeit modified) images to reach wider audiences, who then still have the option of accessing the original work. Certainly, though frustrating it may sometimes be, I feel like I have only grown as an artist by catering to the slightly less liberated audience of deviantART (provided I still have other outlets for my more risqué works).
But that, really, is a pretty narrow context for censorship, and what I would argue constitutes something closer to a form of filtering, than the active suppression of speech that the term "censorship" is usually linked to. Censorship, in its truest form, is somebody (whether it's the government or not) dictating what you're allowed to see/read/consume. It may involve actual destruction of information - as in the iconic example of book-burning - or, more commonly, a destructive modification to the source material (e.g., applying the black marker). Even the simple act of a gatekeeper preventing certain materials from reaching an audience can be considered censorship. The common theme in all of these cases is that somebody else is making a decision for you about what kind of information you're allowed to be exposed to, whether or not you have knowingly and willingly granted them this authority.
Filtering, by contrast - while sometimes having the superficial appearance of censorship - distinguishes itself from that practice by preserving the individual's choice. It recognizes that some subjects are contentious and potentially offensive, and that a significant portion of the population may prefer not to be exposed to them without warning. It makes no moral or ethical judgments about the effects certain kinds of information may have on people. It merely lets the individual decide for themself what they're comfortable with. For this to be possible, there must always be some kind of click-through enabling the viewer to consciously choose, if they so desire, to view the original, uncensored work.
[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars to the side, exposing what was behind them]
I feel a bit like I'm taking the devil's advocate position here, as I am not a fan of trigger warnings and "safe spaces" - and I still think the marginalization of sexual speech does the subject a severe disfavor - but as I've said in the past, I'm willing to make reasonable compromises, and though I consider myself to be somewhat radical in terms of some of my beliefs, I still believe that the moderate position is usually the sanest and most advisable one. So as an alternative to "hard-line" censorship, I'm willing to live with a filtering system (as I did, mostly happily, during my flickr years) as an acceptable compromise, if not the ideal situation (which would be a more tolerant and open-minded culture).
Now, when I say that there must be a click-through to the uncensored work, I will allow that this may involve cooperation between separate sites/companies. A website needn't permit the hosting of information it deems objectionable, as long as there exists an alternative host, and the filtering site does not actively obstruct access to it. A site that prohibits linking to the original, on the other hand (as deviantART not only prohibits the hosting of "pornographic" content, but also the posting of links to sites that include pornographic content), is engaging in active censorship. The crucial difference is the preservation of choice. You may place the controversial materials behind a curtain, but not a locked door. Because you still have the freedom to pull back the curtain if you wish.
Unfortunately, what makes sexuality (and also nudity, insofar as our culture links it with sexuality) different from other forms of speech - such as crude language and violence - is the fact that there are laws with potentially severe penalties for anyone responsible for allowing minors to access such content. Choice has been removed from the equation, and the government has unilaterally (and in opposition to science and reality) deemed such speech a public menace. You may be criticized by your peers for letting your preteen watch an R-rated movie, but nobody's going to jail or losing custody of their children over it. For those of us, however, who recognize that the human body is not synonymous with sexual activity, and, to go even further, that knowledge of the carnal act is not toxic in the same way that other forms of potentially offensive speech (e.g., hate speech) may be, this is a distinctly frustrating state of affairs.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Why Nudism? (Part 25)
[description: the central figure in a nude lineup removes his censor bars]
Because I have nothing to hide.
Because I have nothing to hide.
There are a lot of practical reasons to go naked in specific situations (which I hope this project has underlined), but pragmatism isn't always the only or the most important factor in a person's decision on what to wear. You could be hot, you could be uncomfortable, you could be inconvenienced, but all of these could be worthwhile costs if you place some kind of metaphysical importance on covering your nakedness. So it's important to acknowledge that not only may nudists have good reason to go naked, but that they also lack significant reason not to.
I think this is what spooks a lot of people about nudists - that they lack the common "decency" to cover up. But a nudist would argue that this is an arbitrary taboo, and that there is really nothing indecent, threatening, or "sinful" about uncovering one's nakedness in front of others. In fact, it can be very healthy - not just physically, but also psychologically. And whatever justifications you can come up with for keeping yourself covered, there are justifications for not hiding who you are under your clothes that are no less legitimate. In the end, it really comes down to a matter of personal preference.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Discount Bikini
So I found this mesh-style bikini sold in a bargain bin for $2.50 a piece at Walmart. A whole bikini for just 5 bucks? I had to get one! 'Course, then I realized you can probably find better quality swim separates on the 1 dollar clearance rack at your favorite overstock/discount store. Except, the problem there is that you can never find two pieces that match, leaving you to have to get creative and hope for the best...
Looking at a bikini like this, it never ceases to amaze me that girls can actually get away with wearing this little to go swimming. I'm so jealous. If we lived in a speedo culture, things would be a lot more even, but you must be bored of me saying that by now.
I picked up a pair of the bottoms in a small, but in hindsight, I think I should have picked up a medium (every time I've been back to the store since, they've been sold out of that size and color, and have yet to restock). They're awfully snug. Especially with the meat I'm packing. I mean, they're sexy - yeah. But they're not comfy, and they're definitely not "street legal". Ah, the curse of being male...
[description: portrait of a torso modeling a dark pink mesh bikini outdoors]
Photography note: It's terrible when I go so far as to set up my camera, and then decide to just use my phone instead, because it takes better pictures (although I ultimately decided that a video was the best way to showcase this swimsuit). And it's not just a matter of laziness - having to manually work out the proper exposure. Granted, my camera is pretty old technology, by the standards of rapid growth in this industry, but I'd have to take multiple exposures and merge them in Photoshop, when my phone handles high dynamic range on the fly (with quite satisfactory results). Which means less time fiddling with machines, and more time being creative. And lately, my time for photoshoots has been in criminally short supply.
Looking at a bikini like this, it never ceases to amaze me that girls can actually get away with wearing this little to go swimming. I'm so jealous. If we lived in a speedo culture, things would be a lot more even, but you must be bored of me saying that by now.
I picked up a pair of the bottoms in a small, but in hindsight, I think I should have picked up a medium (every time I've been back to the store since, they've been sold out of that size and color, and have yet to restock). They're awfully snug. Especially with the meat I'm packing. I mean, they're sexy - yeah. But they're not comfy, and they're definitely not "street legal". Ah, the curse of being male...
