Two Kinds of Sex-Positivity

I've always had mixed feelings about sex-positivity as an institution, originating from the rather sex-critical perspective of feminism. Call it my bias, but sex-positive spaces seem so often to be littered with what I perceive as rather sex-negative messages - for example, /r/SexPositive contains in its own sidebar two links labeled "I'm A Sex-Negative Feminist" and "Why 'Sex-Positive' Feminism Is Sex-Negative For Me." (I agree with most of their listed ideals, although "the destruction of patriarchy" seems awkwardly shoed-in from the feminist theory, and I find it interesting that "radical consent" is defined elsewhere as "affirmative and enthusiastic" consent, rather than a radical view of who and in what circumstances somebody is capable of giving consent - rather than more liberal, it actually seems more constrictive of sexual behavior). I suppose I've just come at the position from a different angle. And if I had a different name, I'd call it that, but it really is all about having a positive attitude toward sex. If anything, the feminists should call themselves "sex-critical". But what bothers me about "establishment" sex-positivity is just that - the critical attitude.

I'm going to generalize here (fair warning), but it seems as though the establishment sex-positive position holds positive sexual experiences for all (to the degree that they want them) as the primary goal, with less negative sexual experiences as the necessary corollary. And the most obvious vector for this level of satisfaction is consent (although education is also of critical importance). But, seeing the myriad complications that arise in many people's sexual experiences, one is then compelled to view sex critically - especially alternative and fringe sexual passions. On the one hand, whatever desires one may have, as long as they can be fulfilled safely and sanely, involving only informed and consenting participants, positively impacting all those involved, then it's all gravy. But in a way, this can act as a straitjacket, restricting one's conception of what healthy sexuality may entail - like a far looser version of the Catholic church's emphasis on the missionary position. Certain sexualities outside of the normal may be considered problematic, and viewed heavily with suspicion, due to their latent potential to cause others (if not also oneself) distress of a sexual nature, which would serve to reduce the positive impact that sex ought to have on everyone's lives.

Consider, for example, someone who delights in getting a surreptitious peek up a stranger's skirt in public - an act that is currently heavily disparaged by the progressive camp. I've even encountered growing sentiment that the innocuous act of pleasuring oneself behind closed doors to images of individuals of unconfirmed origin shared on the internet ought to be considered non-kosher, on account of the fact that the individuals in question may not have "consented" to their images being used in this way. I consider this a casualty of valuing safety over liberty, raising the possibility for offense at something that mankind should take for granted (that a sexual organism will fantasize about what it sees, and may masturbate to such fantasies in private) over the freedom of individuals to exert agency over their own sexual thoughts. Your agency over your own body stops where my agency over my own mind begins.

Now, I will concede that picture trading is a grey area, because it can be an avenue for the violation of trust and privacy. And this is a case where ignorance (and not just directed malice) - a don't ask, don't tell policy, if you will - can contribute to the propagation of these transgressions. But, say what you will, I think anyone who shares a picture on the internet, or even allows an image of them to be created, should understand that the possibility exists that at some point, somebody may masturbate to it. But rather than frightening people away from taking and sharing images, I think this is a fact of life we should learn to take for granted, because I see no reason why it should be cause for any alarm. It's just part of existing in a society comprised of sexual organisms. And unlike harassment, which is antisocial at its core, this isn't a toxic behavior that needs to be eliminated.

So rather than being concerned with making sure all sex acts that occur are kosher, with no mind to those who may go frustrated and unfulfilled, I prefer to look at it from the perspective of working towards sexual satisfaction for all, regardless of the nature of one's desires, even if some of those desires are more challenging to fulfill ethically than others, and at the fundamental level, that as long as one knows how to behave oneself, one should not feel ashamed for the feelings one has that leads to sexual stimulation, no matter what anyone else who does not share them might think about those feelings.

Let me state clearly that my own brand of sex-positivity does not conflict with the ideology outlined above - it does not condone any kind of behaviors that victimize innocents and cause distress of a sexual nature to anyone (outside of mutually consensual BDSM-type arrangements). I merely approach it from a different perspective - not one that is overly critical, but rather one that is more forgiving, and willing to hand out the benefit of the doubt. The foundational principle of sex-positivity, in my mind, isn't necessarily the ideal that everyone should be having only positive sexual experiences (although that would be a good thing), but that the sexual energy that permeates our lives is viewed, not with suspicion, but as a positive thing. Even though it may sometimes be misdirected (often devoid of ill intention - a result of ignorance, and not maleficence - the solution then being education, and not public shaming, as mistakes ought to more readily be considered reparable setbacks than life-altering traumas). Obviously, when this energy is twisted to violent ends, this is a travesty. But alone, in and of itself, removed from context, the desire to seek sexual satisfaction, and the myriad ways the human organism pursues it, is a wondrous curiosity, and not a blade waiting to be sharpened. In a sense, it's coming at sex-positivity from a position of innocence rather than cynicism.

Certainly, it could be argued that innocence is synonymous with naivety (and I admit it is unusual for me to pass over the cynical stance), but I see more beauty in innocence, more pleasure, and my own personal experience of sexual desire reflects an innocent attitude - again, in the sense I've described before, not as a lack of experience, but an approach, an attitude that rejects the Pandora's box of evils that much of society associates with sex. It is a purer approach. Not reflective of virginity, but freedom from corruption. Not defining carnal knowledge as corruption - this is the sex-negative strategy. Sex-positivity is stating that one can have carnal knowledge and still be without sin. To refuse to associate such knowledge with pollution, either of the body or mind.

