[description: video demonstrating playing DDR naked, from various angles]
Have you ever played DDR naked? There's nothing quite like the feeling! I gave myself the gift this Christmas of revisiting an old and beloved pastime - with two new dance pads! I was first introduced to DDR by some friends in high school. My initial reaction to it was to avoid it out of embarrassment - me not being the sort of person who likes to get up in front of people and dance (although I've learned that this is actually a good way to do it, since the arrows give you a sort of script to follow - it's like dancing on training wheels).
I went out on a limb and tried it again in college, mainly because it gave me an excuse to interact with a girl I fancied within the context of a social environment (i.e., it gave me the illusion of having a life). I discovered at this time that DDR was actually quite a lot of fun, and subsequently got hooked on it, dragging my best friend into my obsession. We bought dance pads and hooked them up to a projection screen, and danced with anyone who happened along and wished to join us. At the height of our obsession, we swapped out Dance Dance Revolution with StepMania, a DDR-based computer application with hundreds of songs.
Following the inevitable scattering of friends post-graduation, my dance time dwindled, as the dance pads I had in my possession gradually wore out. There were periods when I would run DDR tracks purely for the exercise, even without a controller connected (not a bad idea, if you don't care about the grades). Such an experience even made it into my Daily Nude Videos project [broken link] from eight years ago. Since then, though, I've let my DDR Max discs collect dust on the shelf, and have resigned myself to the very infrequent occasion of happening upon a DDR machine "in the wild", so to speak - at an arcade.
Until now, that is. DDR lives again!
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Shopping Season
[description: a man stands in a public restroom, wearing boots and nothing else under a winter coat]
I've always preferred warm weather - where you can go out without even putting on a jacket. But if there's an advantage to the sort of cold, winter weather that requires a heavy coat, it's that you can put just the coat on, and nothing else! The strange thing is that you feel more exposed, even though you're actually covered in a thicker layer than you would be on a summer day in a light, airy dress and sandals (especially if you've opted out of wearing panties). Clearly, it's a psychological thing. Just make sure you don't get overheated in that coat, or forget what you're [not] wearing underneath, because you can't just unbutton it to let the breeze in, or take it off and hang it over your chair. :-x
I've always preferred warm weather - where you can go out without even putting on a jacket. But if there's an advantage to the sort of cold, winter weather that requires a heavy coat, it's that you can put just the coat on, and nothing else! The strange thing is that you feel more exposed, even though you're actually covered in a thicker layer than you would be on a summer day in a light, airy dress and sandals (especially if you've opted out of wearing panties). Clearly, it's a psychological thing. Just make sure you don't get overheated in that coat, or forget what you're [not] wearing underneath, because you can't just unbutton it to let the breeze in, or take it off and hang it over your chair. :-x
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Clearing Up A Misconception
One of the most common criticisms levied against nudism by the uninitiated textile world is this idea that "nudists are never the people you want to see naked." What's obvious to us nudists is how much this criticism misses the point. Nudists aren't judgmental about people's bodies the way textile culture is, and the benefit of this approach is a much healthier attitude towards our own and each other's bodies. But listen, that doesn't mean I want to see saggy, wrinkly bodies in the nude - or that I enjoy hairy old men's assholes winking at me from the sand court during a game of volleyball - any more than anyone else in the textile world. I'm not that much different from you. I've just cultivated a more mature approach towards it - an ability to behave civilly and simply not focus my gaze on anything I don't need a vivid mental picture of, and not let my petty feelings get in the way of others' freedom to disrobe, knowing as I do the physical and psychological benefits of doing so. It's just that it's a balancing act. And not all bodies you encounter in nudism are going to be unappealing - the few gems you get to see in a way that textile culture would never allow more than makes it worth it, in my opinion.
There's this idea that, in contrast to nudism which allows all body types, textile culture - "pornified" as it is - already has a more "reasonable" approach towards exposure: attractive people are allowed to show off - indeed, their bodies are plastered all over the media and advertising and pornography we're bombarded with every day. But I don't think it's that simple. Sure, you're more likely to see attractive people (although not exclusively) in short shorts and miniskirts and skimpy bikinis at the beach. But they're not naked. And though they do tend to be naked in porn, as much as our culture is obsessed with sex, it's relegated to the corners of our society. These corners may be crowded, but they're still fenced off from everything else, with the letters N, S, F, and W plastered large on billboards blocking the view. And textile culture is so pornified, you can't appreciate nudity without making it into a sexual thing. (Call me weird, but I like to watch beautiful naked people doing things other than having sex). Hop the fence into pornland, and everybody is so myopically focused on sex, there's no time for subtleties like artistic composition, or softcore eroticism.
If you're attractive, you still don't get a free pass to walk your dog around the block without clothes on (well, your dog can be naked, it's just you that can't). You might get away with it, if the people who catch you don't mind, and like what they see, but that's not the same thing - and clearly it doesn't make this phenomenon exactly common. There's nowhere you can go to watch a sports match performed by naked athletes - because watching the amazing feats the human body is capable of is a wonderful thing - even though said athletes are presumably more physically fit than the majority of the population. (And I've been called a freak and a pervert for even suggesting that gymnastics should be performed...well, gymnastically - that is, nude, in the original Greek sense of the word). Even model-caliber beauties aren't issued licenses for public nudity, protecting them from indecent exposure charges (including when public exposure is part of their vocation - e.g., for a photoshoot). And silver screen-ready actresses, though always pressured to do steamier roles, rarely revel in those opportunities to expose themselves unselfconsciously to the world (without, say, a body double, or coy lighting - or, these days, having a team of fx artists to photoshop out their undergarments).
