Decade Comparisons

This is an idea inspired by a post I saw on Twitter, comparing two pictures taken at the beginning and the end of the decade. Since I've been active photographically - and as a self-portrait artist - throughout these past ten years, I thought it would be very interesting to look at some picture comparisons of my own from the beginning and end of this decade.

[description: two portraits of a man with long, wavy hair - one dark, and the other bright]
January 2010 vs. May 2019

Here is one of the first pictures I took in this decade compared with a photo from this year. The fact that I'm wearing underwear in the picture on the right is mere happenstance. I thought it was interesting (although not altogether surprising) that I had two such similar pictures taken almost ten years apart. There are two notable things about this comparison. First, is what hasn't changed - namely, the length of my hair. Although it has now been over 18 years since I last cut it, its length hasn't changed noticeably in over ten years. More poignant, however, is the difference in lighting. Ten years ago my life was suffused with darkness - I even lived a nocturnal lifestyle. But I have since been dragged back into the light.

[description: two nude portraits of a man wearing bunny ears outdoors]
Easter 2010 vs. Easter 2019

To further demonstrate that point, here is a comparison between two Easter photos taken in April - the one on the left in 2010, and the one on the right in 2019. Ten years ago, I had to sneak out into the woods in the dark of night to take nude photos outdoors. After several years of living in stuffy apartments, I am now back living in a house; and this time, with enough (if not total) privacy to shoot in full daylight, right out in my back yard!

[description: fashion selfie in jeans and a t-shirt, and short shorts and a crop top]
July 2010 vs. May 2019

My fashion sense has certainly evolved over the past ten years, as I've gained confidence and experience embracing a more feminine identity. However, the change would be even more drastic if you went a few years further back; 2010 was in the midst of a transitional period, in which I was starting to experiment with wearing women's clothes, and getting into the regular habit of trimming my body hair. Still, I'm much more confident now, whether it's wearing dresses, or going out in public half-dressed. :-3

[description: two portraits of a nude man holding a jack-o-lantern, indoors and out]
Halloween 2010 vs. Halloween 2019

My weight has fluctuated over the decade. I'm slimmer now than I was ten years ago (in fact, I'm in the best shape I've been since I was a teenager), but there was a period during the middle of that decade during which I was a little heavier. (Thankfully, I've managed to put the kibosh on that trend). I still like carving pumpkins and posing naked with them for Halloween, though!

[description: two girly portraits posing nude and in a bikini, with heart-shaped glasses]
Lolita, May 2010 vs. May 2019

Also interesting to note is not just the differences, but the things that remain constant throughout your life. Ten years ago I picked up a pair of heart-shaped sunglasses and posed as Lolita. And just this year I paid tribute to Sue Lyons' iconic role in the first film adaptation of that story. And while the before picture, in hindsight, is quite cute, I viewed it at the time as an indication of what I lacked, while now, I have much more confidence in my appearance, as regards my ability to express femininity in my own way.

[description: two outdoor portraits of a nude man lying on the ground, one knee raised]
October 2010 vs. June 2019

I was also very interested to find two very similar pictures of me nude in nature in similar poses spanning the decade. The earlier one was taken in the woods in the fall, and the later one during the summer at a lake. I clearly have more of a tan in the later picture, owing to the greater opportunities I have now to be nude out in the sunshine. However, the practice of going out in nature and finding surreptitious moments away from the crowds to strip down and take some pictures hasn't changed.

[description: two portraits dressed in fur pelts, in a dark room, and out in daylight]
June 2008 vs. May 2019

This is the only picture comparison that I had to cheat on, as the image on the left hails from my Daily Nudes project in 2008, making it over eleven years old. But I just reshot the theme this year - posing like a primitive in the fur pelts of my boyhood camping days - so I wanted to see them side by side. Again, you have the difference between indoors and out, as well as the difference in lighting, from shadows to daylight.

[description: two clone shots of four girls in pajamas having a slumber party]
October 2010 vs. May 2019

By coincidence, it just so happens that my original and celebrated Slumber Party clone shot was taken in 2010, and I recreated it just this year. I consider it a testament to how my life has changed, with regards to the people that have come into it that I never would have expected, that have made me just a little bit less of a timid recluse, and have provided me with some life experiences I never thought I would get to have.

[description: two nearly nude portraits featuring turquoise panties]
March 2010 vs. October 2019

In another happy coincidence, I have two images spanning the decade that feature me in (or sliding out of) turquoise panties! You can also get a hint from the background of how my bedroom has changed. Although you can't see much in the before picture, my room used to be a haven of anime geekdom. I may still not have grown up, but I have fully embraced the girliness within, surrounding myself with an explosion of pink princesses and unicorns.

