When I think about ringing in the New Year nude, there's a difference between being in a room with a group of nudists and, say, streaking through a crowd of textiles. The latter is usually (and not inaccurately) labeled exhibitionism. But there's such a stigma associated with that term. I think the exhibitionist version seems more fun. When nudity is the norm, it loses a lot of its novelty. Which is great when you just want the comfort of being nude, but is there no value in the novelty of nudity as it contrasts with textilism?
The misconception I want to address is that this exhibitionist value is an essentially immoral and antisocial one. Just because I think the juxtaposition of a nude streaker in a clothed crowd seems appealing doesn't mean that I derive pleasure from bothering people, or that their "consent" (to be exposed to naked people) is beneath my concern, or less important than my happiness (on the contrary: I suppress these desires, thereby making myself suffer, on the mere chance that it might prevent the suffering of others).
I wrote about this recently, but when I imagine the scenario - e.g., of a streaker running through a crowd - I think about how happy that sight would make me. But I guess that's the difference of perspective. I assume that most people imagine the shock and horror they would experience, and therefore see the streaker's actions as selfish and reckless, where I see them as selfless and joyful.
Yet, there still remains the critical difference between somebody who thinks streaking sounds exciting, and somebody who actually does it. If you can find something intriguing, but refrain from doing it out of concern for the potentially varied perspectives of others, then I consider that evidence of an evolved maturity and humanity. It is not fair, then, to criticize people who, for example, consider themselves "exhibitionists", because of the feelings they acknowledge having, judging them for the behaviors they maybe fantasize about, instead of the behaviors they actually engage in.
Thursday, December 31, 2020
Thursday, December 10, 2020
Nude Dreams
I've noticed that although I sleep nude every night, I only ever have dreams in which I'm naked when the proper conditions arise (and they very rarely do) such that it's so overly warm in my room (usually due to a miscalculation with the thermostat, and the fact that my bed sits right on top of the heating vent in my room), that I end up throwing off my blankets and sleeping uncovered (though only temporarily). I lament that, under normal conditions, I am unable to sleep uncovered, because I always enjoy those naked dreams, and wish I could have them more frequently.
I had one just the other night, in which I was shopping at the mall - which is interesting inasmuch as I have not left the house in the last nine months. I was fully naked, and fully conscious of that fact; and it was not a nudist environment - where everyone is naked and nobody cares. As sometimes occurs in these dreams, the atmosphere of the scene was one which occupies a strange middle ground - a normal textile environment in which I am the only one naked, yet nobody remarks on my nudity (as they would if this had occurred in real life). Which leaves me wondering if it's actually okay for me to be naked after all, yet simultaneously preoccupied with anxiety that at any moment, somebody will notice my lack of attire and make a big deal about it. Not to the extent that it causes me to alter my behavior - e.g., tiptoeing about sheepishly, hiding my body behind racks of clothes - but more like just going about my business while waiting for the other shoe to inevitably drop (although in these dreams, it never does). It's like my brain has plopped me down naked into a regular dream, and I'm aware that I'm naked, but the rest of the dream isn't.
Regardless of the uncertainties, it was still a fascinating experience, and one that I would enjoy repeating any time the proper conditions should again arise. I actually had another naked dream recently, and this time it was one with a more erotic bent, that ended with a nocturnal emission. In this dream (which I started out clothed), I was a student in a college environment. It started in a classroom, with (strangely) a pizza oven in the hall. But then I was in a dormitory. There was a knock on my door. A group of guys was apparently in the midst of some kind of dare (or hazing ritual - not unlike one I witnessed from my window in real life while I was in college), in which they were streaking through the halls buck naked. Naturally, I took this as a serendipitous opportunity to engage in public nudity, protected by safety in numbers. I undressed on the spot - and here, allow me to make a brief digression.
I have heard of people having difficulty running in dreams, often moving in slow motion (as cleverly depicted in one sequence in the original A Nightmare on Elm Street). I haven't often had this experience, but I do much more frequently experience difficulty undressing in my dreams (often on the way to taking a shower). I will have great trouble peeling off my clothes, almost as if they are stuck to my skin, sometimes having to take off a particular garment (usually pants or underwear) multiple times.
Anyway, I knew time was of the essence in this instance, so I was thankfully able to get my clothes off, and proceeded to run down the hallway, only to find out that a group of girls had just begun coming up the hall from the other direction. So there I was, running through their midst, and the overwhelming thought on my mind was that they were getting a peek at my throbbing erection (from the thought of going streaking, naturally) - which, let's be honest, is an impressive sight - and that's when I felt the waves of orgasm begin to wash over me. At that moment I snapped awake (as I have trained myself to do), and grabbed the towel on the floor beside my bed just in time to avoid a mess.
I had one just the other night, in which I was shopping at the mall - which is interesting inasmuch as I have not left the house in the last nine months. I was fully naked, and fully conscious of that fact; and it was not a nudist environment - where everyone is naked and nobody cares. As sometimes occurs in these dreams, the atmosphere of the scene was one which occupies a strange middle ground - a normal textile environment in which I am the only one naked, yet nobody remarks on my nudity (as they would if this had occurred in real life). Which leaves me wondering if it's actually okay for me to be naked after all, yet simultaneously preoccupied with anxiety that at any moment, somebody will notice my lack of attire and make a big deal about it. Not to the extent that it causes me to alter my behavior - e.g., tiptoeing about sheepishly, hiding my body behind racks of clothes - but more like just going about my business while waiting for the other shoe to inevitably drop (although in these dreams, it never does). It's like my brain has plopped me down naked into a regular dream, and I'm aware that I'm naked, but the rest of the dream isn't.
Regardless of the uncertainties, it was still a fascinating experience, and one that I would enjoy repeating any time the proper conditions should again arise. I actually had another naked dream recently, and this time it was one with a more erotic bent, that ended with a nocturnal emission. In this dream (which I started out clothed), I was a student in a college environment. It started in a classroom, with (strangely) a pizza oven in the hall. But then I was in a dormitory. There was a knock on my door. A group of guys was apparently in the midst of some kind of dare (or hazing ritual - not unlike one I witnessed from my window in real life while I was in college), in which they were streaking through the halls buck naked. Naturally, I took this as a serendipitous opportunity to engage in public nudity, protected by safety in numbers. I undressed on the spot - and here, allow me to make a brief digression.
I have heard of people having difficulty running in dreams, often moving in slow motion (as cleverly depicted in one sequence in the original A Nightmare on Elm Street). I haven't often had this experience, but I do much more frequently experience difficulty undressing in my dreams (often on the way to taking a shower). I will have great trouble peeling off my clothes, almost as if they are stuck to my skin, sometimes having to take off a particular garment (usually pants or underwear) multiple times.