So, no, textile culture doesn't permit us to enjoy attractive naked bodies to a sufficient extent. Our sexual obsession, amazingly, doesn't obliterate but rather intensifies the nudity taboo. Only nudism provides an alternative and a solution to it. And if it takes a general attitude of "nudity isn't inherently sexual", and "all bodies are welcome" (meaning ugly bodies are as free to bare all as the beautiful ones) to get there, then so be it. I'm down with the program.
Good Naked vs. Bad Naked
As an aesthetic artist, my goal is to portray my model in a flattering light. I don't really take pictures of "matter-of-fact" nudity - which is why I am concerned about the ability of my art to accurately reflect the nudist ethos and lifestyle. Even picture-perfect models can look downright unappealing if photographed in certain poses, and from certain angles. (Jerry Seinfeld discovered the difference between "good naked" and so-called "bad naked" on that episode where he dated a nudist - although I'm inclined to agree with George, that Jerry was acting like a "spoiled, spoiled man"). There is an artifice to art of this sort - I make no illusions about this fact. I don't pretend that I have a perfect body, and that, to whatever extent I am attractive, it isn't still a challenge to consistently portray myself in pictures in the best possible light.
There are certainly uses for art that depicts people's bodies from a more realistic perspective - I fully acknowledge that. I'm just not that interested in that subject as an artist (at least at this time). I agree with the nudist philosophy - that appearance only goes so far. But I won't pretend that it has no value. (Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't think that rewarding physical attractiveness necessarily goes hand in hand with punishing its lack thereof, other than the inevitable envy of those that lack it. I want things other people have that I don't have, but I don't disparage them for having it. I certainly wouldn't argue that a world-class guitarist shouldn't be praised for his proficiency at guitar just because I don't possess the same level of skill).
I worship beauty, and art is one way that I can honor that. Perhaps that constitutes an obstruction to communication of the pure nudist ideal (which seeks to draw attention away from the perceived importance of physical beauty), but the truth is that nudism is another way I pursue beauty. Not because nudism is about beauty (it's not, really), but because nudism lifts a veil that textile culture clings to (i.e., that naked bodies are taboo), which prevents one from fully appreciating that beauty outside of nudism. It would seem that, through nudism, the ability to appreciate that beauty requires one to humble oneself about the limits of beauty's virtue - because you can't go very far in nudism while clinging to a superficial mindset.
But if, like me, you can simultaneously acknowledge the transcendental power of naked beauty (albeit of a privileged subset of the population) to ravish the soul, and the seemingly contradictory fact that beauty truly is only skin deep (a beautiful person isn't automatically also smart, or strong, or kind, or even happy), then there is much that can be gained from the practice of a nudist lifestyle, that may very well be impossible to acquire elsewhere. As such, I vehemently deny the statement that "beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing", and replace it instead with "beauty isn't everything, but it is something," as well as its corollary (which is important to keep in mind, lest one's priorities fall out of proportion), "beauty is something, but it isn't everything."
There's this idea that, in contrast to nudism which allows all body types, textile culture - "pornified" as it is - already has a more "reasonable" approach towards exposure: attractive people are allowed to show off - indeed, their bodies are plastered all over the media and advertising and pornography we're bombarded with every day. But I don't think it's that simple. Sure, you're more likely to see attractive people (although not exclusively) in short shorts and miniskirts and skimpy bikinis at the beach. But they're not naked. And though they do tend to be naked in porn, as much as our culture is obsessed with sex, it's relegated to the corners of our society. These corners may be crowded, but they're still fenced off from everything else, with the letters N, S, F, and W plastered large on billboards blocking the view. And textile culture is so pornified, you can't appreciate nudity without making it into a sexual thing. (Call me weird, but I like to watch beautiful naked people doing things other than having sex). Hop the fence into pornland, and everybody is so myopically focused on sex, there's no time for subtleties like artistic composition, or softcore eroticism.
[description: a nude figure greets a clothed person at the door]
"You're a nudist? Isn't that, like, a sex thing?"
"Is sex the only thing you textiles do while naked?
(It's no wonder you bathe alone!)"
"You're a nudist? Isn't that, like, a sex thing?"
"Is sex the only thing you textiles do while naked?
(It's no wonder you bathe alone!)"
If you're attractive, you still don't get a free pass to walk your dog around the block without clothes on (well, your dog can be naked, it's just you that can't). You might get away with it, if the people who catch you don't mind, and like what they see, but that's not the same thing - and clearly it doesn't make this phenomenon exactly common. There's nowhere you can go to watch a sports match performed by naked athletes - because watching the amazing feats the human body is capable of is a wonderful thing - even though said athletes are presumably more physically fit than the majority of the population. (And I've been called a freak and a pervert for even suggesting that gymnastics should be performed...well, gymnastically - that is, nude, in the original Greek sense of the word). Even model-caliber beauties aren't issued licenses for public nudity, protecting them from indecent exposure charges (including when public exposure is part of their vocation - e.g., for a photoshoot). And silver screen-ready actresses, though always pressured to do steamier roles, rarely revel in those opportunities to expose themselves unselfconsciously to the world (without, say, a body double, or coy lighting - or, these days, having a team of fx artists to photoshop out their undergarments).