[description: portrait of a torso modeling a dark pink mesh bikini outdoors]
Photography note: It's terrible when I go so far as to set up my camera, and then decide to just use my phone instead, because it takes better pictures (although I ultimately decided that a video was the best way to showcase this swimsuit). And it's not just a matter of laziness - having to manually work out the proper exposure. Granted, my camera is pretty old technology, by the standards of rapid growth in this industry, but I'd have to take multiple exposures and merge them in Photoshop, when my phone handles high dynamic range on the fly (with quite satisfactory results). Which means less time fiddling with machines, and more time being creative. And lately, my time for photoshoots has been in criminally short supply.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Tan-Through Swimwear
Despite being a nudist, I'm not really into the tanning culture. In fact, I prefer my skin to be pale. But there's no way to avoid being out in the sunshine during the summer. And while I try to be diligent about applying sunscreen, I can only do so within reason, and it's inevitable that I'll end up getting some sun. Especially given that I like to use the heat as an excuse to wear very little. Naturally, the parts of my body that get more frequent exposure are going to get the most sun, and even in spite of my enjoyment of nude recreation (when possible), I always seem to end up with a noticeably pale ass by the end of the season.
[description: series of portraits modeling a brown, tiger-stripe, tan-through swim brief]
I was thinking about ways to avoid that, when I remembered something I'd read about tan-through swimwear. Made from a translucent, mesh-like material, it allows for sunlight to pass through while maintaining an opaque appearance against your skin, so you can get all the tanning benefits even when you can't risk full exposure. I figured it would be something I could wear in the sunshine when I can't be nude, to work on evening out my tan!
Plus, I'll admit, it's kind of fun knowing you're basically wearing nothing but a see-through mesh against your skin, while no one is the wiser. The Kiniki brand carries tan-through swimsuits in a variety of styles (running the gamut from shorts to thongs for men, and one-pieces to string bikinis for women - although, curiously, I found no thongs for women), including various wraps, sarongs, and coverups. I'd be tempted to buy a whole wardrobe's worth of beachwear, except that some of it can be fairly expensive (especially the larger pieces).
So I started out with a simple pair of swim briefs to try, in a classic tiger-stripe pattern (if the patterns look a bit busy, it's because this helps them to appear opaque against your skin). They're very comfortable, and boast a quicker drying time than regular swimsuits (no doubt because there is less fabric to dry). And they really are quite convincing! Which is even more impressive after getting a look at them unworn, and seeing how translucent the mesh is. If you stare at it closely, you might pick up a hint of detail, but really, who's going to be scrutinizing you that closely? And even if they do, I daresay the view would still be sufficiently ambiguous (especially compared to some regular swimsuits I've seen while wet).
As some critics like to note, one potential drawback to wearing this kind of swimwear is that you'll obviously want to apply sunscreen even to the parts that are covered up. This may not be a problem at home or in the changing room before you put the suit on, but after you've been lying out in the sun for a couple of hours, you might find it pretty awkward to reapply that sunscreen in public. To be fair, it's worth noting that if you're wearing this kind of suit, it's probably because you want the sun exposure (i.e., you're trying to tan), which pretty much makes this a moot point.
I'm going to have to have a word with that tag, though. It's in a very awkward spot, and keeps sticking out. Even if you make the effort to tuck it away, every time you run your finger along the back of the suit to straighten it out (which is a fairly common habit), it just pops right out again. If that's not intentional self-advertising, then it's a serious design flaw. I wonder if the tag is tan-through, too. Because that would be an awkward tan line to have to explain... x.x
As for whether this suit will solve my tan line problem, I have my doubts - but that's not the suit's fault. I'd really have to wear it regularly, whenever I'm out in the sun without a full coat of sunscreen, and that's not always going to be practical. That's partly the reason I considered also getting a coverup of some kind (until I took a closer look at the prices). I could perhaps wear these briefs to go swimming (if not for the anti-speedo discrimination I frequently face) - although that's one of those cases where I'm more likely to be wearing sunscreen. I can wear it in the garden at home, but it might not fly for casual exercise and recreation at public parks, not to mention coming in and out of stores and restaurants and the like.
Because, ultimately, I could wear it five days a week, but if I've still got shorts on (among other things) the other two days, my butt may turn out to be tanner than usual, but it's still going to be a shade or two lighter than the rest of my body (which is the same problem I have down the middle of my back, where my hair usually rests). What I could do is deliberately lay out in the sun to tan (although I don't want to be any darker than necessary), especially if I put sunscreen on the parts of my body that get more regular exposure, leaving my butt unprotected. But honestly, that sounds like a lot of work, and I don't care about my tan that much. I still think this suit is a fun thing to own, though. I'm glad I bought it!
[description: series of portraits modeling a brown, tiger-stripe, tan-through swim brief]
I was thinking about ways to avoid that, when I remembered something I'd read about tan-through swimwear. Made from a translucent, mesh-like material, it allows for sunlight to pass through while maintaining an opaque appearance against your skin, so you can get all the tanning benefits even when you can't risk full exposure. I figured it would be something I could wear in the sunshine when I can't be nude, to work on evening out my tan!
Plus, I'll admit, it's kind of fun knowing you're basically wearing nothing but a see-through mesh against your skin, while no one is the wiser. The Kiniki brand carries tan-through swimsuits in a variety of styles (running the gamut from shorts to thongs for men, and one-pieces to string bikinis for women - although, curiously, I found no thongs for women), including various wraps, sarongs, and coverups. I'd be tempted to buy a whole wardrobe's worth of beachwear, except that some of it can be fairly expensive (especially the larger pieces).
So I started out with a simple pair of swim briefs to try, in a classic tiger-stripe pattern (if the patterns look a bit busy, it's because this helps them to appear opaque against your skin). They're very comfortable, and boast a quicker drying time than regular swimsuits (no doubt because there is less fabric to dry). And they really are quite convincing! Which is even more impressive after getting a look at them unworn, and seeing how translucent the mesh is. If you stare at it closely, you might pick up a hint of detail, but really, who's going to be scrutinizing you that closely? And even if they do, I daresay the view would still be sufficiently ambiguous (especially compared to some regular swimsuits I've seen while wet).
As some critics like to note, one potential drawback to wearing this kind of swimwear is that you'll obviously want to apply sunscreen even to the parts that are covered up. This may not be a problem at home or in the changing room before you put the suit on, but after you've been lying out in the sun for a couple of hours, you might find it pretty awkward to reapply that sunscreen in public. To be fair, it's worth noting that if you're wearing this kind of suit, it's probably because you want the sun exposure (i.e., you're trying to tan), which pretty much makes this a moot point.