Human Anatomy

Human anatomy - so much controversy over such a simple thing. I try not to let myself be blinded by my own bias - as I've had the opportunity to become quite accustomed to the sight of naked bodies, and I recognize that not everyone has had this privilege. But, if you can believe it, there was a time when I was quite prudish about exposed skin - to an embarrassing extent. I consider it a firsthand lesson in how people can grow and change and evolve, and a reminder that not everyone who may be an enemy today will remain so indefinitely. But I know what it's like to be repressed. I wasn't born liberated - I had to make the journey.

Still, allowing for growth and variance, there is an element of hypocrisy that I cannot abide. Personality-wise, I can have a tendency to be picky and uptight. Rationally, I have come to the conclusion that freedom is an unassailable virtue. But emotionally, I desire to control every aspect of my environment. But you know, that has taught me a hard lesson - and it's an argument I've made before on the subject of trigger warnings. It's not possible to control every aspect of my environment. So I have had to learn, for better or worse, to live with things that annoy or offend or sometimes even traumatize me (when, as is sometimes the case in life, it is not possible to simply remove myself from the situation - although this is a strategy I wish more people would attempt to employ more frequently).

Not only have I been incapable of controlling the behaviors of other people, in order to produce a consistently pleasant environment around myself, it seems the accepted opinion that, even were it possible, to even do so would be unjust. Which is a conclusion that I agree with rationally, if only because the golden rule demands it, given that I wouldn't want others to control my behavior for their own personal reasons. (Communication and compromise, on the other hand, is healthy).

Aye, but here's the rub: they do so anyway, even as they tell me it's wrong. And the only reason they can get away with it is because their opinion on this issue (the issue of nudity) is the popular one, and I'm the one on the lunatic fringe. (And the social conditioning is so bad that even many of the people who should be on my side - other nudists - instead agree with our opposition, to avoid making waves). But like every issue of justice that was once unpopular and is now taken for granted (more or less) - be it women's suffrage, racial equality, or tolerance of certain sexual minorities (but not others) - I believe that just because it is now, baby, doesn't mean it should be. I just don't have a lot of patience waiting for society to catch up. Unfortunately, I don't have much of a choice, either.

Shame vs. Hormones

We are sexual organisms. Individuals will, of course, vary, but generally speaking, we are programmed to have lustful feelings towards the human body - and, depending on psychological conditioning, sometimes other things. That any social institution (be it religion or otherwise) should capitalize on making us feel ashamed of this fact is tragic, and I reject it.

It is not unreasonable for us to step back and consider the way we feel, and what these feelings compel us to do. Otherwise, the Hormone Monsters within us all would rage unchecked, and might tear civilization apart in a grandiose orgy. (Not that there's anything wrong with orgies, but without a measured conscience, there's no guarantee that consent will be respected).

But we mustn't let the Shame Wizard seep into our subconscious either, making us feel bad for the things that are supposed to make us feel good. As long as you are in control of yourself, and able to act rationally, there is no reason to feel bad for the thoughts you have that turn you on, and the fantasies you pursue towards sexual satisfaction.

Regarding the phenomenon of "post-orgasmal guilt", whether there is an element of psychochemistry involved (i.e., coming down off of a high), or the expression of a social need unfulfilled (i.e., the desire for intimacy in the absence of a partner), to whatever extent a sexually repressive culture exploits this weakness, I view succumbing to it as a character flaw.

In order to avoid sexual hypocrisy - which results in the abhorrent practice of indulging in sexual desires behind closed doors while condemning them openly in public - I've taken the advice of one of history's most notorious perverted sages (whatever his reputation may be, he was as much a philosopher as a scoundrel). The Marquis de Sade once wrote, "whether one is stiff, or whether one is not, one's philosophy, acting independently of the passions, should always remain the same."

In other words, do not allow yourself to be swayed by the heat of passion to engage in anything you'll have to apologize for later, and similarly, don't apologize for anything you permit yourself to do in the heat of passion - stand your ground. Only by doing this can you lead a fully authentic lifestyle, in and out of the metaphorical bedroom. This is how I've always approached being an internet model.

Door Frame

[description: a man stands in a door frame wearing a robe, and with the robe at his feet]

A few images I shot inspired by something I saw on the internet. These "on/off" comparison shots (dressed vs. naked) are fairly popular, and I can understand why. I find the comparison intriguing, and it fuels the imagination of anyone who's ever encountered an attractive stranger (or acquaintance) and fantasized about what they look like naked. Of course, where nudists are concerned, there is no imagination necessary. :-p

Checking In

Check it out - I'm checking in for a nude check-up!

Seeing as I don't "visit" this blog as much as I did last year (which is to say, daily), I felt like dropping in, as if to say, I'm still out there, still living a nude life (as much as possible), and still occasionally taking pictures to share.

[description: series of portraits of a nude torso in various stages of arousal]

Last year's project involved a lot of work, and at times it was hard to keep up. But I tell you, if I go too long without taking a picture, I start to miss it. It's a lot of fun, expressing myself in this way - both being able to share my vision of a beautiful naked life, and using those opportunities to share some of my thoughts and opinions on related topics. I don't think I'm ever going to want to quit. It'd just be nice if someday I could find a muse to shoot in my place, when I get old and frail (it consistently surprises me what physical effort self-portrait photography is) and not so pretty anymore...