So, no, textile culture doesn't permit us to enjoy attractive naked bodies to a sufficient extent. Our sexual obsession, amazingly, doesn't obliterate but rather intensifies the nudity taboo. Only nudism provides an alternative and a solution to it. And if it takes a general attitude of "nudity isn't inherently sexual", and "all bodies are welcome" (meaning ugly bodies are as free to bare all as the beautiful ones) to get there, then so be it. I'm down with the program.
Good Naked vs. Bad Naked
As an aesthetic artist, my goal is to portray my model in a flattering light. I don't really take pictures of "matter-of-fact" nudity - which is why I am concerned about the ability of my art to accurately reflect the nudist ethos and lifestyle. Even picture-perfect models can look downright unappealing if photographed in certain poses, and from certain angles. (Jerry Seinfeld discovered the difference between "good naked" and so-called "bad naked" on that episode where he dated a nudist - although I'm inclined to agree with George, that Jerry was acting like a "spoiled, spoiled man"). There is an artifice to art of this sort - I make no illusions about this fact. I don't pretend that I have a perfect body, and that, to whatever extent I am attractive, it isn't still a challenge to consistently portray myself in pictures in the best possible light.
[description: a nude man sits hunched over in a chair]
Matter-of-Fact Nudity
Matter-of-Fact Nudity
There are certainly uses for art that depicts people's bodies from a more realistic perspective - I fully acknowledge that. I'm just not that interested in that subject as an artist (at least at this time). I agree with the nudist philosophy - that appearance only goes so far. But I won't pretend that it has no value. (Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't think that rewarding physical attractiveness necessarily goes hand in hand with punishing its lack thereof, other than the inevitable envy of those that lack it. I want things other people have that I don't have, but I don't disparage them for having it. I certainly wouldn't argue that a world-class guitarist shouldn't be praised for his proficiency at guitar just because I don't possess the same level of skill).
I worship beauty, and art is one way that I can honor that. Perhaps that constitutes an obstruction to communication of the pure nudist ideal (which seeks to draw attention away from the perceived importance of physical beauty), but the truth is that nudism is another way I pursue beauty. Not because nudism is about beauty (it's not, really), but because nudism lifts a veil that textile culture clings to (i.e., that naked bodies are taboo), which prevents one from fully appreciating that beauty outside of nudism. It would seem that, through nudism, the ability to appreciate that beauty requires one to humble oneself about the limits of beauty's virtue - because you can't go very far in nudism while clinging to a superficial mindset.
But if, like me, you can simultaneously acknowledge the transcendental power of naked beauty (albeit of a privileged subset of the population) to ravish the soul, and the seemingly contradictory fact that beauty truly is only skin deep (a beautiful person isn't automatically also smart, or strong, or kind, or even happy), then there is much that can be gained from the practice of a nudist lifestyle, that may very well be impossible to acquire elsewhere. As such, I vehemently deny the statement that "beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing", and replace it instead with "beauty isn't everything, but it is something," as well as its corollary (which is important to keep in mind, lest one's priorities fall out of proportion), "beauty is something, but it isn't everything."
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Antitoxin
Some people might say that feminism's attack on male sexuality is unjustified. But even giving feminists the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that male sexuality is problematic (e.g., characterized by an instinctively rapacious impulse), any solution we come to has to first understand this sexuality, and be sensitive to those who are "afflicted" by it. This isn't a softened way of saying we should give leniency to rapists, but we must understand what is driving the male sexual impulse, what it means - the value that it has - to the individual male, why it is manifesting in ways that are problematic for society or womankind, and what alternatives are available that enables the male to achieve full sexual satisfaction, and not what essentially amounts to figurative castration.
Saying that "men's sexual urges are wrong and must be curtailed" is nothing less than a declaration of war, and it's not going to inspire anything other than full-scale retaliation (hence: men's rights activism). You'd have to be daft to expect any other outcome. There's plenty of talk out there about how "male sexuality is problematic". I want to hear more understanding of the significance of the sexual drive to a male, and discussion of ways that it can be fulfilled, to a satisfying extent, that are acceptable to society. In other words, you can't just stand there and tell men what they can't do with their penises. You must acknowledge the joy their penises bring them, and then suggest ways they can acquire that joy that we all can be happy with.
For example: don't tell men, "enough with the dick pics already!" Tell them, "yes, penises are fascinating organs. But most people aren't going to want you to stick yours in their face without warning. Be courteous. There are lots of websites on the internet where you can share pictures of your dick with people who will appreciate them. An exciting world of consensual exhibitionism awaits you!" See? Not condemnation. But redirection - into appropriate outlets. It's about learning the contexts in which certain behaviors are or are not appropriate. Not labeling an activity as bad, identifying the male sex drive as the motivating factor, and then tarring and feathering it, demonizing it wholesale, throwing the baby of sexual ecstasy out with the bathwater of inappropriate sexual misconduct.
[description: a man undresses, exposing his erection to a secretary at the office]
I don't want to sound conceited harping on about how dumb the human race is (but if that's what it sounds like, then so be it - I'm not going to hold my tongue for the sake of image) - I know people have accomplished some amazingly intelligent feats, and I'm not half as smart as I wish I could be. But I swear, when I look at society, I see a whole lot of dumbing things down to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I mean, it's just statistics, right? But black-and-white thinking is for people who don't possess the processing power to render a hundred different shades of grey. And it's very frustrating living as a greyscale being in a black-or-white world.