[description: two portraits of a nude man in a Santa hat standing before a Christmas tree]
Christmas 2010 vs. Christmas 2019

I try to mix things up and keep them fresh, but in ten years, you're bound to repeat some themes, especially classic ones, and around the holidays. If anything has surprised me about these comparisons, it's how consistent I've been over the past decade. I'd like to believe I'm improving - both as a photographer and as a model - although what's most apparent in this photo comparison is the difference in equipment. I'm shooting exclusively with my iPhone at this time, and it shows in the graininess of the later image, shot in the dark. I've been using the same dSLR for the last ten years, until I dropped it in Lake Michigan this year and figured it was time to retire it. Now I'm in the same position I was late 2008, after I lost my camera at Burning Man. I think it's time to buy another nice camera, and start shooting more professional quality images (not in terms of creativity, but technical aspects) again.

Fixation

How is it that we've come to exist in a society where, if a photographic artist tends to fixate on a particular type of model - presumably because she fits his aesthetic ideal of beauty - we view this as a flaw, a type of moral failing? This artist's taste may not match yours, but these things are uniquely specific, and surely one cannot expect an artist to follow another's artistic compass.

Is it because we, for some reason, resent the way that this phenomenon reveals the underlying motivation for many artists to be one that is more in tune with the sensual instincts than we would like to admit? But why should this fact offend us? As Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." And why should this be a bad thing, unless you harbor an unspoken (or perhaps even outspoken) resentment for the erotic? It is not as though the presence of Eros in any way erodes the value or the virtue of Beauty (in fact, I would argue, it enhances it).

Or, is it perhaps only when the fixation centers on certain over-represented qualities - such as youth, femininity, and litheness of form - that one becomes offended? Is it that we have progressed so far into a culture of diversity and inclusion that popular interests must be maligned in favor of the exaltation of minority qualities? That whiteness, straightness, etc. and the proclivities thereof must be viewed with suspicion and derision in a form of reverse discrimination? To exact upon the innocent and the many the justice that is due for the crimes of others who merely appear superficially alike? And how does that sound? No, I will have no part of it.

Social Nudity and Consent

One of the great paradoxes of nudism is this idea that a nudist is relatively unconcerned about being naked in front of other people, and yet nudists have a tendency to hide their lifestyle, even to the point of practicing it surreptitiously behind tall fences. This practice isn't, in fact, logically inconsistent - nudists don't hide because they're shy, they hide to protect themselves from the antagonistic attitude that textile culture often takes towards nudists, and nudism on the whole.* But you have to admit that it makes for a confusing public image.

*Other nudists before me have said that the fences exist for the benefit of the outside world, not for the benefit of the nudists - they're there to keep textiles comfortable, not because the nudists need them. Of course, the fences do benefit nudists insofar as it protects them, as I said, from attack by outsiders. It's an interesting twist, though, to imagine that the nudist resorts actually represent small pockets of freedom, and it's the rest of the world that's actually being "fenced in" - it's just that the prison occupies a much larger area.

An attitude that I've seen bandied about among nudists is this idea, reinforced by the current social climate of sensitivity and political correctness, that social nudity is an activity that (strangely like sex - given how much nudists try to separate their lifestyle from it) requires consent. This is a bit of an establishment position - "we're nudists, but we don't want to make textiles uncomfortable". Rather than fight for our fundamental right to dress ourselves as we see fit, it endeavors to make nudists as benign and uncontroversial to the status quo as possible.

It's a position that favors majoritarianism over civil liberties, and recognizes that we live in a world where the default agreement is that people will not expose their nudity to others except in carefully controlled situations where everyone has consented to it. What, then, makes the social practice of nudism legitimate is the fact that everyone involved has agreed to be there, with the expectation of being exposed to the nudity of others. Therefore, this practice can only occur in isolated and planned contexts, where "innocent" passersby will not be startled and potentially offended.

Despite its commitment to nonconfrontation, which I generally support in my personal life, I have serious reservations about this attitude, because it capitulates too much to our enemies. I have always been of the opinion that any serious movement needs to move forward on many fronts, and while it's important for nudists to express their ultimate desire to coexist peacefully and NOT cause undue social unrest, it is simultaneously important to stand up for what we believe in - and one of the things we believe in is that no civilized society should criminalize the sight of the unclothed human body. And as long as it continues to do so, it should NOT be permitted to rest comfortably.

So, you have protests like the World Naked Bike Ride, and people like the Naked Rambler who are labeled by some (including nudists) as public agitators, sometimes even called exhibitionists, in order for "pure" nudists to distance themselves (and their perfectly polite, capitulatory activities) from these malcontents. Yet I've always supported these approaches. Establishment nudists want to be allies with their textile enemies, and while I agree that we ultimately want the textiles to support us and not oppose us, I side with the free range nudist activists who believe that only more (and not less) exposure to nudity will ever normalize it.

Social vs. Legal Ramifications of Nudity

As an analogy, in a democracy where homosexuality is despised by the majority, public displays of homosexual affection are a right to be fought for and defended, and not something to be sacrificed to capitulate to the comfort of the majority. So, I believe, it is the same with public displays of nudity. However, there are, at this time, legal ramifications that anyone planning to engage in nudist activism ought to consider. This is why, although I yearn for a society in which nudity is less stigmatized, I am more concerned with the legal than the social ramifications for it.