Anyway, I knew time was of the essence in this instance, so I was thankfully able to get my clothes off, and proceeded to run down the hallway, only to find out that a group of girls had just begun coming up the hall from the other direction. So there I was, running through their midst, and the overwhelming thought on my mind was that they were getting a peek at my throbbing erection (from the thought of going streaking, naturally) - which, let's be honest, is an impressive sight - and that's when I felt the waves of orgasm begin to wash over me. At that moment I snapped awake (as I have trained myself to do), and grabbed the towel on the floor beside my bed just in time to avoid a mess.
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
Two Views of Exposure
There are two ways of looking at public nudity - or generally being naked in front of anyone who's not specifically a nudist or an intimate partner, even if it happens to occur in private. People who are concerned about this behavior probably imagine the sort of person (probably not unlike themselves) who would not appreciate seeing a stranger naked - either because the stranger is not considered attractive and/or nudity offends the viewer on principle of modesty and/or they feel threatened by the encounter.
But when I think about being exposed in public and/or to strangers or non-nudist/non-intimate acquaintances, I see it differently. I imagine how delighted I would be to be on the other end and see the same thing. So, you see, exhibitionism isn't selfish. The same way that I started modeling in order to give back to the world what I appreciate in others - that is, sharing the sight of their naked bodies with the world - is how I view dressing in skimpy clothes, and how I imagine public nudity, if I had the guts and the assurance of not being charged as a criminal to do it.
Think of it like this - a sexy woman undressing in front of a window. (Obviously, this only works if you're attracted to women, but feel free to imagine a man or other circumstances altogether - I'm not judging). Who hasn't peered out of their window and wished they could see a sexy woman (or equivalent) undressing in front of a window across the block? I would love to see that. And I want to see more of it in the world. And how better to promote that outcome than to undress in front of windows myself? I follow Ghandi's advice: "be the change you wish to see in the world."
So obviously, there's a difference of perspective here - contrasted with the point of view that considers undressing in front of windows to be either distasteful (they just don't personally like it) or also immoral (there's something wrong with it). The point I would emphasize is that exhibitionists aren't actively trying to bother people - because they get some kind of sick thrill out of doing so. They just see the world differently, and are trying to spread what they perceive as joy, although others may see it otherwise.
But they're not alone in seeing things the way they see it. And besides, who gets to decide which of these opposing views takes precedence? If a woman on my street likes to undress in front of her window, why does my neighbor's disgust trump my delight, when it comes to deciding whether or not the woman should be permitted to proceed? We have a habit, in this so-called "democracy" of ours, to cater to complainers. The pursuit of happiness isn't so important to us as the avoidance of discomfort - cultivating a watered down public commons in which nobody has to feel offended. The reason I DON'T engage in a whole lot of public exposure (except in specific circumstances where I think there is an acceptably low level of being caught) is out of respect for the feelings of others.* But how often do those others respect MY feelings? This isn't an equivalent exchange, here.
*An argument could be made that I refrain from public exposure NOT out of concern for the feelings of others, but out of sheer self-interest. The fact is, I do care about others' feelings, if only because making other people feel bad makes me feel bad. I don't think this is uncommon; it's how we function as a social species. We tend to vilify selfishness and exalt selflessness to an unnatural extent, that promotes shame in the less-than-perfect (that is, all of us) at least as much as it promotes some of us to better behavior. The truth is, most people are selfless mainly for selfish reasons. And that's just fine. It's only the sociopaths that don't have that empathic connection with others that prevents them from doing harm to others, because doing so doesn't affect them the way it does the rest of us. In any case, my self-interest puts me at no lower a level than the self-interest of those who want to compel others to cover up simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I sacrifice to make others comfortable. They want others to sacrifice to make themselves comfortable. See the difference?
In the interest of fairness, we can imagine an alternate scenario in which the person undressing in front of the window is NOT someone I am attracted to. I think most people default to, "people I think are hot, I want to see naked. But if I don't think they're hot, they should cover up."** Obviously, this doesn't work when we take into account more than one person's tastes. So, again, we default to telling everybody to cover up, because taking away the joy of the people who would enjoy it is viewed as better than forcing the people who don't enjoy it to suffer.
**There are obviously other nuances to complicate the situation, such as people who only want to see hot people naked in limited circumstances, perhaps because they are uncomfortable embracing sexual thoughts outside of a private context, or people who have religious or some other kind of beliefs that prevent them from enjoying their sexual feelings at all. I think this is unfortunate, and one of the things I love most about the nudist worldview is this idea that, even if nudists don't typically view it from a sexual perspective, the exposure of people's bodies is not this private, intimate thing, but something that can be shared casually with strangers without all the baggage we normally load onto intimate encounters (including any kind of expectation of sexual activity), and devoid of the view that doing so is somehow immoral or represents a negative character flaw. Grappling with the beliefs of those who object to the nudists' casual approach to nudity is one of its most challenging obstacles to mainstream acceptance, and I don't have a solution to that problem. But I will say that I would be much happier living in a nudist-positive world than the one we currently live in, where people's bodies are shamed (whether they're attractive or not) and the sharing of visual beauty (entirely separate from any kind of sexual contact) is stigmatized to a life-defeating (in some cases literally, as we've occasionally seen with the more tragic teen sexting cases) extent.
Maybe it's not so bad from that perspective - prioritizing the avoidance of suffering over the elimination of pleasure - like letting a criminal go free rather than risking false imprisonment. But here's my argument. If you're not attracted to the person undressing in front of the window, you can just look away. Enter the nudist mindset. Most nudists I meet are not people I want or particularly enjoy seeing naked. Simply because I have particular tastes, and the percentage of the population that I view as attractive is a minority (and particularly smaller in a nudist context, where the demographic skews older and maler). But, as a nudist, seeing somebody that I don't find attractive naked doesn't bother me. And I've always maintained that looking at 99 people I find unattractive naked in order to get the privilege of seeing 1 person I do find attractive naked, that I would normally not get the chance to see naked, is more than worth it to me.
So here's the thing. Nudists posit a culture where naked bodies are not shocking, or offensive. Which is an idea that I love. To people with a limited understanding of it (which is most people, especially nudists), this should eliminate exhibitionism, which allegedly relies on shock value. Except that it doesn't, really. Taking the shock away would only improve exhibitionism, by removing a considerable obstacle to its enjoyment. Making nudity inoffensive means exhibitionists could expose themselves regularly without fanfare - getting enjoyment from the exposure without bothering anyone. EXACTLY like how exhibitionists currently get enjoyment out of strutting at the pool in string bikinis (I use this example to emphasize the gender disparity - that women are expected to show off, and that this is considered as unthreatening as milquetoast, while men who do it are quickly viewed with criminal suspicion), without offending anyone, and without this behavior involving any kind of mustache-twirlingly stereotypical depictions of sexual perversion, like masturbating on the waterslide in full view of children, or what have you (any time you mention exhibitionism to nudists, I swear, they think you're talking about public intercourse, and not just, you know, experiencing endorphins from the simple act of being seen and admired). I maintain that exhibitionism isn't a fringe fetish, but a common part of the human condition. Some of us just embrace it more fully than others.