Saying that "men's sexual urges are wrong and must be curtailed" is nothing less than a declaration of war, and it's not going to inspire anything other than full-scale retaliation (hence: men's rights activism). You'd have to be daft to expect any other outcome. There's plenty of talk out there about how "male sexuality is problematic". I want to hear more understanding of the significance of the sexual drive to a male, and discussion of ways that it can be fulfilled, to a satisfying extent, that are acceptable to society. In other words, you can't just stand there and tell men what they can't do with their penises. You must acknowledge the joy their penises bring them, and then suggest ways they can acquire that joy that we all can be happy with.
For example: don't tell men, "enough with the dick pics already!" Tell them, "yes, penises are fascinating organs. But most people aren't going to want you to stick yours in their face without warning. Be courteous. There are lots of websites on the internet where you can share pictures of your dick with people who will appreciate them. An exciting world of consensual exhibitionism awaits you!" See? Not condemnation. But redirection - into appropriate outlets. It's about learning the contexts in which certain behaviors are or are not appropriate. Not labeling an activity as bad, identifying the male sex drive as the motivating factor, and then tarring and feathering it, demonizing it wholesale, throwing the baby of sexual ecstasy out with the bathwater of inappropriate sexual misconduct.
[description: a man undresses, exposing his erection to a secretary at the office]
I don't want to sound conceited harping on about how dumb the human race is (but if that's what it sounds like, then so be it - I'm not going to hold my tongue for the sake of image) - I know people have accomplished some amazingly intelligent feats, and I'm not half as smart as I wish I could be. But I swear, when I look at society, I see a whole lot of dumbing things down to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I mean, it's just statistics, right? But black-and-white thinking is for people who don't possess the processing power to render a hundred different shades of grey. And it's very frustrating living as a greyscale being in a black-or-white world.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Layers
Playing around (again) with the transition between being nude and being dressed.
[description: lineup of photos comparing different stages of dress, from fully clothed to nude]
I threw the erection in just for fun, and because it really punctuates the erotic element of getting undressed. I know it's probably not kosher to the nudist mindset, but sometimes just taking off your clothes can be exciting. Maybe I really am that weird, but I don't understand why sexual arousal has to always be accompanied, in people's minds, with initiation of sexual activity. Can't somebody just get turned on, enjoy the sensation, and leave it at that?* Without running to hide (or finish himself off)? Like a lot of people probably do while dressed? (I wonder what it must be like for female exhibitionists engaging in nudism, since their arousal is somewhat less conspicuous than a man's). And if this isn't possible for some people, why can't those people refrain from letting themselves get turned on in public, instead of insisting that those of us who can control ourselves not be allowed to either?
*I was thinking just last night, as I lay in bed, that most people probably view attraction as a means to an end - a tool to facilitate pair-bonding and family-building, which in other words is the biological mandate to procreate. Of course beauty is a virtue - everybody (pretty much) envies those who have it, and are capable of recognizing it in others (subjectively speaking). But self-conscious about their appearance they may be, I feel like they must understand deep down what nudists often preach. You don't have to be beautiful to live. You don't even have to be beautiful to be happy. You can find a mate, raise a family, and make a life for yourself, even if you don't look like a supermodel.
It's me that's different. Beauty isn't just a virtue, it's a lifestyle. It's not a means to an end, it's the end itself. Attraction isn't a form of sexual foreplay, it's the climax. I revel in the buildup. I'm not even particularly concerned with intercourse, I just like the arousal. And I want to fill my life with it. I want to be surrounded by beauty on all sides, at all times. Art, modeling, fashion, people-watching. I suppose it's a superficial way to live, but I'm not a shallow person. The assumption is that if you care about physical beauty, then nothing else matters, but that's not true. I guess I just value it more than the average person, because it fills me with joy.
I tell you, it's gotta be tough being a lunatic - being utterly convinced that it's not you, but the world around you that's crazy. I just want to know if I'm alone in having these so-called "crazy" thoughts. Am I? Do you think people should be judged for their state of arousal, or should they be judged for how they conduct themselves while aroused? Is it enough to condemn a man for having an erection, or should we consider what he does with it?
[description: lineup of photos comparing different stages of dress, from fully clothed to nude]
I threw the erection in just for fun, and because it really punctuates the erotic element of getting undressed. I know it's probably not kosher to the nudist mindset, but sometimes just taking off your clothes can be exciting. Maybe I really am that weird, but I don't understand why sexual arousal has to always be accompanied, in people's minds, with initiation of sexual activity. Can't somebody just get turned on, enjoy the sensation, and leave it at that?* Without running to hide (or finish himself off)? Like a lot of people probably do while dressed? (I wonder what it must be like for female exhibitionists engaging in nudism, since their arousal is somewhat less conspicuous than a man's). And if this isn't possible for some people, why can't those people refrain from letting themselves get turned on in public, instead of insisting that those of us who can control ourselves not be allowed to either?
*I was thinking just last night, as I lay in bed, that most people probably view attraction as a means to an end - a tool to facilitate pair-bonding and family-building, which in other words is the biological mandate to procreate. Of course beauty is a virtue - everybody (pretty much) envies those who have it, and are capable of recognizing it in others (subjectively speaking). But self-conscious about their appearance they may be, I feel like they must understand deep down what nudists often preach. You don't have to be beautiful to live. You don't even have to be beautiful to be happy. You can find a mate, raise a family, and make a life for yourself, even if you don't look like a supermodel.