I'm going to have to have a word with that tag, though. It's in a very awkward spot, and keeps sticking out. Even if you make the effort to tuck it away, every time you run your finger along the back of the suit to straighten it out (which is a fairly common habit), it just pops right out again. If that's not intentional self-advertising, then it's a serious design flaw. I wonder if the tag is tan-through, too. Because that would be an awkward tan line to have to explain... x.x
As for whether this suit will solve my tan line problem, I have my doubts - but that's not the suit's fault. I'd really have to wear it regularly, whenever I'm out in the sun without a full coat of sunscreen, and that's not always going to be practical. That's partly the reason I considered also getting a coverup of some kind (until I took a closer look at the prices). I could perhaps wear these briefs to go swimming (if not for the anti-speedo discrimination I frequently face) - although that's one of those cases where I'm more likely to be wearing sunscreen. I can wear it in the garden at home, but it might not fly for casual exercise and recreation at public parks, not to mention coming in and out of stores and restaurants and the like.
Because, ultimately, I could wear it five days a week, but if I've still got shorts on (among other things) the other two days, my butt may turn out to be tanner than usual, but it's still going to be a shade or two lighter than the rest of my body (which is the same problem I have down the middle of my back, where my hair usually rests). What I could do is deliberately lay out in the sun to tan (although I don't want to be any darker than necessary), especially if I put sunscreen on the parts of my body that get more regular exposure, leaving my butt unprotected. But honestly, that sounds like a lot of work, and I don't care about my tan that much. I still think this suit is a fun thing to own, though. I'm glad I bought it!
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Why Nudism? (Part 24)
[description: the contours of a man's body are visible through the fabric of a fancy dress]
Because I don't want to be defined by the clothes I wear.
Because I don't want to be defined by the clothes I wear.
Nudism is an equalizer. By coming together, stripped of all the outward signifiers of our social status, we emphasize our common humanity. Whether you're a doctor, a secretary, a construction worker, a lawyer, or a janitor, we all look pretty much the same under our clothes. Granted, there is a limit to how effective this philosophy is in practice - because, in truth, people judge one another on many factors beyond our clothing, including our possessions (such as the car we own), body type, grooming habits, jewelry and tattoos, and not least of all the coverage of our tan. But one of the great reliefs of nudism is the freedom from the pressure not just to have to decide what to wear, but of having to impress people with the way you dress. You don't need to put on makeup or a tie to earn the respect of other nudists. You don't even have to put on pants! Just come as you are, and you'll be accepted no matter what you look like.
I know that, for me - as a gender non-conforming individual - there is a lot of pressure in the textile world to adhere to gendered stereotypes, and a constant fear associated with trying to "pass". I very much enjoy donning the outward appearance of a girl, but it is a great relief to be able, in a nudist context, to simply be myself, without having to telegraph my identity through the clothes I choose to wear. I may not look conventional even in my birthday suit, but when everything's hanging out, there are no lingering questions on people's minds - such as "is that a boy or a girl? I wonder what genitals they have." I don't feel like I'm concealing a potentially outrageous secret, either - everything's on the table; there are no games to be played, and you can either take me as I am, or leave me alone.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Peeking In
[description: a clothed figure peeks in through a window at a naked person on a bed]
I don't know if these shots have quite the impact I was going for, but maybe it's just because I'm the one who shot them and I know that it's two clones and not really one person peeking in on another person. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was rushed. I hate having to perform my photography "in a flash" - it doesn't give me time to really work out a concept and push myself through to the next level of shots that are going to be (one hopes) truly outstanding.
Another thing is that even though the concept calls for a clothed person outside the window, I found (as I often find as a photographer of the nude body) the poses and form of my body while nude to be far more aesthetically interesting. But if the person outside the window is already naked, it kind of ruins the impact of them peeking in the window to see somebody naked inside, when they're already naked outside! (It's the whole idea that you don't need to go peeping in a nudist environment because everything is already on full display)...
Now, I'm not normally in the habit of photoshopping out what you might call the body's "perfect imperfections" (i.e., moles, wrinkles, and the like) - except when they're noticeably distracting, or if it's something impermanent and unsightly, like a blemish. Obviously, I'm not saying that my photography isn't carefully constructed to present my model "in the best light", as it were, but on the other hand, I absolutely eschew the "airbrushed" mentality that is so popular in professional, commercial photography which aims to take a real person and turn it into a plastic fantasy.
[description: portrait of a naked torso, seen from the back]
Nevertheless, I thought the many moles on my back were distracting in this photo, so I felt compelled to go in and remove them all just to see how it looked. A shot like this really emphasizes the broadness of my shoulders - which I don't like, because it's one of my more masculine features. Perhaps this is a gross exaggeration, but I look at this image and it makes me think of a broad-shouldered monster from some old cartoon (something like Gossamer or the Hyde-like monster that Tweety transforms into, except that in my head the monster was blue)...
I don't know if these shots have quite the impact I was going for, but maybe it's just because I'm the one who shot them and I know that it's two clones and not really one person peeking in on another person. Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was rushed. I hate having to perform my photography "in a flash" - it doesn't give me time to really work out a concept and push myself through to the next level of shots that are going to be (one hopes) truly outstanding.
Another thing is that even though the concept calls for a clothed person outside the window, I found (as I often find as a photographer of the nude body) the poses and form of my body while nude to be far more aesthetically interesting. But if the person outside the window is already naked, it kind of ruins the impact of them peeking in the window to see somebody naked inside, when they're already naked outside! (It's the whole idea that you don't need to go peeping in a nudist environment because everything is already on full display)...
[description: a naked man stands beside a window, while another nude figure stands outside]
Inside or out?
Inside or out?
Now, I'm not normally in the habit of photoshopping out what you might call the body's "perfect imperfections" (i.e., moles, wrinkles, and the like) - except when they're noticeably distracting, or if it's something impermanent and unsightly, like a blemish. Obviously, I'm not saying that my photography isn't carefully constructed to present my model "in the best light", as it were, but on the other hand, I absolutely eschew the "airbrushed" mentality that is so popular in professional, commercial photography which aims to take a real person and turn it into a plastic fantasy.
[description: portrait of a naked torso, seen from the back]
Nevertheless, I thought the many moles on my back were distracting in this photo, so I felt compelled to go in and remove them all just to see how it looked. A shot like this really emphasizes the broadness of my shoulders - which I don't like, because it's one of my more masculine features. Perhaps this is a gross exaggeration, but I look at this image and it makes me think of a broad-shouldered monster from some old cartoon (something like Gossamer or the Hyde-like monster that Tweety transforms into, except that in my head the monster was blue)...
Friday, June 1, 2018
Top Google Results - "no speedos" rule
Note: this Google survey of cultural attitudes towards different types of swimwear for women and men is a followup to a previous post.
I typed "no speedos" rule (with the "no speedos" part in quotes) into a Google search and then surveyed the first page of results. Here is a summary of what I found, with my comments added:
1. No Speedos Humorous Pool Sign
A novelty sign depicting a "no speedos" rule, for sale. Described as humorous because isn't it hilarious, the very idea of a man wearing briefs for a swimsuit? Those crazy Europeans... I'll tell you, the only place I'd find a "no speedos" sign humorous is if it was hanging up at a "nude only" swimming pool.