Yes, it is heartbreaking to think that somebody will not accept you, maybe even refuse to spend time with you, because of what you are most comfortable wearing. But how can we change anyone's minds when we risk not just losing friends and family, but possibly our own freedom for upholding our perceived right to be comfortable in our skin? I can handle confronting people's attitudes about nudity, but what kind of platform do I have to stand on when the thing I am advocating for could be considered a crime, and sometimes a very serious one?

(Because, as sex and nudity are intertwined in the public mindset, so-called "indecent" exposure is often construed as a sex crime - something that is exponentially more severe if there happen to be any minors involved, in spite of the fact that some children engage in recreational nudism with adults both legally and ethically. Considerations vary wildly, depending on context and interpretation).

As such, it is not only a question of whether the people in my life accept my practice of nudism, but the extent to which I can even practice it solitarily. I must be concerned about who can see through my windows, or into my backyard. I must submit to the dress codes of my neighbors on my own property if there is any chance of being seen by them - I cannot do yard work, for example, in my front yard, without covering up. I cannot roll my trash can to the curb, or even step outside my front door to grab my mail from the mail box on my porch, in my preferred state of dress.

God forbid someone should come for a visit unannounced, and I should answer the door naked, for even if I were willing to cover up upon consideration of the sensibilities of my guests, the very sight of my naked body, however brief, is enough to constitute "exposure" of a potentially criminal nature. It's almost like we're censoring knowledge of human anatomy, despite the fact that everybody has unrestricted access to the sight of their own bodies, and there is nothing about the opposite sex's genitals that require one be kept ignorant up to and even beyond the age of eighteen.

The Devil's Advocate

It's human nature to argue a position, and ignore or minimize the concerns of one's opponents. Both sides do this, and it's counterproductive to coming to a compromise. I have no desire to follow that strategy. I want to address and ideally assuage the concerns of those who would disagree with me, so that we may eventually come to some kind of agreement, otherwise it's just two people shouting at each other, and one of them gets to have their way (decided arbitrarily) while the other one suffers, instead of making everyone happy to at least some measure.

So what liabilities, if any, would there be if we decriminalized the exposure of one's genitals to another without their consent? What (I can hear the voices shouting in my head) would stop a random pervert from, for example, answering the door naked (on Halloween, say) for a sexual thrill? What would stop other perverts from masturbating in public parks? I might argue how much harm this would actually do in an enlightened, sex-positive society, but putting that aside, we could certainly maintain the criminality of public sex acts.

Yet, unless caught out with some proof (which becomes easier in this age of mobile phones with cameras), what would stop these perverts from claiming in their defense that they were merely practicing nudism? Even now it's hard to differentiate in cases of indecent exposure whether or not there was any sexual intent, to any but those directly involved (and sometimes even them also). My understanding is that we criminalize nudity partly because it's easier to determine whether or not somebody was exposed than it is to determine whether there was any sexual intent.

But is it just to restrict an individual's basic liberties in order to curtail potentially criminal behavior? I suppose it really comes down to a question of principles versus pragmatism. I would rather uphold the right of an individual to be free to dress as he pleases, even if it means overlooking a few minor sexual offenses, than to promote an overly controlled society in which people can perhaps feel safer at the cost of their liberties. But I guess that makes me a monster, especially in the current climate, where there is little that is considered more serious a concern than sexual impropriety.

I honestly don't want to make it sound like my vision of sex-positivity relies on insensitivity, but there is an element of consent culture that is inherently sex-negative, which is the idea that sex (used as a vague term that encompasses a wide variety of activities) is something so odious that it requires consent in the first place. I am not saying that it does not, in its traditional form - particularly, socio-sexual contacts, which involve multiple people in sexual contact with one another, which absolutely requires the consent of all involved. But the notion that the very idea, the thought of sex can be traumatic to some, that we have to restrict its expression to such an extent...

I'm not denying that this may be the case for some, even many. And as women speak out about how tough it is to be the subject and object of so much sexual attention, it saddens me. I want to work toward a solution, but toward a sex-positive solution. Which is to say, not one in which sex is stamped out so that the only people who ever experience it are people who are definitely going to have a positive experience with it (a pretty twisted notion of sex-positivity, if you ask me), but one in which we can all behave in such a way that sex is not such an odious subject, and that it can coexist peacefully with the other aspects of our humanity.

I ask, why is sex so traumatic to so many? Why is it so horrible to imagine walking in on somebody having sex or even masturbating alone? I'm not unsympathetic to those who experience this discomfort, but I view this discomfort as a disease to be remedied, not a condition that ought to be considered normal, such that we redesign society around it, along with our attitudes towards sex, which is now seen not as being this amazing miracle of pleasure and creation and physical beauty, but this traumatic and ugly thing that must always be kept behind closed doors, and anyone who takes too much pleasure in it ought to be viewed with suspicion.