It's me that's different. Beauty isn't just a virtue, it's a lifestyle. It's not a means to an end, it's the end itself. Attraction isn't a form of sexual foreplay, it's the climax. I revel in the buildup. I'm not even particularly concerned with intercourse, I just like the arousal. And I want to fill my life with it. I want to be surrounded by beauty on all sides, at all times. Art, modeling, fashion, people-watching. I suppose it's a superficial way to live, but I'm not a shallow person. The assumption is that if you care about physical beauty, then nothing else matters, but that's not true. I guess I just value it more than the average person, because it fills me with joy.
I tell you, it's gotta be tough being a lunatic - being utterly convinced that it's not you, but the world around you that's crazy. I just want to know if I'm alone in having these so-called "crazy" thoughts. Am I? Do you think people should be judged for their state of arousal, or should they be judged for how they conduct themselves while aroused? Is it enough to condemn a man for having an erection, or should we consider what he does with it?
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Rise of the Semi
I've lamented recently my concern over bringing the issues of exhibitionism and nudism so frequently together - since, when combined, they seem to form a rather volatile concoction. Yet, as both a nudist and an exhibitionist, it's a confluence of topics that - like one of the Marquis de Sade's fictional character's pricks - keeps coming up over and over again.
I could certainly stand to make a greater effort to keep these subjects separate, but in consideration of my dedication to posting daily blogs this year, in conjunction with the fact that I've amassed quite a backlog, when a photoshoot with solid nudist intentions evolves (as they sometimes do, in a liberated atmosphere - I've said more about this here) into something rather more erotic, I feel compelled to keep it undivided.
This, however, can have the effect of muddying what I'd like to be a nudist statement, when it's paired with something considerably non-nudist in nature, often leading me to long, anxious deliberations about whether or not to tag a post with the 'nudism' label (for partial relevance), at the risk of drawing unfavorable associations to the lifestyle.
Sometimes the contrast is more egregious (for example, pairing Sunning in November with the fourth installment of The Naughty Cot - although it seemed a natural progression at the time), and other times I end up sporting a semi in what I wanted to be a nudist-kosher image. The latter is what I'd like to explore further today.
The deviantART Influence
In the days of Flickr, which has a fairly liberal policy on the posting of pornography (provided everything is properly filtered) - or at least it did when I posted there, several years ago - I could post nude pictures with a flaccid penis, or erotic pictures with a raging hard-on. It didn't matter. And I explored both extremes.
As for the in-between, there was no sense in showing up half-cocked, as it were. But when I came to deviantART [NSFW], I had to adopt a different approach, because that site doesn't allow "pornographic" images. I, of course, still took those images, I just couldn't share them there. But given the highly variable nature of the male genitalia, it didn't take me long to start experimenting with the line between flaccid and erect.
You could argue that I've been pushing the boundaries, trying to fly erections "under the radar" - although in truth, this is not what I've been doing. It is a fact that the rules make a binary distinction between flaccid and erect, and it is similarly a fact of biology that the line between these states is vague and fluid. I am merely exploring that realm, as any good artist would - trying to pin down just how erect a penis has to be in order to be considered "erect" (asking the important questions).
As such, I quickly found that I could produce erotic portraits that do not explicitly depict erections, yet present a rather more...impressive stature than your perfectly sterile fine art nudes. Once again this brings up the issue of where the line between art and porn - and also between the aesthetic and erotic appreciation of physical beauty - should be drawn, which is a central and recurring theme in my art.
The result is that I suppose I have trained myself, to some degree, to blur the line between "pure" nudes and erotic (but not strictly pornographic) nudes - "what male nude image couldn't be improved", in essence, "with a more prominent, eye-catching penis?" - which may come to be a problem, especially insofar as I try to depict nudism through my photography.
In my mind, it's all different aspects of a cohesive whole, which combine to form my artistic vision - the pursuit of ideal, aesthetic/erotic (does it matter?) beauty. I struggle to compartmentalize my work - fine art nudes, erotic portraits, artistic pornography. That's why, I suppose, my gender experimentations are suffused with eroticism (and why so much of my experiences with trying on clothes includes taking all of them off).
That's also why, however, you can see all of these things here in one place - my experiences with nudism, my pursuit of erotic beauty, and my experiments with gender. Why should they have to be separated? Except that in our culture, anything to do with sex carries a shame and a stigma. But I believe that's an error that ought to be corrected. Which is why I feel glorified by "eroticizing" (sexualizing, if you will) anything and everything - even something like nudism, provided I take the time to explain that something being sex-y is quite different than something being sex-ual.
I'm not saying we should all be having sex out in the streets (although that sounds exciting as a fantasy). I'm just saying that if it turns you on to walk around town naked, then more power to you. Because that shouldn't hurt anyone. And if it does, or if we don't live in a world where the rest of the population can behave themselves under those conditions, then why the fuck not? Something - or maybe someone(s) - needs to change.
I could certainly stand to make a greater effort to keep these subjects separate, but in consideration of my dedication to posting daily blogs this year, in conjunction with the fact that I've amassed quite a backlog, when a photoshoot with solid nudist intentions evolves (as they sometimes do, in a liberated atmosphere - I've said more about this here) into something rather more erotic, I feel compelled to keep it undivided.