2. The Fast Lane: Lounge rules — no Speedos
A snarky article that appears to be poking fun at the dress code rules enacted by Australian airline Qantas, focusing on what constitutes appropriate clothing in their lounges. The specific rules are not reprinted in the article, although I did find this via an independent Google search. The guidelines do not single out speedos - in fact, they mention beachwear generally, and the more modest "boardshorts" in particular. These rules may be a bit smarmy, but given that this is not even a pool or beach, or an area in direct proximity to someplace where people go swimming, I don't know that I would even call this relevant. McDonald's insists that you wear a shirt and shoes inside their restaurant, but that's hardly related to what kind of swimsuits men and women are permitted to wear while swimming - even, potentially, on the same block.
3. Men's Swimming attire in pools
Interestingly, this is a concerned traveler asking whether or not there will be a "speedos only" rule at pools in Egypt (as encountered some places in Europe), as the poster's husband and sons prefer to wear shorts. Only in Europe, am I right? Clearly, this whole discussion is the result not of somebody questioning whether they can wear a speedo, but of the anxiety that they might have to wear one. Because that would just be a nightmare, right? Comments feature your typical rundown of people shocked (and terrified) of the thought of being forced to wear a speedo, with some people even (predictably) calling for them to be outright banned. I get it, you don't like the idea of wearing a speedo. You're probably not very comfortable in your skin. Buy why is that a good justification for preventing other people (some of us in good shape, thank you very much) from wearing them?
4. Mom Fights School Policy That Says Girls "Must" Wear T-Shirts at Pool
This result just goes to show that women's issues dominate the conversation even when you're trying to talk about men's issues. According to the author, a mother in Indiana encountered a sixth grade pool party which required girls to wear a non-white t-shirt over their swimsuits. There was no similar rule for boys - other than your typical "no speedos" clause - highlighting the inequality. The mother fought back (the principal claimed the rule was a punitive response to some girls wearing "very inappropriate" swimsuits in the past), and remarkably, the school relented, changing their policy to make the t-shirts optional. Although, the question remains what the school considers "appropriate swimwear" for girls, because if they can wear bikinis now but boys still can't wear speedos, then that's not very fair.
5. No Capes - Chapter 2 - No Speedos, please
This is yet another example of a result not concerned with the discussion of actual swimwear restrictions. This could be the case because the rule itself is not that common (so people aren't going to talk about it), or because few people have reason to protest it, unlike the feminist masses who crawl out of the woodwork anytime somebody tries to tell girls what they can and cannot wear. This, instead, is a fictional story that begins with the sentence, "there is nothing more ridiculous than a man wearing a Speedo." Ugh. It even goes on - in as soon as the second paragraph - to acknowledge that this is not because "the guys on my team couldn't pull them off." So, if somebody looks good in a speedo, then what, exactly, is so ridiculous about them wearing it? Are guys not allowed to look attractive? To show off their bodies, the way women do? I would suspect that this is little more than the result of culturally-ingrained homophobia, except for the sheer volume of women who internalize this attitude, too. To demonstrate: I can't speak as to the author, but the narrator in this story is female.
6. speedos & eurocamping in france
Another complaint about a "speedos only" rule - this time at a French campsite. I'd say that I should totally move to France, but if I'm going to go all that way, there's no reason for me not to simply pick an area that's nudist-friendly! It's so weird to think about how much things are flipped. In one country, you show up in a speedo where everybody's wearing shorts, and you get kicked out. In another country, you show up in shorts where everybody's wearing speedos, and you get kicked out. It's so arbitrary. Can't we just leave some room for diversity, and let the people who prefer to wear shorts wear shorts, and let the people who prefer to wear speedos wear speedos? It's not that hard, people...
7. Swimming Pool Dress Code?
I don't like to lean on stereotypes, but this is one case where the stereotype has proven true - Homeowners Associations are a nightmare. On this forum, a member (Anna) asks whether anyone else has dress codes for their pool areas, after getting complaints about "young girls" (why is it relevant that they're young? I don't think she's talking about kids here) wearing "t-backs" (a type of thong - fairly scandalous), and "old men" (of course they're old. I bet they're overweight, too...) wearing speedos.
Ugh. We've finally encountered someone comparing women's thongs to men's briefs (a later comment reads, "Speedos are the male version of the females Butt Floss (g strings)"). How is this fair? I mean, from a popularity standpoint, it's not surprising. Thongs are the next step beyond regular bikinis for women, and briefs are similarly the next step beyond the shorts most men wear to go swimming. But this just highlights the inequality between the sexes. Structurally, men's briefs are comparable to the women's bikini. Thongs, believe it or not, can apply to both sexes equally. Women just have more freedom to expose themselves in public (aside from the nipple issue which topfreedom activists are making headway on).
Anyway, the discussion only devolves further as you scroll down. The very first reply jumps straight to the tired response - nobody over the age of 29 should wear a speedo, to which Anna agrees. (Nice ageism there, Donna - I'm well into my thirties, and I still look great in a speedo, thank you very much). The rest of the comments seem sympathetic, but doubtful about the efficacy of enforcing a stricter dress code (which rather surprises me). But then Anna goes on to out herself as a total racist. She reveals that the "one offender" (I thought there were multiple people, including girls in thongs, or is it just this one person and his many guests?) is European (go figure). She says she's tired of hearing that "Americans are so 'uptight' and 'prudish' about their bodies" (notice the scare quotes). Maybe that's because it's true? Then she goes on to say how she "THOUGHT that American culture was based on morality, decency, dignity, and respect." Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
It gets even worse from there. She suggests that somehow letting the European man do what he's comfortable with infringes on her freedoms, like she's being forced to conform to European standards, when what she really wants is to force the European to conform to her uptight, ostensibly "American" standards. Way to conform to the worst stereotype of the xenophobic American "patriot", Anna. And then she concludes by saying, "I'll get off my soapbox now......before I start on the 'other' people who have had free access to our country." Thank god I don't have to deal with a HOA...
8. Comments on Swimming rules: A slip up in France
A comments page for an article(?) written by a traveler who found, to his dismay, that he was not allowed to wear "Bermuda-style" shorts at a public swimming pool in France. Commenters discuss the possible reasons for this rule (citing hygienic concerns, and the fact that shorts are more likely to be worn as "street clothes" than briefs). Refreshingly, the consensus, for once (albeit not exclusively), is that briefs are superior swimwear to so-called "trunks" (although curiously, this is mixed in with a fair bit of racism directed towards the French). A commenter by the name of Walter Bruno even goes so far as to say, "as an adherent of the classical Greek beauty culture, I abhor Bermuda shorts as unsightly outfits of a degenerated civilization." Amen!