In any case, exhibitionists and public nudity supporters (whatever their motivations might be, sexual or otherwise) should be viewed in light of their perspective on exposure being unremarkable, and not taken solely in light of current attitudes that view naked bodies akin to a deadly weapon. When somebody fantasizes about answering the door naked, they are not, largely, stroking themselves (whether literally or just figuratively) to thoughts of traumatizing strangers and forcing them to look at something that disturbs or disgusts them. No, if they are anything like me, they are imagining themselves AS THE VOYEUR, opening the door on somebody attractive, and how world-shatteringly delightful that experience would be (and how badly they wish it would happen - and that though they can't force a random attractive stranger to flash them, they CAN be the flasher in somebody else's fantasy). If some people lack the social capacity to recognize that this possibility may be rare, and that the cost of losing this particular lottery and ending up exposing oneself to somebody who does NOT appreciate it could be significant (and therefore going through with it and not keeping it in the realm of fantasy), then that is very unfortunate - and it paints an unfair portrait of exhibitionism. But it should not be mistaken for one of the foundational mechanisms of what drives the phenomenon of exhibitionism - or in the case of the nudist who simply wants more opportunities to remain undressed, without being accused of necessarily being an exhibitionist.
But when I think about being exposed in public and/or to strangers or non-nudist/non-intimate acquaintances, I see it differently. I imagine how delighted I would be to be on the other end and see the same thing. So, you see, exhibitionism isn't selfish. The same way that I started modeling in order to give back to the world what I appreciate in others - that is, sharing the sight of their naked bodies with the world - is how I view dressing in skimpy clothes, and how I imagine public nudity, if I had the guts and the assurance of not being charged as a criminal to do it.
Think of it like this - a sexy woman undressing in front of a window. (Obviously, this only works if you're attracted to women, but feel free to imagine a man or other circumstances altogether - I'm not judging). Who hasn't peered out of their window and wished they could see a sexy woman (or equivalent) undressing in front of a window across the block? I would love to see that. And I want to see more of it in the world. And how better to promote that outcome than to undress in front of windows myself? I follow Ghandi's advice: "be the change you wish to see in the world."
So obviously, there's a difference of perspective here - contrasted with the point of view that considers undressing in front of windows to be either distasteful (they just don't personally like it) or also immoral (there's something wrong with it). The point I would emphasize is that exhibitionists aren't actively trying to bother people - because they get some kind of sick thrill out of doing so. They just see the world differently, and are trying to spread what they perceive as joy, although others may see it otherwise.
But they're not alone in seeing things the way they see it. And besides, who gets to decide which of these opposing views takes precedence? If a woman on my street likes to undress in front of her window, why does my neighbor's disgust trump my delight, when it comes to deciding whether or not the woman should be permitted to proceed? We have a habit, in this so-called "democracy" of ours, to cater to complainers. The pursuit of happiness isn't so important to us as the avoidance of discomfort - cultivating a watered down public commons in which nobody has to feel offended. The reason I DON'T engage in a whole lot of public exposure (except in specific circumstances where I think there is an acceptably low level of being caught) is out of respect for the feelings of others.* But how often do those others respect MY feelings? This isn't an equivalent exchange, here.
*An argument could be made that I refrain from public exposure NOT out of concern for the feelings of others, but out of sheer self-interest. The fact is, I do care about others' feelings, if only because making other people feel bad makes me feel bad. I don't think this is uncommon; it's how we function as a social species. We tend to vilify selfishness and exalt selflessness to an unnatural extent, that promotes shame in the less-than-perfect (that is, all of us) at least as much as it promotes some of us to better behavior. The truth is, most people are selfless mainly for selfish reasons. And that's just fine. It's only the sociopaths that don't have that empathic connection with others that prevents them from doing harm to others, because doing so doesn't affect them the way it does the rest of us. In any case, my self-interest puts me at no lower a level than the self-interest of those who want to compel others to cover up simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I sacrifice to make others comfortable. They want others to sacrifice to make themselves comfortable. See the difference?
In the interest of fairness, we can imagine an alternate scenario in which the person undressing in front of the window is NOT someone I am attracted to. I think most people default to, "people I think are hot, I want to see naked. But if I don't think they're hot, they should cover up."** Obviously, this doesn't work when we take into account more than one person's tastes. So, again, we default to telling everybody to cover up, because taking away the joy of the people who would enjoy it is viewed as better than forcing the people who don't enjoy it to suffer.
**There are obviously other nuances to complicate the situation, such as people who only want to see hot people naked in limited circumstances, perhaps because they are uncomfortable embracing sexual thoughts outside of a private context, or people who have religious or some other kind of beliefs that prevent them from enjoying their sexual feelings at all. I think this is unfortunate, and one of the things I love most about the nudist worldview is this idea that, even if nudists don't typically view it from a sexual perspective, the exposure of people's bodies is not this private, intimate thing, but something that can be shared casually with strangers without all the baggage we normally load onto intimate encounters (including any kind of expectation of sexual activity), and devoid of the view that doing so is somehow immoral or represents a negative character flaw. Grappling with the beliefs of those who object to the nudists' casual approach to nudity is one of its most challenging obstacles to mainstream acceptance, and I don't have a solution to that problem. But I will say that I would be much happier living in a nudist-positive world than the one we currently live in, where people's bodies are shamed (whether they're attractive or not) and the sharing of visual beauty (entirely separate from any kind of sexual contact) is stigmatized to a life-defeating (in some cases literally, as we've occasionally seen with the more tragic teen sexting cases) extent.
Maybe it's not so bad from that perspective - prioritizing the avoidance of suffering over the elimination of pleasure - like letting a criminal go free rather than risking false imprisonment. But here's my argument. If you're not attracted to the person undressing in front of the window, you can just look away. Enter the nudist mindset. Most nudists I meet are not people I want or particularly enjoy seeing naked. Simply because I have particular tastes, and the percentage of the population that I view as attractive is a minority (and particularly smaller in a nudist context, where the demographic skews older and maler). But, as a nudist, seeing somebody that I don't find attractive naked doesn't bother me. And I've always maintained that looking at 99 people I find unattractive naked in order to get the privilege of seeing 1 person I do find attractive naked, that I would normally not get the chance to see naked, is more than worth it to me.