This, however, can have the effect of muddying what I'd like to be a nudist statement, when it's paired with something considerably non-nudist in nature, often leading me to long, anxious deliberations about whether or not to tag a post with the 'nudism' label (for partial relevance), at the risk of drawing unfavorable associations to the lifestyle.
Sometimes the contrast is more egregious (for example, pairing Sunning in November with the fourth installment of The Naughty Cot - although it seemed a natural progression at the time), and other times I end up sporting a semi in what I wanted to be a nudist-kosher image. The latter is what I'd like to explore further today.
The deviantART Influence
In the days of Flickr, which has a fairly liberal policy on the posting of pornography (provided everything is properly filtered) - or at least it did when I posted there, several years ago - I could post nude pictures with a flaccid penis, or erotic pictures with a raging hard-on. It didn't matter. And I explored both extremes.
[description: portrait of a nude male torso, penis flaccid]
Two states - flaccid and erect
[description: portrait of a nude male torso, penis erect]
Two states - flaccid and erect
[description: portrait of a nude male torso, penis erect]
As for the in-between, there was no sense in showing up half-cocked, as it were. But when I came to deviantART [NSFW], I had to adopt a different approach, because that site doesn't allow "pornographic" images. I, of course, still took those images, I just couldn't share them there. But given the highly variable nature of the male genitalia, it didn't take me long to start experimenting with the line between flaccid and erect.
You could argue that I've been pushing the boundaries, trying to fly erections "under the radar" - although in truth, this is not what I've been doing. It is a fact that the rules make a binary distinction between flaccid and erect, and it is similarly a fact of biology that the line between these states is vague and fluid. I am merely exploring that realm, as any good artist would - trying to pin down just how erect a penis has to be in order to be considered "erect" (asking the important questions).
As such, I quickly found that I could produce erotic portraits that do not explicitly depict erections, yet present a rather more...impressive stature than your perfectly sterile fine art nudes. Once again this brings up the issue of where the line between art and porn - and also between the aesthetic and erotic appreciation of physical beauty - should be drawn, which is a central and recurring theme in my art.
[description: portrait of a nude male torso, penis engorged, but hanging limply]
At which point does it cease to be flaccid,
and proceed to be considered erect?
At which point does it cease to be flaccid,
and proceed to be considered erect?
The result is that I suppose I have trained myself, to some degree, to blur the line between "pure" nudes and erotic (but not strictly pornographic) nudes - "what male nude image couldn't be improved", in essence, "with a more prominent, eye-catching penis?" - which may come to be a problem, especially insofar as I try to depict nudism through my photography.
In my mind, it's all different aspects of a cohesive whole, which combine to form my artistic vision - the pursuit of ideal, aesthetic/erotic (does it matter?) beauty. I struggle to compartmentalize my work - fine art nudes, erotic portraits, artistic pornography. That's why, I suppose, my gender experimentations are suffused with eroticism (and why so much of my experiences with trying on clothes includes taking all of them off).
That's also why, however, you can see all of these things here in one place - my experiences with nudism, my pursuit of erotic beauty, and my experiments with gender. Why should they have to be separated? Except that in our culture, anything to do with sex carries a shame and a stigma. But I believe that's an error that ought to be corrected. Which is why I feel glorified by "eroticizing" (sexualizing, if you will) anything and everything - even something like nudism, provided I take the time to explain that something being sex-y is quite different than something being sex-ual.
I'm not saying we should all be having sex out in the streets (although that sounds exciting as a fantasy). I'm just saying that if it turns you on to walk around town naked, then more power to you. Because that shouldn't hurt anyone. And if it does, or if we don't live in a world where the rest of the population can behave themselves under those conditions, then why the fuck not? Something - or maybe someone(s) - needs to change.
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Sexy Superpowers
Sometimes, Reddit is just an unproductive time sink. But occasionally, you'll come across stimulating content, like this question posed to AskReddit: "What is the furthest you've been from clothing?" (challenge accepted!). A more common question you'll encounter is something along the lines of, "if you could have any superpower, what would it be?" More interestingly, I saw a variation of this question on AskRedditAfterDark (for all your naughtier questions), that ran along the lines of, "if you could have three superpowers designed to facilitate three of your biggest sexual fetishes, what would they be?" I had a field day with this one.
1. Observer Mode (a.k.a. Ghosting)
- to facilitate voyeurism
Though often interpreted as the ability to sneak into people's homes and watch them undress, this ability has a much broader application. The thing is, I enjoy looking at attractive people. I like talking to them and interacting with them, too, but that isn't my strong suit, and moreover, I don't want to be a nuisance. I don't need to interject myself into the days or the lives of every attractive stranger I come across. I'd just love to be able to get more of an eyeful than I feel is permitted by the standard rules of social decorum. If I were invisible, I could walk right up to a person and get a good, solid look at them. Maybe watch them for a while. Until I'm satisfied. Then I would move on. That would make me very happy on an almost daily basis.
But I don't want to do this at the expense of making others uncomfortable, or drawing negative attention to myself (the last thing I'd want is a reputation as a creepy stalker). It's not as though I don't understand how that feels - I have social anxiety, so I'm constantly worried about the attention and perceived judgment of others. I like watching dancers and musicians and other performers because it's an invitation to stare. I like photography because you can study a picture for hours if desired, without affecting the subject in any way. I model because I want people to admire my body, but I know it would make me uncomfortable if they did it in person. But it is better if the person is right in front of you. You get a wider variety of views, plus it satisfies something primal - hence the bragging rights of seeing something "with your own eyes". I don't need these people to interact with me, and I don't want them to become self-conscious. I'd just as soon be a ghost or a fly on the wall - an invisible observer.