9. 2017 Road Rules Parent Information - Austin Oaks Church
Permission slip and guidelines for some kind of church trip for students. In keeping with the religious theme, modesty is stressed repeatedly, including in choice of swimwear. Guys are required to wear "trunks" - no speedos or jammers. Ladies are "allowed" modest one-piece suits or tankinis - albeit the latter has a caveat: "tops should touch the bottom even with arms raised" (which pretty much defeats the point). I can't find any specific details to suggest what age these kids are supposed to be. As stuffy as these restrictions are, the takeaway, however, is that the rules are attempting to apply fairly to both sexes (although topfreedom activists would rightly have a bone to pick), which is good.
By the way, all this talk about modesty makes me think about how you always have dress code restrictions about how much you have to wear. Why are there never any policies dictating how little must be worn? In an equal society, one should not be either more or less prevalent than the other. Say, for example, "guys: a discernible bulge must be visible", or, "girls: one must be able to draw a line from your neck to your ankles without crossing more than one inch of fabric." Or, "skirts and shorts (for both sexes) must not extend past the fingertips." I don't know. We live in such a sex-negative, gymnophobic society. Why does any of this have to be a bad thing?
[search performed on 5/23/2018]
Tally: Three sites complaining about various "speedos only" rules in Europe, only one of which includes any substantial pro-speedo sentiment. One American HOA member spewing racism against a European neighbor who wears speedos. Two sites dealing with modesty-based rules for both boys and girls, one of which describes activism for girls, while ignoring the boys. Two sites - one a fictional story, and the other a novelty product - treating speedos as a joke. And one site with a dress code irrelevant to swimming.
Though not all of these sites are actively anti-speedo, quite a few of them are, and there is very little support for the suit (and only in a defensive context). Most people are concerned with being forced to wear speedos (in Europe), and ridiculing those who do, while not a single person (other than a few secondary commenters on one site) is celebrating their freedom to do so, or questioning whether to make that choice, in spite of subcultural pushback, as we saw with girls and bikinis.
I'd attribute this to the fact that bikinis are mainstream, while speedos (at least outside of certain parts of Europe) are not. Also, there is more of a cultural backlash against any sort of repression of women. So while there is absolutely an anti-bikini demographic out there, they're not the ones dominating the conversation, and wherever they pop up, there are freedom fighters to shout them down. In contrast, whenever a discussion of speedos pops up (and people don't seem to talk about it as much), the majority chime in to reassure themselves how hilarious and/or disgusting the very idea of it is. Even a fit, twenty year old swimmer in a speedo - while reluctantly justified in his choice of attire - is inexplicably considered a "ridiculous" sight. What is wrong with our culture?
It's amazing how much men are stereotypically expected to be unappealing in the flesh. Maybe this is even statistically true, I don't know - we do have a problem with obesity in this country. I know women are traditionally "objectified" more - as much as I hate that term, it's definitely true that women are valued on their appearance, especially from a sexual perspective, more so than men. If I say "naked woman", the first thing most people are going to think of is some hot model with a perfect beach body. Thanks, media. But if I say "naked man", chances are, most people are going to picture an overweight, older gentleman, and have a hard time deciding whether to laugh or vomit. What do you think this does to men's body image? You think being compared to perfection is the only unhealthy way to view your body? This has definitely been more of a minefield than the "no bikinis" survey.
I typed "no speedos" rule (with the "no speedos" part in quotes) into a Google search and then surveyed the first page of results. Here is a summary of what I found, with my comments added:
1. No Speedos Humorous Pool Sign
A novelty sign depicting a "no speedos" rule, for sale. Described as humorous because isn't it hilarious, the very idea of a man wearing briefs for a swimsuit? Those crazy Europeans... I'll tell you, the only place I'd find a "no speedos" sign humorous is if it was hanging up at a "nude only" swimming pool.
2. The Fast Lane: Lounge rules — no Speedos
A snarky article that appears to be poking fun at the dress code rules enacted by Australian airline Qantas, focusing on what constitutes appropriate clothing in their lounges. The specific rules are not reprinted in the article, although I did find this via an independent Google search. The guidelines do not single out speedos - in fact, they mention beachwear generally, and the more modest "boardshorts" in particular. These rules may be a bit smarmy, but given that this is not even a pool or beach, or an area in direct proximity to someplace where people go swimming, I don't know that I would even call this relevant. McDonald's insists that you wear a shirt and shoes inside their restaurant, but that's hardly related to what kind of swimsuits men and women are permitted to wear while swimming - even, potentially, on the same block.
3. Men's Swimming attire in pools
Interestingly, this is a concerned traveler asking whether or not there will be a "speedos only" rule at pools in Egypt (as encountered some places in Europe), as the poster's husband and sons prefer to wear shorts. Only in Europe, am I right? Clearly, this whole discussion is the result not of somebody questioning whether they can wear a speedo, but of the anxiety that they might have to wear one. Because that would just be a nightmare, right? Comments feature your typical rundown of people shocked (and terrified) of the thought of being forced to wear a speedo, with some people even (predictably) calling for them to be outright banned. I get it, you don't like the idea of wearing a speedo. You're probably not very comfortable in your skin. Buy why is that a good justification for preventing other people (some of us in good shape, thank you very much) from wearing them?
4. Mom Fights School Policy That Says Girls "Must" Wear T-Shirts at Pool
This result just goes to show that women's issues dominate the conversation even when you're trying to talk about men's issues. According to the author, a mother in Indiana encountered a sixth grade pool party which required girls to wear a non-white t-shirt over their swimsuits. There was no similar rule for boys - other than your typical "no speedos" clause - highlighting the inequality. The mother fought back (the principal claimed the rule was a punitive response to some girls wearing "very inappropriate" swimsuits in the past), and remarkably, the school relented, changing their policy to make the t-shirts optional. Although, the question remains what the school considers "appropriate swimwear" for girls, because if they can wear bikinis now but boys still can't wear speedos, then that's not very fair.
5. No Capes - Chapter 2 - No Speedos, please
This is yet another example of a result not concerned with the discussion of actual swimwear restrictions. This could be the case because the rule itself is not that common (so people aren't going to talk about it), or because few people have reason to protest it, unlike the feminist masses who crawl out of the woodwork anytime somebody tries to tell girls what they can and cannot wear. This, instead, is a fictional story that begins with the sentence, "there is nothing more ridiculous than a man wearing a Speedo." Ugh. It even goes on - in as soon as the second paragraph - to acknowledge that this is not because "the guys on my team couldn't pull them off." So, if somebody looks good in a speedo, then what, exactly, is so ridiculous about them wearing it? Are guys not allowed to look attractive? To show off their bodies, the way women do? I would suspect that this is little more than the result of culturally-ingrained homophobia, except for the sheer volume of women who internalize this attitude, too. To demonstrate: I can't speak as to the author, but the narrator in this story is female.
