A Statement on Exhibitionism

First of all, I am a nudist, and I fully support non-sexual nude recreation. In fact, I've published a book describing twenty-five different non-sexual reasons to enjoy recreational nudity - so believe me, I get it. But I'm also sex-positive, and I would describe myself as both a voyeur and an exhibitionist. And I find that nudists in particular, but the public in general, have a lot of misconceptions about exhibitionism, many resorting to a reductionist definition informed by the DSM. But one must remember, even things like homosexuality and transvestism had been relegated to the category of a mental disorder for a long time. So while it may have medical utility, I don't trust the DSM to be the final arbiter on issues of so-called sexual deviance.

The fact is, there is nothing intrinsic to the enjoyment of being on exhibition - even for sexual purposes - that relies on a violation of consent. People can engage in a variety of alternative sexual practices in either consensual or non-consensual forms. Even a desire that would seem to rely on non-consent - such as rape fantasies - can still be practiced ethically and consensually. It would not be fair to define any of these desires by the criminal behavior that some individuals - usually those with a lack of boundaries, poor self-control, a disposition toward violence, etc. - engage in. It would be tantamount to defining heterosexuality by men who commit rape - or, even worse, serial killers who sexually assault their victims.

Most people, when imagining an exhibitionist in their mind, think of the stereotypical trench coat flasher. This is an archetype, and apparently a powerful one. Does it exist in reality? Probably. But I don't think it's all that common, and it doesn't define for me what exhibitionism is about. What's appealing about shocking or offending unsuspecting people anyway? Even the supposed thrill of getting caught is better in theory than practice - the thought of it can excite a person, but the reality is often extremely embarrassing, at the very least. The thought of being exposed may thrill me, but the thought of being chastised, reprimanded, even arrested is as utterly horrifying to me as it would be to anyone else of sound mind.

So what, then, is an exhibitionist? I call myself an exhibitionist because I've been sharing naked pictures of myself on the internet for over a decade now. Some of those pictures are celebratory of non-sexual nude recreation. Others are more sexual in nature, and it turns me on to know that others are not just looking at them, but looking at them and liking them. I have never in my life sent an unsolicited dick pic, and don't intend to. There are resources out there, especially on the internet, to share images with people who want to see them, so there really is no excuse, in my mind, for not seeking out these consenting audiences. That some exhibitionists are maybe not as conscientious as I am, isn't an indictment of exhibitionism, but merely an example of the fallibility of mankind.

You can find good actors and bad actors in any lifestyle. Defining the lifestyle by the bad actors is usually a symptom of lack of understanding, and often reinforced by commonly-held prejudices. If the only exhibitionists you ever hear about are the ones that mistakenly act out and cause problems in society, then that's how you're going to view them. But the resulting stigma really isn't fair to those of us who are capable of behaving ourselves, and knowing the boundary between having a vibrant sex life, and violating society's code of ethics. And if you want a general idea of how many other exhibitionists are out there, who enjoy sharing themselves with consenting audiences, try visiting a social media platform that doesn't restrict porn - Reddit [NSFW], for example - for a start.

Dressed To Distraction

I just started watching the new season of Big Mouth, which is a great animated series that confronts issues of sexuality in the context of a group of kids entering puberty. Because (although it's not really a kids' show) the best way to promote healthy sexuality is to teach it right the first time. It's a funny show, but I especially enjoy it as modern social commentary on topics of a sexual nature. Anyway, the first episode of the third season (not counting the Valentine's Day special) addressed the issue of boys being distracted by girls' clothing, resulting in the girls performing a slutwalk-style protest. But therein the issue got confused, and while the episode failed to resolve it (in realistic fashion), I've had a bit of insight into where things tend to go wrong, when it comes to the struggle between women fighting for the freedom to dress themselves as they see fit and the way men have a tendency to view them in certain clothes (or any clothes, if we're being honest).

Consider the following scenario:

(a) A woman wears something tight or revealing.
(b) A man is distracted by it.
(c) The man complains, and the woman is compelled to change.
(d) The woman protests.

Now, here's where the protest sometimes misses the point. The problem lies in step (c), and not step (b). It's not wrong (and certainly not unhealthy or unnatural) for a man to be distracted by a woman, or to have sexual thoughts about her. The issue is the idea that a woman ought to change her behavior for the sake of the man. The solution is not some sterilized "utopia" where men are never distracted by women's bodies, regardless of how they dress. Yes, men should be able to control themselves, but that doesn't mean preventing any sexual thoughts from crossing their minds. If men are distracted by women, then let them be distracted. Let them struggle with their coursework because they can't take their minds (or their eyes) off the girls' shoulders sitting in front of them, while the girls blissfully plow forward, their minds focused on their coursework. Isn't that Darwinism in action?

So don't protest men's sexual thoughts about women (often couched in the political language of "sexualization" and "objectification") - that just confuses the issue, and prevents us from making any progress. Focus your protest on the idea that it's unfair that women should have to dress to prevent men from being distracted (instead of men taking responsibility for their own lack of focus). Let women wear what they want. And let the men be distracted. That's the natural order. Forcing women to change the way they dress, or expecting men not to be distracted by them, are both perversions of this order. You can't protest one and then demand the other, because then you've just locked yourself into an equally untenable position, with the men demanding that women change, and the women expecting men to stop being distracted, which are both unreasonable.

P.S. I was thinking about this some more after I posted this entry, and (not to belabor the point, but) I want to approach it from a slightly different angle. It occurs to me that men could be making an argument that sounds similar to mine - that it's natural for men to be distracted by women's bodies. But the difference is in the conclusion. My conclusion is that it's the man's responsibility to deal with being distracted, whereas their conclusion is that it's the woman's responsibility to change her clothes (or behavior) in order to stop distracting men. And it's that conclusion that's heinous.

But I think that the angle a lot of women come at it from, is the idea that the men are at fault for being distracted, whether it's because they're obsessed with sex, or they supposedly see women as "sexual objects". But the reality is that nature and evolution compels men to view women in a sexual light. That's not a problem, or something that needs to be changed. Both sides seem to see the elimination of distraction as the solution - whether it's by unfairly forcing women to change, or unrealistically expecting men's minds to transform. But as I said above, it's not the distraction that's the problem, it's what's expected to be done about it (in the first case by men, but then also later by women).

Is there not a perspective from which we could see the distraction as permissible? As I said, let men be distracted, and hold them responsible for how they respond to that distraction. Personally, I think being distracted by attractive women, especially in revealing clothes, is one of the great delights of living, and one of the many things I so enjoy about nudism - which I wouldn't be permitted the privilege of enjoying, if I weren't capable of taking responsibility for my actions while distracted, and behaving civilly. Which is the standard to which we should all be held.