So here's the thing. Nudists posit a culture where naked bodies are not shocking, or offensive. Which is an idea that I love. To people with a limited understanding of it (which is most people, especially nudists), this should eliminate exhibitionism, which allegedly relies on shock value. Except that it doesn't, really. Taking the shock away would only improve exhibitionism, by removing a considerable obstacle to its enjoyment. Making nudity inoffensive means exhibitionists could expose themselves regularly without fanfare - getting enjoyment from the exposure without bothering anyone. EXACTLY like how exhibitionists currently get enjoyment out of strutting at the pool in string bikinis (I use this example to emphasize the gender disparity - that women are expected to show off, and that this is considered as unthreatening as milquetoast, while men who do it are quickly viewed with criminal suspicion), without offending anyone, and without this behavior involving any kind of mustache-twirlingly stereotypical depictions of sexual perversion, like masturbating on the waterslide in full view of children, or what have you (any time you mention exhibitionism to nudists, I swear, they think you're talking about public intercourse, and not just, you know, experiencing endorphins from the simple act of being seen and admired). I maintain that exhibitionism isn't a fringe fetish, but a common part of the human condition. Some of us just embrace it more fully than others.
In any case, exhibitionists and public nudity supporters (whatever their motivations might be, sexual or otherwise) should be viewed in light of their perspective on exposure being unremarkable, and not taken solely in light of current attitudes that view naked bodies akin to a deadly weapon. When somebody fantasizes about answering the door naked, they are not, largely, stroking themselves (whether literally or just figuratively) to thoughts of traumatizing strangers and forcing them to look at something that disturbs or disgusts them. No, if they are anything like me, they are imagining themselves AS THE VOYEUR, opening the door on somebody attractive, and how world-shatteringly delightful that experience would be (and how badly they wish it would happen - and that though they can't force a random attractive stranger to flash them, they CAN be the flasher in somebody else's fantasy). If some people lack the social capacity to recognize that this possibility may be rare, and that the cost of losing this particular lottery and ending up exposing oneself to somebody who does NOT appreciate it could be significant (and therefore going through with it and not keeping it in the realm of fantasy), then that is very unfortunate - and it paints an unfair portrait of exhibitionism. But it should not be mistaken for one of the foundational mechanisms of what drives the phenomenon of exhibitionism - or in the case of the nudist who simply wants more opportunities to remain undressed, without being accused of necessarily being an exhibitionist.
Thursday, December 3, 2020
Naked Thoughts
(Or Skinny-Dipping in the Stream of Consciousness)
I support nonsexual nudism, but I was just thinking, do we absolutely need to designate nudism as non-sexual? Or can we just delineate a non-sexual nudism versus a sexual nudism? Could nudism not simply be the practice of nudity beyond the bounds of what textile society deems normal? Obviously, a sexual nudist isn't going to constantly be having sex. And if they only EVER get undressed for sex, then that really isn't nudism. But if they like to walk around naked, and also occasionally have sex in public, is the walking around part not still nudism?
Is it a matter of motivation? That if they're walking around naked because they view it as erotic - sort of a form of foreplay - then it's exhibitionism and not nudism? But does it have to be 100% because of that exhibitionism? Or because of exhibitionism 100% of the time? Is it not possible for an exhibitionist to spend a lot of time naked, and discover through that means that being naked is enjoyable for reasons beyond the sexual? And thus become a nudist through exhibitionism? This is what I've always maintained.
But many nudists seem to be of the opinion that if there is even a single percent of your nudity tied to an exhibitionist motivation, then that invalidates the nudist component. But I don't agree. This view is informed by a sex-negative culture which stigmatizes sexuality. If sex weren't stigmatized, and viewed as an exceptional circumstance when it comes to allowing people to gather and recreate, then it wouldn't really matter whether some nudists sometimes engaged in public sex and exhibitionism, any more than it matters now if a nudist engages in an activity that doesn't carry any particular stigma, like playing a certain sport.
That's not to say that nudists necessarily SHOULD embrace public sex, but the idea that nudism and exhibitionism are intrinsically incompatible* (or that there can't be an alternative exhibitionistic nudism) stems from that sex-negative bias. You can still separate nudism from public sex acts - and still have good reason to do so - without drawing the further conclusion that nudists and exhibitionists are mutually exclusive, or that the existence of one inherently threatens the other.
*Frankly, I would have thought that people who like to be naked and people who like to be exposed would have been natural allies, but I guess it's more complicated than that.
---
What is the most basic requirement for being a nudist?
I would argue that nudism encompasses a certain attitude toward nudity. A rejection of the exposure taboo - that our bodies should remain hidden except in specific special circumstances. Although, you can be a nudist in the privacy of your own home, and still be self-conscious in front of others.
Most people in textile culture are rarely naked. They might get naked for sex (and while this is not a requirement, they will at least need to expose their genitals, which is the most guarded part of the body in textile culture). Other than that, they typically only get naked when changing clothes, bathing, or using the bathroom (and there, again, they are usually only partially undressed - the undressed portion critically being the genitals). And these things are typically done in private, or only in the presence of relations with special privileges. Occasionally, a textile might sleep naked or go skinny dipping, but these are usually rare or infrequent practices, and not the norm - the exception that proves the rule.
I think that if you are (1) nonchalant about being seen naked by others, since body shyness is hard-coded into textile culture, then that makes you a nudist. But I also think that if (2) you are private with your nudity, but engage with it more commonly than a typical textile - such as lounging about the house in the nude, even if only when you are alone, or with special company - then that can also make you a nudist. In either case, I think it comes down to comfort. Whether it's comfort in front of others, or just comfort in your own skin, being comfortable instead of neurotic and uptight about nudity is enough for me to consider you a nudist.
Now, this can occur in a sexual context - some people are highly body-conscious even while having sex. Although, I hesitate to label a person a nudist if they are ONLY ever comfortable with nudity during sex (or always interpret nudity as it relates to sex). As long as that nudity extends beyond the sexual environment, even if you are lounging around the house with your significant other (at a point when most textiles would have covered up), that still constitutes nudism to me.
Now, if your comfort with nudity around others is purely the result of an exhibitionist motivation, then I would hesitate to call that nudism, as well. However, having that exhibitionist interest doesn't preclude you from being a nudist. If you only ever expose yourself to others in the course of your sexual practices (whether with consenting others - as I would hope the case would be - or not), then that's not really nudism. But if you still like to go nude when you're not doing it for sexual reasons, then you are a nudist, even if you do think getting naked in front of others can be erotic.
I support nonsexual nudism, but I was just thinking, do we absolutely need to designate nudism as non-sexual? Or can we just delineate a non-sexual nudism versus a sexual nudism? Could nudism not simply be the practice of nudity beyond the bounds of what textile society deems normal? Obviously, a sexual nudist isn't going to constantly be having sex. And if they only EVER get undressed for sex, then that really isn't nudism. But if they like to walk around naked, and also occasionally have sex in public, is the walking around part not still nudism?