Now, if that means I can sneak into people's homes and watch them undress - well then, that's a bonus! It sounds terrible in this climate to imply that you want to invade people's privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification (national security, on the other hand, is perfectly kosher), but invasion of privacy is really not the point. I think most people, offered the opportunity to watch someone they're attracted to undress, with their consent, would happily take the offer. The peeping tom's transgression, then, is taking that opportunity without attaining the necessary consent (and often engaging in other illicit behaviors such as trespassing, and maybe even breaking and entering, to do so). I derive no pleasure from the thought of violating anyone's consent. But opportunities to attain this sort of consent, in the buttoned-up society we live in - but most especially as someone who is not naturally very social - are few and far between.
That doesn't mean an invasion of privacy is justified - that's the selfish mistake of an antisocial deviant. But you can't disparage me my fantasies. I'd even be willing to place considerable limits on this superpower, to prevent it from being abused. I don't just want to be invisible and able to pass through walls. I'm willing to be unable to affect the scene before me in any way, or even to carry any kind of information I might acquire while "ghosting" beyond the scene (the one exception being memory recall for the sole purpose of sexual fantasy) - I have no interest in blackmail, or naming-and-shaming in any form. This power could have an amazing application to candid photography, but that's a step beyond what I'm proposing. I just want more eye candy in my life, of a more satisfying variety than what you can find on the web, and with more diversity than simply the pool of those individuals with a low barrier to exhibitionism in the first place.
Which brings me to my next sexy superpower:
2. Blindspot (a.k.a. The Emperor's New Clothes)
- to facilitate exhibitionism
For my next superpower, I'm thinking of something that would enable me to go out in public naked, or even engage in sexual activities, without the usual fanfare that would cause. I don't think ghosting would cut it, because I would want to actually have a corporeal body - something that can be seen and touched - and be able to interact with my environment, including the people around me (in normal, everyday ways). Basically, I want to be able to go about my life without clothes on, occasionally engaging in illicit public trysts (and also photoshoots), but I want everybody to treat it like it's the most natural thing in the world, hardly even worth commenting on.
This would require a kind of highly specialized mind control - something of a psychological blindspot. People either simply wouldn't notice me (which wouldn't work if I wanted to, say, check out at the grocery store), or would simply overlook the fact that I'm naked, or stroking my cock in full view of public. It's like that information either wouldn't make it to their brain, or their brain state would be manipulated to consider it normal. Think of it as wearing the Emperor's New Clothes. I'd be naked (or acting indecently), but people would treat me just like I was fully dressed (or perfectly decent).
I would be satisfied with this because my interest in exhibitionism has little or nothing to do with how people react. I like to be admired, yes, but my interest in public acts isn't dependent on audience participation - I don't understand how shocking and offending people is supposed to get me off. I just like the idea of being naked and/or engaged in erotic activities outdoors and in public places - where these sorts of things don't usually happen. Maybe some of the novelty would wear off as the taboo erodes, and in absence of even the suggestion of being noticed, but I can tell you that even in that case I would still enjoy the feeling of being naked and/or engaged in sexual activities outdoors or in other locations outside the home. Bedroom and marketplace being equal, that's still two different options where there used to be one.
And speaking of options...
3. Metamorphosis (a.k.a. Shapeshifting)
- to facilitate gender experimentation
My first two superpowers were easy to come up with - as voyeurism and exhibitionism (or getting naked, and seeing other attractive people naked) are at the top of my list of fetishes, as a visual erotic artist. But if I had a third superpower, it would have to be something to do with gender. And what better power could I have than an ability to change the shape of my body at will? Not only would this serve as a painless, instantaneous, and flawless form of sexual reassignment surgery, but I could still keep my penis and use it at will! After all, I'm still attracted to the female sex, and I enjoy the sensations of heteronormative coupling. But it would be fun to learn what sex feels like from the other side of the equation, too; and I'd never have to deal with the frustration of not being able to wear something because of my anatomy ever again!
Of course, there are a lot of other potential uses for this power, like maintaining a youthful appearance indefinitely, growing two penises for double penetration, or satisfying any number of someone else's hard-to-scratch fetishes (bestiality, anyone?). You could even transform yourself into the perfect vision of a mate for that person that you wish would look in your direction. How easy it would be to spice things up in the bedroom! And can you imagine what it would do for my clone photography, being able to change my appearance so easily? But mainly, I'd use it to be the girl I always wanted to be, with a retractable penis to facilitate sexual coupling when I'm in the mood to be the penetrator and not the penetrated.
1. Observer Mode (a.k.a. Ghosting)
- to facilitate voyeurism
Though often interpreted as the ability to sneak into people's homes and watch them undress, this ability has a much broader application. The thing is, I enjoy looking at attractive people. I like talking to them and interacting with them, too, but that isn't my strong suit, and moreover, I don't want to be a nuisance. I don't need to interject myself into the days or the lives of every attractive stranger I come across. I'd just love to be able to get more of an eyeful than I feel is permitted by the standard rules of social decorum. If I were invisible, I could walk right up to a person and get a good, solid look at them. Maybe watch them for a while. Until I'm satisfied. Then I would move on. That would make me very happy on an almost daily basis.