6. speedos & eurocamping in france
Another complaint about a "speedos only" rule - this time at a French campsite. I'd say that I should totally move to France, but if I'm going to go all that way, there's no reason for me not to simply pick an area that's nudist-friendly! It's so weird to think about how much things are flipped. In one country, you show up in a speedo where everybody's wearing shorts, and you get kicked out. In another country, you show up in shorts where everybody's wearing speedos, and you get kicked out. It's so arbitrary. Can't we just leave some room for diversity, and let the people who prefer to wear shorts wear shorts, and let the people who prefer to wear speedos wear speedos? It's not that hard, people...
7. Swimming Pool Dress Code?
I don't like to lean on stereotypes, but this is one case where the stereotype has proven true - Homeowners Associations are a nightmare. On this forum, a member (Anna) asks whether anyone else has dress codes for their pool areas, after getting complaints about "young girls" (why is it relevant that they're young? I don't think she's talking about kids here) wearing "t-backs" (a type of thong - fairly scandalous), and "old men" (of course they're old. I bet they're overweight, too...) wearing speedos.
Ugh. We've finally encountered someone comparing women's thongs to men's briefs (a later comment reads, "Speedos are the male version of the females Butt Floss (g strings)"). How is this fair? I mean, from a popularity standpoint, it's not surprising. Thongs are the next step beyond regular bikinis for women, and briefs are similarly the next step beyond the shorts most men wear to go swimming. But this just highlights the inequality between the sexes. Structurally, men's briefs are comparable to the women's bikini. Thongs, believe it or not, can apply to both sexes equally. Women just have more freedom to expose themselves in public (aside from the nipple issue which topfreedom activists are making headway on).
Anyway, the discussion only devolves further as you scroll down. The very first reply jumps straight to the tired response - nobody over the age of 29 should wear a speedo, to which Anna agrees. (Nice ageism there, Donna - I'm well into my thirties, and I still look great in a speedo, thank you very much). The rest of the comments seem sympathetic, but doubtful about the efficacy of enforcing a stricter dress code (which rather surprises me). But then Anna goes on to out herself as a total racist. She reveals that the "one offender" (I thought there were multiple people, including girls in thongs, or is it just this one person and his many guests?) is European (go figure). She says she's tired of hearing that "Americans are so 'uptight' and 'prudish' about their bodies" (notice the scare quotes). Maybe that's because it's true? Then she goes on to say how she "THOUGHT that American culture was based on morality, decency, dignity, and respect." Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
It gets even worse from there. She suggests that somehow letting the European man do what he's comfortable with infringes on her freedoms, like she's being forced to conform to European standards, when what she really wants is to force the European to conform to her uptight, ostensibly "American" standards. Way to conform to the worst stereotype of the xenophobic American "patriot", Anna. And then she concludes by saying, "I'll get off my soapbox now......before I start on the 'other' people who have had free access to our country." Thank god I don't have to deal with a HOA...
8. Comments on Swimming rules: A slip up in France
A comments page for an article(?) written by a traveler who found, to his dismay, that he was not allowed to wear "Bermuda-style" shorts at a public swimming pool in France. Commenters discuss the possible reasons for this rule (citing hygienic concerns, and the fact that shorts are more likely to be worn as "street clothes" than briefs). Refreshingly, the consensus, for once (albeit not exclusively), is that briefs are superior swimwear to so-called "trunks" (although curiously, this is mixed in with a fair bit of racism directed towards the French). A commenter by the name of Walter Bruno even goes so far as to say, "as an adherent of the classical Greek beauty culture, I abhor Bermuda shorts as unsightly outfits of a degenerated civilization." Amen!
9. 2017 Road Rules Parent Information - Austin Oaks Church
Permission slip and guidelines for some kind of church trip for students. In keeping with the religious theme, modesty is stressed repeatedly, including in choice of swimwear. Guys are required to wear "trunks" - no speedos or jammers. Ladies are "allowed" modest one-piece suits or tankinis - albeit the latter has a caveat: "tops should touch the bottom even with arms raised" (which pretty much defeats the point). I can't find any specific details to suggest what age these kids are supposed to be. As stuffy as these restrictions are, the takeaway, however, is that the rules are attempting to apply fairly to both sexes (although topfreedom activists would rightly have a bone to pick), which is good.
By the way, all this talk about modesty makes me think about how you always have dress code restrictions about how much you have to wear. Why are there never any policies dictating how little must be worn? In an equal society, one should not be either more or less prevalent than the other. Say, for example, "guys: a discernible bulge must be visible", or, "girls: one must be able to draw a line from your neck to your ankles without crossing more than one inch of fabric." Or, "skirts and shorts (for both sexes) must not extend past the fingertips." I don't know. We live in such a sex-negative, gymnophobic society. Why does any of this have to be a bad thing?
[search performed on 5/23/2018]
Tally: Three sites complaining about various "speedos only" rules in Europe, only one of which includes any substantial pro-speedo sentiment. One American HOA member spewing racism against a European neighbor who wears speedos. Two sites dealing with modesty-based rules for both boys and girls, one of which describes activism for girls, while ignoring the boys. Two sites - one a fictional story, and the other a novelty product - treating speedos as a joke. And one site with a dress code irrelevant to swimming.
Though not all of these sites are actively anti-speedo, quite a few of them are, and there is very little support for the suit (and only in a defensive context). Most people are concerned with being forced to wear speedos (in Europe), and ridiculing those who do, while not a single person (other than a few secondary commenters on one site) is celebrating their freedom to do so, or questioning whether to make that choice, in spite of subcultural pushback, as we saw with girls and bikinis.
I'd attribute this to the fact that bikinis are mainstream, while speedos (at least outside of certain parts of Europe) are not. Also, there is more of a cultural backlash against any sort of repression of women. So while there is absolutely an anti-bikini demographic out there, they're not the ones dominating the conversation, and wherever they pop up, there are freedom fighters to shout them down. In contrast, whenever a discussion of speedos pops up (and people don't seem to talk about it as much), the majority chime in to reassure themselves how hilarious and/or disgusting the very idea of it is. Even a fit, twenty year old swimmer in a speedo - while reluctantly justified in his choice of attire - is inexplicably considered a "ridiculous" sight. What is wrong with our culture?