Is it a matter of motivation? That if they're walking around naked because they view it as erotic - sort of a form of foreplay - then it's exhibitionism and not nudism? But does it have to be 100% because of that exhibitionism? Or because of exhibitionism 100% of the time? Is it not possible for an exhibitionist to spend a lot of time naked, and discover through that means that being naked is enjoyable for reasons beyond the sexual? And thus become a nudist through exhibitionism? This is what I've always maintained.
But many nudists seem to be of the opinion that if there is even a single percent of your nudity tied to an exhibitionist motivation, then that invalidates the nudist component. But I don't agree. This view is informed by a sex-negative culture which stigmatizes sexuality. If sex weren't stigmatized, and viewed as an exceptional circumstance when it comes to allowing people to gather and recreate, then it wouldn't really matter whether some nudists sometimes engaged in public sex and exhibitionism, any more than it matters now if a nudist engages in an activity that doesn't carry any particular stigma, like playing a certain sport.
That's not to say that nudists necessarily SHOULD embrace public sex, but the idea that nudism and exhibitionism are intrinsically incompatible* (or that there can't be an alternative exhibitionistic nudism) stems from that sex-negative bias. You can still separate nudism from public sex acts - and still have good reason to do so - without drawing the further conclusion that nudists and exhibitionists are mutually exclusive, or that the existence of one inherently threatens the other.
*Frankly, I would have thought that people who like to be naked and people who like to be exposed would have been natural allies, but I guess it's more complicated than that.
---
What is the most basic requirement for being a nudist?
I would argue that nudism encompasses a certain attitude toward nudity. A rejection of the exposure taboo - that our bodies should remain hidden except in specific special circumstances. Although, you can be a nudist in the privacy of your own home, and still be self-conscious in front of others.
Most people in textile culture are rarely naked. They might get naked for sex (and while this is not a requirement, they will at least need to expose their genitals, which is the most guarded part of the body in textile culture). Other than that, they typically only get naked when changing clothes, bathing, or using the bathroom (and there, again, they are usually only partially undressed - the undressed portion critically being the genitals). And these things are typically done in private, or only in the presence of relations with special privileges. Occasionally, a textile might sleep naked or go skinny dipping, but these are usually rare or infrequent practices, and not the norm - the exception that proves the rule.
I think that if you are (1) nonchalant about being seen naked by others, since body shyness is hard-coded into textile culture, then that makes you a nudist. But I also think that if (2) you are private with your nudity, but engage with it more commonly than a typical textile - such as lounging about the house in the nude, even if only when you are alone, or with special company - then that can also make you a nudist. In either case, I think it comes down to comfort. Whether it's comfort in front of others, or just comfort in your own skin, being comfortable instead of neurotic and uptight about nudity is enough for me to consider you a nudist.
Now, this can occur in a sexual context - some people are highly body-conscious even while having sex. Although, I hesitate to label a person a nudist if they are ONLY ever comfortable with nudity during sex (or always interpret nudity as it relates to sex). As long as that nudity extends beyond the sexual environment, even if you are lounging around the house with your significant other (at a point when most textiles would have covered up), that still constitutes nudism to me.
Now, if your comfort with nudity around others is purely the result of an exhibitionist motivation, then I would hesitate to call that nudism, as well. However, having that exhibitionist interest doesn't preclude you from being a nudist. If you only ever expose yourself to others in the course of your sexual practices (whether with consenting others - as I would hope the case would be - or not), then that's not really nudism. But if you still like to go nude when you're not doing it for sexual reasons, then you are a nudist, even if you do think getting naked in front of others can be erotic.
Monday, November 30, 2020
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 5)
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
On the one hand, I know of people who post images of naked strangers to celebrate nudism. And on the other, there are nudists criticizing people with particular posting habits (like if the naked people are too attractive), but I don't know where exactly the two intersect. So I can only ever speculate whether a given image would pass inspection (thereby reinforcing my own personal bias). If, for example, a photographer hires an attractive model to pose naked for a non-sexually explicit photo, can that photo represent nudism? (I think yes). Understanding that intent is only ever a guessing game, and not to pass judgment on anyone, I think it would be fascinating for a panel of nudists to interpret specific images that are shared online in terms of the extent to which they promote the true spirit of nudism.
Activists and advocates of political correctness need to understand that any label will sound like a slur coming out of your enemy's mouth, but that doesn't mean it's a slur when your advocates use it. I know language is important, and it evolves (though not all of us are quick enough to keep up), but that's precisely the reason we should take care not to police it to the extent that we scare people out of speaking up, thereby silencing the voices that need amplification the most.
When you take "yes" out of a person or a population's vocabulary, whether by stigmatization or outright restriction, you're making it harder for people to figure out which "no's" really mean "no". Consent can't be respected unless there's a free choice involved.
Nudists can be so judgmental. Sometimes I feel like it would be cathartic to revoke my membership and declare war on the lifestyle, but the truth is, I love nudism, and it wouldn't stop me from practicing it. It's just a subset of its adherents that can be insufferable sometimes.
Nudists have both the right and the responsibility to police usage of their beaches, resorts, clubs, and discussion forums. But they should refrain from judging the sexual behaviors and motivations of the wider public, especially on the porn-friendly internet.
Nudity is not porn. But by that token, a lot of porn is not porn, either. Frankly, I think we should eliminate "pornography" from our vocabulary, because it means too many different things and carries too much baggage. Its use doesn't facilitate communication, it obstructs it.
People come to nudism from many different paths. If somebody follows a nude model because he's attracted to her, and in the process learns about nudism, then that's a net gain for nudism. There's no reason "sex sells" can't also be applied to nudism. I mean, I get it. The predominant approach is safety over liberty. Shaming healthy feelings is collateral damage in preventing deviants from slipping through the cracks. I just have different priorities - freedom, personal responsibility, and not punishing the innocent.
So many people seek happiness from the world around them, when our bodies were designed with an inborn valve to release pleasure. 100% natural. 100% healthy. It's madness not to make use of it. And cruelty to shame others for doing so.
There's a certain ableism entrenched in anti-porn/sex work positions. Yes, these resources are sometimes used as substitutes to fill the void of relationships missing from a person's life. Not always due to personal choice or personality flaw, but also for clinical reasons. But do these people not deserve sexual satisfaction, or to have the resources to tend to their sexual health, just because they're lonely, or unskilled at attracting a mate? Nor is it the crutch's fault if a man leans on it too long, at the expense of his own rehabilitation.
Libido is a storm - a force of nature that can be devastating left unchecked. But its energy can also be harnessed for good. We live in a society that cultivates destructive sexual energies. I want to change the culture to transform those energies into a more nurturing variety. The purpose of sex isn't to "smash" or "destroy" someone, to degrade and humiliate them. It's to attain bodily pleasure. To give and receive, not inflict. It's not an extreme sport. It doesn't rely on vigorous penetration. It's the physical manifestation of desire and admiration.