But I don't want to do this at the expense of making others uncomfortable, or drawing negative attention to myself (the last thing I'd want is a reputation as a creepy stalker). It's not as though I don't understand how that feels - I have social anxiety, so I'm constantly worried about the attention and perceived judgment of others. I like watching dancers and musicians and other performers because it's an invitation to stare. I like photography because you can study a picture for hours if desired, without affecting the subject in any way. I model because I want people to admire my body, but I know it would make me uncomfortable if they did it in person. But it is better if the person is right in front of you. You get a wider variety of views, plus it satisfies something primal - hence the bragging rights of seeing something "with your own eyes". I don't need these people to interact with me, and I don't want them to become self-conscious. I'd just as soon be a ghost or a fly on the wall - an invisible observer.
Now, if that means I can sneak into people's homes and watch them undress - well then, that's a bonus! It sounds terrible in this climate to imply that you want to invade people's privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification (national security, on the other hand, is perfectly kosher), but invasion of privacy is really not the point. I think most people, offered the opportunity to watch someone they're attracted to undress, with their consent, would happily take the offer. The peeping tom's transgression, then, is taking that opportunity without attaining the necessary consent (and often engaging in other illicit behaviors such as trespassing, and maybe even breaking and entering, to do so). I derive no pleasure from the thought of violating anyone's consent. But opportunities to attain this sort of consent, in the buttoned-up society we live in - but most especially as someone who is not naturally very social - are few and far between.
That doesn't mean an invasion of privacy is justified - that's the selfish mistake of an antisocial deviant. But you can't disparage me my fantasies. I'd even be willing to place considerable limits on this superpower, to prevent it from being abused. I don't just want to be invisible and able to pass through walls. I'm willing to be unable to affect the scene before me in any way, or even to carry any kind of information I might acquire while "ghosting" beyond the scene (the one exception being memory recall for the sole purpose of sexual fantasy) - I have no interest in blackmail, or naming-and-shaming in any form. This power could have an amazing application to candid photography, but that's a step beyond what I'm proposing. I just want more eye candy in my life, of a more satisfying variety than what you can find on the web, and with more diversity than simply the pool of those individuals with a low barrier to exhibitionism in the first place.
Which brings me to my next sexy superpower:
2. Blindspot (a.k.a. The Emperor's New Clothes)
- to facilitate exhibitionism
For my next superpower, I'm thinking of something that would enable me to go out in public naked, or even engage in sexual activities, without the usual fanfare that would cause. I don't think ghosting would cut it, because I would want to actually have a corporeal body - something that can be seen and touched - and be able to interact with my environment, including the people around me (in normal, everyday ways). Basically, I want to be able to go about my life without clothes on, occasionally engaging in illicit public trysts (and also photoshoots), but I want everybody to treat it like it's the most natural thing in the world, hardly even worth commenting on.
This would require a kind of highly specialized mind control - something of a psychological blindspot. People either simply wouldn't notice me (which wouldn't work if I wanted to, say, check out at the grocery store), or would simply overlook the fact that I'm naked, or stroking my cock in full view of public. It's like that information either wouldn't make it to their brain, or their brain state would be manipulated to consider it normal. Think of it as wearing the Emperor's New Clothes. I'd be naked (or acting indecently), but people would treat me just like I was fully dressed (or perfectly decent).
I would be satisfied with this because my interest in exhibitionism has little or nothing to do with how people react. I like to be admired, yes, but my interest in public acts isn't dependent on audience participation - I don't understand how shocking and offending people is supposed to get me off. I just like the idea of being naked and/or engaged in erotic activities outdoors and in public places - where these sorts of things don't usually happen. Maybe some of the novelty would wear off as the taboo erodes, and in absence of even the suggestion of being noticed, but I can tell you that even in that case I would still enjoy the feeling of being naked and/or engaged in sexual activities outdoors or in other locations outside the home. Bedroom and marketplace being equal, that's still two different options where there used to be one.
And speaking of options...
3. Metamorphosis (a.k.a. Shapeshifting)
- to facilitate gender experimentation
My first two superpowers were easy to come up with - as voyeurism and exhibitionism (or getting naked, and seeing other attractive people naked) are at the top of my list of fetishes, as a visual erotic artist. But if I had a third superpower, it would have to be something to do with gender. And what better power could I have than an ability to change the shape of my body at will? Not only would this serve as a painless, instantaneous, and flawless form of sexual reassignment surgery, but I could still keep my penis and use it at will! After all, I'm still attracted to the female sex, and I enjoy the sensations of heteronormative coupling. But it would be fun to learn what sex feels like from the other side of the equation, too; and I'd never have to deal with the frustration of not being able to wear something because of my anatomy ever again!
Of course, there are a lot of other potential uses for this power, like maintaining a youthful appearance indefinitely, growing two penises for double penetration, or satisfying any number of someone else's hard-to-scratch fetishes (bestiality, anyone?). You could even transform yourself into the perfect vision of a mate for that person that you wish would look in your direction. How easy it would be to spice things up in the bedroom! And can you imagine what it would do for my clone photography, being able to change my appearance so easily? But mainly, I'd use it to be the girl I always wanted to be, with a retractable penis to facilitate sexual coupling when I'm in the mood to be the penetrator and not the penetrated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)