It's amazing how much men are stereotypically expected to be unappealing in the flesh. Maybe this is even statistically true, I don't know - we do have a problem with obesity in this country. I know women are traditionally "objectified" more - as much as I hate that term, it's definitely true that women are valued on their appearance, especially from a sexual perspective, more so than men. If I say "naked woman", the first thing most people are going to think of is some hot model with a perfect beach body. Thanks, media. But if I say "naked man", chances are, most people are going to picture an overweight, older gentleman, and have a hard time deciding whether to laugh or vomit. What do you think this does to men's body image? You think being compared to perfection is the only unhealthy way to view your body? This has definitely been more of a minefield than the "no bikinis" survey.
Top Google Results - "no bikinis" rule
Note: this Google survey of cultural attitudes towards different types of swimwear for women and men is a followup to a previous post.
I typed "no bikinis" rule (with the "no bikinis" part in quotes) into a Google search and then surveyed the first page of results. Here is a summary of what I found, with my comments added:
1. What Do You Think?? a No Bikini Policy??
A mom questioning whether her daughter's friend's mom's "no bikini" rule at their home isn't unnecessarily repressive and overly body-conscious (especially for children - I imagine that the conservative parent wants to keep the child ignorant of the power her body holds, but ironically, ensuring that she keeps it covered up at all times just turns it into the elephant in the room).
2. No bikinis! Wear acceptable dresses in India
An article reporting on a minister warning tourists to "respect" the culture of India and cover up. Referred to in the article as "moral policing". I cannot be sure if this prohibition extends to men as well as women, but only "bikinis" are mentioned (and condemned) by name.
3. No bikinis, booze or cannons: 11 quirky Jersey Shore laws
I could not get the gallery to work properly, but presumably, this site is calling out a "no bikinis" law as quirky - which suggests the point of view that this sort of thing is unusual and undesirable, and worth calling out.
4. Everett: Espresso stand rules are not about the bikini
An article about the "bikini barista" controversy. Specifically points out that the newly-enacted restrictions are limited to work place employees (just as you wouldn't be served coffee at a Starbucks by a girl in a bikini), and aimed at curtailing illegal activity (apparently these places were dealing in prostitution). I don't agree that focusing on what the girls are wearing is the right approach, but that's beside the point. The article explicitly states that this "no bikinis" policy does NOT extend to the beach.
5. bikinis and diet coke... a long post about mormons...
A Mormon discussing the subculture's commitment to modesty (among other things), and whether or not their religious views actually prohibit girls from wearing bikinis (or if it could be considered a matter of interpretation and personal choice). Also questions whether bikinis are really that much less modest than other types of swimwear (which is a fair point - even one piece swimsuits reveal a lot of skin). Note that this article associates a "no bikinis" mindset with a repressive religious perspective (one that the author holds), and yet it is still questioning whether that rule is not too repressive.
6. Are bikinis okay? : latterdaysaints
A reddit post associating bikini anxiety with (again) the Mormon church. The poster is an uncertain male who wishes to buy a bikini for his wife, but isn't sure it would be appropriate for his wife to wear something so revealing, especially in public in front of other people. The poster's anxieties are rooted in concerns about modesty, and the fear of other men looking at her "in a way that might not be good." The consensus among those who replied to this post is largely that the OP should do whatever they feel most comfortable with, and that there are indeed Mormons who wear bikinis (some of them included among the commenters), so that is an option.
7. FACT CHECK: 'Multicultural Beach' Sign in Melbourne Prohibits Pork and Alcohol?
A Snopes article debunking the source of an internet uproar when a sign showed up making very conservative requests of visitors to a beach in Melbourne, Australia - specifically, prohibiting pork and alcohol, as well as dogs and bikinis. The City of Melbourne publicly disavowed the sign, saying it was not one of theirs. The irony is that the requirements are allegedly made to respect "multiculturalism" - albeit by forcing everyone to observe the rules of the most conservative culture. Snopes concludes, however, that this was most likely a racist prank, intended to poke fun at (or possibly incite hatred toward) Muslims, and not an authentic expression of (multi?)cultural zeal.
8. Dubrovnik gets a dress code: wear a bikini and pay a fine
A short article reporting on Dubrovnik's (presumably the Mediterranean city) new policy on fining those who wander from the beach into the city without covering up. I think the policy sounds unnecessarily restrictive. If you don't want to see people in swimsuits in the streets, then don't live next to the beach! But that's beside the point. I think it's safe to assume that the restriction does not extend to the beach, where actual swimming occurs. Moreover, this is the first article that explicitly lumps men and women together under the same rule, even though it's the bikini that gets the headline (and why not?). And it's presumably not just for skimpy swimsuits, either - among the images in the article, there is one that includes two guys in regular board shorts (in Europe? Must be tourists :p).
9. Bikinis are inappropriate??? What is your rule?
A poster on a mommy forum questioning (again) whether another parent's "no bikinis" rule for 8 year olds is common practice. Responses are varied, and while some recommend respecting the rules of the other parent (at least at her house), to my surprise (I had thought that the "mommy blogger" demographic ran conservative), quite a few suggest that whatever a girl likes to wear, and can find that flatters her shape - one piece or two - is a-ok, regardless of age (I guess you could count this one as a victory for the feminists). I would be inclined to agree. Putting so much emphasis on the importance of a young girl to cover up seems perverse. It's no more (and probably much less) her responsibility to deflect "attention" than it is for an adult in a miniskirt. What are we teaching her when we tell her she can't wear certain swimsuits because it will make the boys (or men) leer? Instead, we should be teaching the boys (and men) to be respectful - even in the face of an attractive stimulus.
[search performed on 5/23/2018]
Tally: Two sites questioning whether a "no bikinis" rule is too restrictive, even for children. Two sites featuring Mormons who are wondering if their faith truly forbids wearing bikinis. And five sites reporting on actual rules or laws banning bikinis - two of which don't actually extend to the beach, and one that is just a joke (a joke that wasn't received very well). Of the remaining two, one is singled out as being "quirky" (and it's quite possible that it has either been repealed, or is not actively enforced), and the last one is criticized as "moral policing" by a repressive culture. I'd say that's 9/9 websites in support of people wearing bikinis to go swimming!
I typed "no bikinis" rule (with the "no bikinis" part in quotes) into a Google search and then surveyed the first page of results. Here is a summary of what I found, with my comments added:
1. What Do You Think?? a No Bikini Policy??
A mom questioning whether her daughter's friend's mom's "no bikini" rule at their home isn't unnecessarily repressive and overly body-conscious (especially for children - I imagine that the conservative parent wants to keep the child ignorant of the power her body holds, but ironically, ensuring that she keeps it covered up at all times just turns it into the elephant in the room).
2. No bikinis! Wear acceptable dresses in India
An article reporting on a minister warning tourists to "respect" the culture of India and cover up. Referred to in the article as "moral policing". I cannot be sure if this prohibition extends to men as well as women, but only "bikinis" are mentioned (and condemned) by name.