Whenever there's a sex scandal, we shame people's sexual behaviors, thinking this will prevent another scandal from happening in the future. What we don't realize is that it's this shame that is causing these scandals in the first place. People are more likely to misbehave sexually when they don't have an appropriate outlet for their sexual desires. And making a scandal out of healthy behaviors - like taking sexy pics with your phone - makes the problem seem worse than it is.
Here's what I don't get. Whether you're a celebrity or a normal person, if you have reason to suspect that a lot of people would enjoy seeing pictures of you naked and/or engaged in sexual activities, then what exactly is wrong with giving the people what they want? It doesn't make you somehow noble or virtuous to withhold that from them. Yet we condemn anyone who dares to serve this human need - even when they're not themselves responsible! (e.g., getting hacked) But we have control over that as a population, and it needs to stop. I just don't understand that mentality. I know that people want to see me naked; that they enjoy it. I would feel like a psychopath to withhold that from them. It brings me joy and satisfaction to know that I can give them something of myself to make them feel good. And I'm not saying demand is the sole arbiter; willingness should always be the prime consideration. But when we place a moral price on the satisfaction of this desire, we're scaring people away who might otherwise be willing, thereby artificially reducing the supply. And make no mistake - this is deliberate. But without proper supply, frustration mounts, and people act out. Sexual repression is the number one cause of antisocial sexual behaviors. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is nothing immoral about sexual pleasure.
Some sites, like Instagram and Facebook, don't have a good reputation for tolerating nudity. Now, I understand - and even support - the desire to go to these sites to make a stand. What I don't understand is the shock and horror when the inevitable predictably happens. I've been sharing my nude/erotic photography online for over a decade. I've had a few snafus, as we all do, because this is not an exact science, but I've never lost an account. The first thing you have to do is make sure you understand the rules better than the staff does. It's just like if you're out hiking in the woods - you should know the law better than the local authorities do. And sometimes, you'll still get harassed. Other times, it'll be a matter of differing interpretation. But at least know what you're getting yourself into.
I sell fantasy, not opportunity. I'm not a slut. I just play one on the internet.
Do not judge the sexual intentions of the gentle and empathetic by the actions of the predatory and aggressive. Too much of our sexuality is stunted because so many misbehave. But I don't take this to be an inevitability, I take it to be an opportunity for improvement.
I think people often don't have free choice. Because choices aren't made in vacuums. And when a culture systematically obliterates the legitimacy of one option in favor of another, then it's not really a free choice. It's compelled speech. And most people don't even realize it.
As an alternative to "shirts and skins" I propose "nudes and prudes". One team gets naked, and the other stays dressed.
If there is demand in the world for seeing naked people (and there is), then what's wrong with people that are comfortable being seen naked indulging it? I call that synergy. I feel like nudists are held to a certain standard indicative of professional organizations - "when you wear the uniform, you reflect the ideals of the organization." But not everything a nudist does when he's naked has to reflect the non-sexuality of nudism; the fact that nudism is non-sexual doesn't mean that nudists have to eschew anything that "sexualizes" nudity. If it's true that a nudist is a nudist through and through, even when he's clothed and not practicing nudism, then he's a nudist even while he's having sex. And nudists don't have to live every moment in the public eye like they're unendingly engaged in wholesome nudism.
This is a fundamental truth I've learned from experience, though it remains well suppressed. The worst treatment you experience in life will be at the hands of prudes. Yet it's the perverts we're warned about. (I know pervs - they're good people). The world is backwards.
I like to open people's minds to new possibilities outside their limited exposure to the mainstream. But dealing with close-minded people is exhausting, and hazardous to one's health. I can't force anyone's eyes open, but oh, the sights I can show those who are willing to look...
When someone talks about self-respect - as in, others lacking it - it's usually a cover for their inability to show basic human respect to others. It's just easier to blame the victim, and convince yourself they don't deserve respect, than face up to your own infirmity.
What if the hazards of sex work are not intrinsic to the work, but are manufactured by an intolerant society in order to prove a point? Then, any attempt to mitigate those hazards would be obstructed in favor of an abolitionist approach. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've been at war for too long. And I never wanted to be a soldier. But society isn't content to just let people have their sexy fun, without everyone offering their own opinions and judgment on what is right and proper, in an unprotected orgy of shame and loathing. If you ask me, that's the only true perversion. And the only sex crime is a violation of consent (including consent to access information), the only victim being one whose consent has been violated - not the moral character of law or society or an uninvolved third party. So if a woman consents to pose nude for a magazine cover (especially if she is compensated for it), you can just fuck right off with your moralistic notion of "objectification". I've never heard of a pervert campaigning against your freedom to form a bridge club.
You don't have to like exhibitionists. You don't even have to accept them into the fold. But people don't even try to understand them. That's what gets to me. They just write exhibitionists off as antisocial perverts with no conscience. But guess what? We're human, like you. We understand personal boundaries, and social conventions. We can't be boiled down to an ignorant stereotype. And we have feelings, too. Try talking to us sometimes, and asking us questions; instead of just assuming our motives and shutting us out of the conversation. Nor are exhibitionists a monolithic entity, reducible to a DSM diagnosis (like transvestites and homosexuals). We're diverse individuals. Do you let what others do define who you are as a nudist? Then nothing anyone else has done defines who I am as an exhibitionist.
I know how it sounds, but I'm not advocating for skeevy creeps to be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm advocating for decent people to be able to accept their sexual feelings without shame, and for sexual creativity not to be relegated to the realm of "vice". It's nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about human sexuality. And I realize that's a lot to ask, but it wouldn't be right to demand anything less. I've never been happy with the way things are. I want them to be better. And I think they can.
Porn isn't always about gaping orifices. Sometimes it's about beautiful bodies. And you can't argue that beautiful bodies constitute porn, and then treat them like you would gaping orifices. Sometimes porn is tasteful, artistic, even nudist-positive.
Our culture segregates everything to do with sex from the rest of our lives. But every stripper, every cam girl, every escort, every pornographer...is also a human being. With friends, family, kids, parents, hobbies, pastimes, sometimes even day jobs. I'm not saying the sexual element has to be integrated into dinner party conversation, but we shouldn't punish people for having this other side. Strippers can become teachers - embracing the erotic element of living as a sexual organism isn't a character flaw, or a vice. I don't support the illusion that these are distinct worlds that must never collide. A person can be two things simultaneously without their work or play sexualizing everything they do or say. There's no reason a known pornographer can't lend public support to nudism. True objectification is telling these people that, in the course of maintaining their erotic personality, they must never hint at any interests, or display evidence of having a life outside of the erotic services they are rendering.
