Pizza Delivery

I feel self-conscious about the fact that I'm always bringing the subjects of nudism and exhibitionism together, when nudism is trying so hard to distance itself from exhibitionism, for the sake of its acceptance in society. It's not that there's anything intrinsically exhibitionist about nudism - I assure you it's not all a big ruse. It's just that the line distinguishing the two is not always so obvious (otherwise, this wouldn't be such an important talking point for nudists - you don't have to correct mistakes that nobody makes), and sometimes it has more to do with interpretation - what's going on under the surface (that is, in people's heads) - than what you can actually see with your eyes. Moreover, I enjoy both nudism and exhibitionism, and so where a nudist would disavow any possible exhibitionist interpretation of a nudist image (or story), in my case, I have no desire to limit my audience (or, in the interest of free speech, tell someone they're not allowed to interpret my art in a certain way).

[description: a naked man answers the door to a pizza delivery]

Case in point, I can't (not just won't, but can't) actually tell you whether this image depicts a nudist scene, or an exhibitionist one. All I know is that it makes for an interesting image, either way. And that's enough for me. Certainly, by textile standards, answering the door while nude would fall under the category of exhibitionism - exposing yourself unexpectedly to [presumably] non-consenting strangers. But, provided some context, this could genuinely be a nudist exchange. Sometimes, local textile restaurants will deliver regularly to nudist resorts, and thereby develop an ongoing business relationship. Knowing full well what to expect, it's entirely possible that a dressed delivery person will encounter nude people, including, perhaps, the person the food is being delivered to. I've seen it happen. Then there is the fact that even in nudist resorts, most food prep stations require that food preparers are dressed (for safety/hygienic reasons), so you have the same juxtaposition. How this image is interpreted, then, is entirely up to you.

[description: a naked man with an erection confronts a pizza delivery girl]
"Give me a blowjob and I'll double your tip."

This image, on the other hand, can be safely relegated to the exhibitionist category, since the presence of the erection - a taboo in nudist circles - excludes it from a purely nudist interpretation. Plus, the pizza delivery girl has been unambiguously "sexualized" by her choice of dress. But only insofar as her clothes emphasize her body, which is that of a fundamentally sexual organism. Rather than having been "sexualized", it would be more accurate to say that the artificial obfuscation of her sexual nature has been (partly) removed. To wit, "sexualization" is putting tits on a hot dog. It takes something that is nonsexual (barring a perverted interpretation, which can turn anything sexual - precisely the reason that "sexualization" is a thing), and makes it sexual. Putting a woman in short shorts is not sexualization. In the default state, uncovered by clothing, woman (and, indeed, also man) is a sexual organism. Modest dress just obscures this fact to some (although not total) degree. Removing that obstruction does not make the woman any more sexual than she was before, it just reveals a truth that had previously been hidden. It draws your attention to it, perhaps, but the sexuality is in your mind more than it is on the person.

It occurs to me in all of this that, while I'd prefer to think of it as a fun prank, in today's hypersensitive social climate, receiving a pizza delivery naked could potentially be construed as a form of sexual harassment. The thorny question is this: does this evolution represent progress? Certainly, it's good to be sensitive to people's comfort levels, and honor their consent in all things (not just sex). I'm not going to deny that. But are we actually better off being so vulnerable as to be able to be shaken up by something so mundane as the naked human body? I wouldn't argue that we should ignore people's sensitivities, but isn't it true that we'd be stronger (and happier) if we didn't have them?

Take me as a test case. Now, I'm not the poster child for strength and confidence - as a matter of fact I have anxiety, and consider myself a highly sensitive person. But on the subject of low-risk, sexy fun, I'm very open-minded. The fact is, I'm somebody who enjoys innuendo more than is offended by it. I would be delighted to deliver a pizza to a naked person, as long as that's all that is involved. And I realize this person is probably not going to be someone I'm attracted to, but I'm willing to take that gamble. How does it hurt me, anyway? I think the threshold for a "violation of consent" should be much higher when we're dealing with just seeing things, as opposed to anything that involves physical contact.

But the bottom line is that I don't want to violate anybody's consent. As an exhibitionist, I don't want to open the door naked to somebody who's going to have a negative reaction. What I want is the person on the other side of the door to be someone who will appreciate it. The trouble is that you just can't know. I mean, you can arrange something with someone ahead of time, but there is definitely a difference between answering the door to somebody you know, who has seen you naked lots of times, and a complete stranger. I'd like to stress that it has nothing to do with offending the stranger, but the element of surprise (in a good sense, and not a bad one - whether it's a realistic outcome or not, I think that most exhibitionists probably fantasize about people responding favorably to their exhibitionism in some form, and not unfavorably), and the delight of getting to see new and different bodies every now and then.

It'd just be nice if we lived in a world that allowed for this type of activity, instead of choosing safety over liberty - if part of a population will like it, and another part will not, then the part that doesn't gets to dictate how everybody behaves. If I were a pizza delivery person, I'd be more than happy to check a box on my application stating that I consent to deliver pizzas to people who want to answer the door naked or, hell, even engaged in sexual activity (as long as I'm not physically involved - at least not without further consent being attained). And those who'd like to do so could make a point to ask for me to be the one to deliver their pizza. Logistically, this wouldn't work, as there probably aren't enough people spread out to cater to this demographic (and capitalism rejects anything that's not financially profitable). But it's a nice fantasy.

Aside: And to the politicians who would be antsy to draft a law making this sort of service illegal on grounds of moral considerations - fuck off. Actually, this is a good example of the difference I like to make between ethics and morality (in my own humble opinion, one of the best things I've ever written), which most people conflate in an oversimplified manner. Ethics is criminalizing the act of exposing yourself to the pizza delivery person because it can be reasonably assumed (in our social climate) that the pizza delivery person has not and would not consent to such exposure, and may be "harmed" by it in some way. It's protecting the rights of an innocent.

Morality, on the other hand, is criminalizing the act of consenting to deliver a pizza to an exhibitionist, not because anyone involved doesn't want to do it or is actually harmed in any way, but because the act itself, even when performed consensually, is viewed by a third party as being indecent, indicative of "corruption" or "perversion", and inappropriate for a moral (as opposed to a just) society to tolerate. It's dictating other people's behaviors and choices (in effect, criminalizing consent - sometimes even eliminating the idea that an individual could consent "to such a thing") according to an arbitrary mandate (but usually backed up by all the illusory authority of a fictional character called "God").

P.S. I added a feminism label to this post, because the discussion of sexual harassment is a key topic in the feminist discourse these days - or so it seems to me. But I realize now that I haven't made any indication anywhere about sex. I'm not talking about men harassing women, but the hypothetical possibility of a person harassing a different person (in internet discussions, little distinction is often made between a man and a woman being the one to answer the door naked - indeed, it seems more often to be a woman). Should my choice in this matter be construed as a positive because it indicates a belief that feminism caters to issues that cross the sexual divide, or as a negative because I've come to associate any form of sex-negativity with feminism? I know what I think, but I'll leave that conclusion up to you.