3. No bikinis, booze or cannons: 11 quirky Jersey Shore laws
I could not get the gallery to work properly, but presumably, this site is calling out a "no bikinis" law as quirky - which suggests the point of view that this sort of thing is unusual and undesirable, and worth calling out.
4. Everett: Espresso stand rules are not about the bikini
An article about the "bikini barista" controversy. Specifically points out that the newly-enacted restrictions are limited to work place employees (just as you wouldn't be served coffee at a Starbucks by a girl in a bikini), and aimed at curtailing illegal activity (apparently these places were dealing in prostitution). I don't agree that focusing on what the girls are wearing is the right approach, but that's beside the point. The article explicitly states that this "no bikinis" policy does NOT extend to the beach.
5. bikinis and diet coke... a long post about mormons...
A Mormon discussing the subculture's commitment to modesty (among other things), and whether or not their religious views actually prohibit girls from wearing bikinis (or if it could be considered a matter of interpretation and personal choice). Also questions whether bikinis are really that much less modest than other types of swimwear (which is a fair point - even one piece swimsuits reveal a lot of skin). Note that this article associates a "no bikinis" mindset with a repressive religious perspective (one that the author holds), and yet it is still questioning whether that rule is not too repressive.
6. Are bikinis okay? : latterdaysaints
A reddit post associating bikini anxiety with (again) the Mormon church. The poster is an uncertain male who wishes to buy a bikini for his wife, but isn't sure it would be appropriate for his wife to wear something so revealing, especially in public in front of other people. The poster's anxieties are rooted in concerns about modesty, and the fear of other men looking at her "in a way that might not be good." The consensus among those who replied to this post is largely that the OP should do whatever they feel most comfortable with, and that there are indeed Mormons who wear bikinis (some of them included among the commenters), so that is an option.
7. FACT CHECK: 'Multicultural Beach' Sign in Melbourne Prohibits Pork and Alcohol?
A Snopes article debunking the source of an internet uproar when a sign showed up making very conservative requests of visitors to a beach in Melbourne, Australia - specifically, prohibiting pork and alcohol, as well as dogs and bikinis. The City of Melbourne publicly disavowed the sign, saying it was not one of theirs. The irony is that the requirements are allegedly made to respect "multiculturalism" - albeit by forcing everyone to observe the rules of the most conservative culture. Snopes concludes, however, that this was most likely a racist prank, intended to poke fun at (or possibly incite hatred toward) Muslims, and not an authentic expression of (multi?)cultural zeal.
8. Dubrovnik gets a dress code: wear a bikini and pay a fine
A short article reporting on Dubrovnik's (presumably the Mediterranean city) new policy on fining those who wander from the beach into the city without covering up. I think the policy sounds unnecessarily restrictive. If you don't want to see people in swimsuits in the streets, then don't live next to the beach! But that's beside the point. I think it's safe to assume that the restriction does not extend to the beach, where actual swimming occurs. Moreover, this is the first article that explicitly lumps men and women together under the same rule, even though it's the bikini that gets the headline (and why not?). And it's presumably not just for skimpy swimsuits, either - among the images in the article, there is one that includes two guys in regular board shorts (in Europe? Must be tourists :p).
9. Bikinis are inappropriate??? What is your rule?
A poster on a mommy forum questioning (again) whether another parent's "no bikinis" rule for 8 year olds is common practice. Responses are varied, and while some recommend respecting the rules of the other parent (at least at her house), to my surprise (I had thought that the "mommy blogger" demographic ran conservative), quite a few suggest that whatever a girl likes to wear, and can find that flatters her shape - one piece or two - is a-ok, regardless of age (I guess you could count this one as a victory for the feminists). I would be inclined to agree. Putting so much emphasis on the importance of a young girl to cover up seems perverse. It's no more (and probably much less) her responsibility to deflect "attention" than it is for an adult in a miniskirt. What are we teaching her when we tell her she can't wear certain swimsuits because it will make the boys (or men) leer? Instead, we should be teaching the boys (and men) to be respectful - even in the face of an attractive stimulus.
[search performed on 5/23/2018]
Tally: Two sites questioning whether a "no bikinis" rule is too restrictive, even for children. Two sites featuring Mormons who are wondering if their faith truly forbids wearing bikinis. And five sites reporting on actual rules or laws banning bikinis - two of which don't actually extend to the beach, and one that is just a joke (a joke that wasn't received very well). Of the remaining two, one is singled out as being "quirky" (and it's quite possible that it has either been repealed, or is not actively enforced), and the last one is criticized as "moral policing" by a repressive culture. I'd say that's 9/9 websites in support of people wearing bikinis to go swimming!
Bikini Body
Now that it's June, and Memorial Day is behind us, I'm sure everybody must be thinking about swimsuit season! I've already bought three new swim briefs for the summer.
Although, it'll be a shame if I don't even get a chance to wear them, considering the "no speedos" rule at my local pool (that has caused me no ending of frustration). How is such a thing even possible in America? Wait, I know - because the "freedom" of businesses to discriminate trumps the equality of opportunity for individuals. But imagine a similar "no bikinis" rule for girls. I bet the feminists would be all over that. In fact, a quick Google search reveals that a "no bikinis" rule is commonly regarded as repressive, and largely associated with religious fundamentalism. A "no speedos" rule, on the other hand, is considered de rigueur (except in Europe, where tourists fret about being required to wear one), and often viewed humorously, as the punchline to a joke. Actually, this is an interesting subject - stay tuned for a more in-depth survey (edit - here you go: part 1 and part 2).
Anyway, men's diversity of styles in swimwear are severely limited as compared to the cornucopia of delights that women have to choose from - and I say that because I know; I've browsed the racks! This is what I'd really like to be wearing at the pool or beach:
[description: portrait of a long-haired man in a sporty, teal bikini]
Although, it'll be a shame if I don't even get a chance to wear them, considering the "no speedos" rule at my local pool (that has caused me no ending of frustration). How is such a thing even possible in America? Wait, I know - because the "freedom" of businesses to discriminate trumps the equality of opportunity for individuals. But imagine a similar "no bikinis" rule for girls. I bet the feminists would be all over that. In fact, a quick Google search reveals that a "no bikinis" rule is commonly regarded as repressive, and largely associated with religious fundamentalism. A "no speedos" rule, on the other hand, is considered de rigueur (except in Europe, where tourists fret about being required to wear one), and often viewed humorously, as the punchline to a joke. Actually, this is an interesting subject - stay tuned for a more in-depth survey (edit - here you go: part 1 and part 2).
Anyway, men's diversity of styles in swimwear are severely limited as compared to the cornucopia of delights that women have to choose from - and I say that because I know; I've browsed the racks! This is what I'd really like to be wearing at the pool or beach:
[description: portrait of a long-haired man in a sporty, teal bikini]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)