There's an increased anxiety when I go out dressed as a woman. And it's not fear of sexual attention from men. I've experienced that. Sometimes it's annoying (for the love of God, don't honk at pedestrians please); most of the times it's just mildly flattering. No, it's the fear of not passing - not being seen as a woman, but being seen as an impostor. I'm sure men do horrible things to women. But what do they do to "men" that inadvertently "trick" them into experiencing what is retroactively revealed to be "gay thoughts"? It's not just men, though. The women's restroom is far from a safe space. God forbid I should be identified as a pervert and assigned sordid intentions. I'm sorry, but restrooms aren't the least bit sexy to me. I just want to do my business in peace and get out of there.
Re: "All bodies are beautiful." I don't want anyone to think that I'm defending judgment and insensitivity; I'm not. But honesty is important, too. Nudists prop up an unattainable fantasy whereby visual evaluation goes out the window, and it's inhuman. Nobody can live up to it. I support body acceptance. People have different opinions, and acceptance can be found in their mix - that there is not one monolithic idea of beauty. But that's different than expecting an individual to see every body exactly the same. And still, seeing bodies differently doesn't justify treating them differently. Your visual appraisal of another person's body means little to nothing - THAT's the naturist lesson. Not that you aren't allowed to have preferences in the first place. I know the very concept that some people's bodies could be viewed as "less than" others is heartbreaking. But we can't just ditch something because we don't like it. Maybe if we could change human nature first, but I'm not sure we even should. Democracy does not mean everybody is perfectly equal. It means we strive for equity - equal opportunity - and that everyone has the same fundamental rights. Exceptionalism is a phenomenon in life that makes experiences better for people when they're rare. Relative value judgments exist because the extraordinary becomes exceptional in contrast to the ordinary. Not that I would be opposed to an experiment in which the extraordinary becomes ordinary. But even then, judging what's extraordinary involves excluding the ordinary. It'd be great if you were so wired as to see everybody you meet as extraordinary, but that's just not reality.* Maybe "true" naturists lack a certain fundamental capacity to evaluate others' appearance. Maybe that's an adaptive improvement. But expecting everyone to be able to meet that standard (in order to be a nudist) is unrealistic. What of the rest of us? You're asking us to attain brain states we don't have, essentially reaching some kind of level of transformative enlightenment. I will say it again. The lesson is learning to put your judgments in context, and treat people fairly in spite of them - this is the miracle of kindness. It requires maturity, instead of self-deception and adherence to an unattainable social requirement.
*In other words, pretending the ordinary is extraordinary is not the same as changing the ordinary into the extraordinary - that is, saying beer bellies are hot versus giving everyone a six pack (abs, I mean).
The "nudism vs. naturism" debate is elitist at its core. Yes, there are different kinds of nudists, and some take it more seriously than others, but there are more than two kinds, and their differences are not designated by the terms "nudist" and "naturist". It would be easy to look at the two terms and jump to conclusions: that "nudism" is superficially about getting naked, while "naturism" connotes a deeper philosophy. But this does a disservice to the multitudes who use the terms interchangeably, as colloquial variations. Nudists are in no way "less than" naturists. A "nudist" may be principled and enjoy nature, while a "naturist" may be a recreational day tripper. But are these even really two different things? The beliefs of "nudists" and the activities of "naturists" largely overlap. Indeed, there is no functional difference between the two; the idea that there is is a myth. Even at their most distinct, they are still just two facets of the same thing: nude recreation, and its ideology. And to accuse a "nudist" of lacking ideology is elitist ignorance.
If I can be accused of being a nudist and NOT being a nudist by two different people for the SAME reason - insufficient ideological devotion/purity - because the second person believes nudism is what the first person believes naturism is, then we have a terminology problem.
I sympathize with and support the notion that nudism is not about looking (although this message is better transmitted by those who are not what some might call "lookers"), but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that looking is ANTI-nudist. It's not.
I thought nudists were supposed to accept people as they are. All they ever seem to do is judge me by impossible, superhuman standards. I've never advocated for the mixing of sex with nudism, only the freedom to be a nudist and still have a public sex life. Being a nudist doesn't require a shame-fueled, guilt-ridden, sex-negative mindset. I've been treated by nudists as an idiot and a nuisance and an impostor because I celebrate the erotic appeal of the human body. I've never been treated that poorly by a pervert. I've never once had a pervert view my stream and tell me, "you support nudism? You're not a TRUE pervert!" If even perverts know that not everything a person does is sexual, then why can't nudists understand that not everything a nudist does is part of the lifestyle? Nudists, take heed: you are actively contributing to body shame. Lying to yourself and pretending everyone is a supermodel, while every impure thought in your head generates self-loathing, is not the route to well-being. Let's make nudism truly a judgment-free zone.
I don't share erotic self-portraits out of some unrepressed urge to impose my sexuality on others. I do it because I admire the art form, and I've had the privilege through years of sharing my work to connect with others that appreciate what I do. So if you don't like them, just move along. You're not my audience, and I have no use for your judgment.
There's a certain comfort with the human body that comes from being a nudist. It may not be immediate, and it may never be complete, but if you're going to spend time naked, especially with other people, you're gonna learn not to let certain things bother you. Most people don't want to see their friends naked. They don't want to know how they groom their pubic hair. They don't want to hear the reasons why we sit on towels. They don't want to talk about what happens when men get erections and women get periods. If you're a nudist, you're going to encounter these things (in discussion if not in person). And I can't help feeling that you can't BE a nudist without gaining a certain level of comfort with that other activity our bodies were designed for - sex. What people can't seem to wrap their minds around is that this can be true, and it can also still be true that nudism is non-sexual. That sex acts can still be verboten, but that the topic may come up and we can all be a little bit more mature about it. We're never going to make nudism look perfectly kosher to an established textile. It's always going to be about the human body unfiltered, and people who are uncomfortable with that are going to take issue with it. Disavowing the primacy of our sex drive won't change that.
I see nudists committing the same mistakes and fallacies about sex that they criticize people for making about nudity. "Sex-positive" is an attitude, not an act. It's not code for "public sex is a-ok". "Sex-positive nudism" is NOT just another term for "swinging". I don't want people to have sex in nudist spaces. I don't want people to openly display porn in nudist spaces. I don't appreciate it, either, when people assume that nudity is only ever about sex, and then treat it the same way they treat porn. But I also don't appreciate it when nudists assume anything sex-Y or sex-UAL - or erotic, if you will - is explicit sex, and treat it as such. Or presuppose that an oppositional stance to expressions of human sexuality is a requirement for being a nudist. That's what I mean by "sex-positive". I'm not against porn. I don't resent the *implicit* daily eroticism of living. And I don't appreciate nudists thinking they can shit on me because I choose not to hide the fact that I am simultaneously a nudist and a sexual organism. Because that's NOT the same thing as saying I think I should be allowed to have sex whenever and wherever I want. I'm not advocating for sex at Bare Buns Resort any more than in McDonald's. I'm just sick of nudists not treating me with respect because I also make erotic art.
The only requirement for being a nudist is engaging in nudity for any nonsexual reason outside of the context in which a textile would normally be nude (e.g., taking a shower). Everything beyond that is joining a cult.
(Volume 6)
On the one hand, I know of people who post images of naked strangers to celebrate nudism. And on the other, there are nudists criticizing people with particular posting habits (like if the naked people are too attractive), but I don't know where exactly the two intersect. So I can only ever speculate whether a given image would pass inspection (thereby reinforcing my own personal bias). If, for example, a photographer hires an attractive model to pose naked for a non-sexually explicit photo, can that photo represent nudism? (I think yes). Understanding that intent is only ever a guessing game, and not to pass judgment on anyone, I think it would be fascinating for a panel of nudists to interpret specific images that are shared online in terms of the extent to which they promote the true spirit of nudism.
Activists and advocates of political correctness need to understand that any label will sound like a slur coming out of your enemy's mouth, but that doesn't mean it's a slur when your advocates use it. I know language is important, and it evolves (though not all of us are quick enough to keep up), but that's precisely the reason we should take care not to police it to the extent that we scare people out of speaking up, thereby silencing the voices that need amplification the most.
When you take "yes" out of a person or a population's vocabulary, whether by stigmatization or outright restriction, you're making it harder for people to figure out which "no's" really mean "no". Consent can't be respected unless there's a free choice involved.
Nudists can be so judgmental. Sometimes I feel like it would be cathartic to revoke my membership and declare war on the lifestyle, but the truth is, I love nudism, and it wouldn't stop me from practicing it. It's just a subset of its adherents that can be insufferable sometimes.
Nudists have both the right and the responsibility to police usage of their beaches, resorts, clubs, and discussion forums. But they should refrain from judging the sexual behaviors and motivations of the wider public, especially on the porn-friendly internet.
Nudity is not porn. But by that token, a lot of porn is not porn, either. Frankly, I think we should eliminate "pornography" from our vocabulary, because it means too many different things and carries too much baggage. Its use doesn't facilitate communication, it obstructs it.
People come to nudism from many different paths. If somebody follows a nude model because he's attracted to her, and in the process learns about nudism, then that's a net gain for nudism. There's no reason "sex sells" can't also be applied to nudism. I mean, I get it. The predominant approach is safety over liberty. Shaming healthy feelings is collateral damage in preventing deviants from slipping through the cracks. I just have different priorities - freedom, personal responsibility, and not punishing the innocent.
So many people seek happiness from the world around them, when our bodies were designed with an inborn valve to release pleasure. 100% natural. 100% healthy. It's madness not to make use of it. And cruelty to shame others for doing so.
There's a certain ableism entrenched in anti-porn/sex work positions. Yes, these resources are sometimes used as substitutes to fill the void of relationships missing from a person's life. Not always due to personal choice or personality flaw, but also for clinical reasons. But do these people not deserve sexual satisfaction, or to have the resources to tend to their sexual health, just because they're lonely, or unskilled at attracting a mate? Nor is it the crutch's fault if a man leans on it too long, at the expense of his own rehabilitation.
Libido is a storm - a force of nature that can be devastating left unchecked. But its energy can also be harnessed for good. We live in a society that cultivates destructive sexual energies. I want to change the culture to transform those energies into a more nurturing variety. The purpose of sex isn't to "smash" or "destroy" someone, to degrade and humiliate them. It's to attain bodily pleasure. To give and receive, not inflict. It's not an extreme sport. It doesn't rely on vigorous penetration. It's the physical manifestation of desire and admiration.
Whenever there's a sex scandal, we shame people's sexual behaviors, thinking this will prevent another scandal from happening in the future. What we don't realize is that it's this shame that is causing these scandals in the first place. People are more likely to misbehave sexually when they don't have an appropriate outlet for their sexual desires. And making a scandal out of healthy behaviors - like taking sexy pics with your phone - makes the problem seem worse than it is.
Here's what I don't get. Whether you're a celebrity or a normal person, if you have reason to suspect that a lot of people would enjoy seeing pictures of you naked and/or engaged in sexual activities, then what exactly is wrong with giving the people what they want? It doesn't make you somehow noble or virtuous to withhold that from them. Yet we condemn anyone who dares to serve this human need - even when they're not themselves responsible! (e.g., getting hacked) But we have control over that as a population, and it needs to stop. I just don't understand that mentality. I know that people want to see me naked; that they enjoy it. I would feel like a psychopath to withhold that from them. It brings me joy and satisfaction to know that I can give them something of myself to make them feel good. And I'm not saying demand is the sole arbiter; willingness should always be the prime consideration. But when we place a moral price on the satisfaction of this desire, we're scaring people away who might otherwise be willing, thereby artificially reducing the supply. And make no mistake - this is deliberate. But without proper supply, frustration mounts, and people act out. Sexual repression is the number one cause of antisocial sexual behaviors. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is nothing immoral about sexual pleasure.
Some sites, like Instagram and Facebook, don't have a good reputation for tolerating nudity. Now, I understand - and even support - the desire to go to these sites to make a stand. What I don't understand is the shock and horror when the inevitable predictably happens. I've been sharing my nude/erotic photography online for over a decade. I've had a few snafus, as we all do, because this is not an exact science, but I've never lost an account. The first thing you have to do is make sure you understand the rules better than the staff does. It's just like if you're out hiking in the woods - you should know the law better than the local authorities do. And sometimes, you'll still get harassed. Other times, it'll be a matter of differing interpretation. But at least know what you're getting yourself into.
I sell fantasy, not opportunity. I'm not a slut. I just play one on the internet.
Do not judge the sexual intentions of the gentle and empathetic by the actions of the predatory and aggressive. Too much of our sexuality is stunted because so many misbehave. But I don't take this to be an inevitability, I take it to be an opportunity for improvement.
I think people often don't have free choice. Because choices aren't made in vacuums. And when a culture systematically obliterates the legitimacy of one option in favor of another, then it's not really a free choice. It's compelled speech. And most people don't even realize it.
As an alternative to "shirts and skins" I propose "nudes and prudes". One team gets naked, and the other stays dressed.
If there is demand in the world for seeing naked people (and there is), then what's wrong with people that are comfortable being seen naked indulging it? I call that synergy. I feel like nudists are held to a certain standard indicative of professional organizations - "when you wear the uniform, you reflect the ideals of the organization." But not everything a nudist does when he's naked has to reflect the non-sexuality of nudism; the fact that nudism is non-sexual doesn't mean that nudists have to eschew anything that "sexualizes" nudity. If it's true that a nudist is a nudist through and through, even when he's clothed and not practicing nudism, then he's a nudist even while he's having sex. And nudists don't have to live every moment in the public eye like they're unendingly engaged in wholesome nudism.
This is a fundamental truth I've learned from experience, though it remains well suppressed. The worst treatment you experience in life will be at the hands of prudes. Yet it's the perverts we're warned about. (I know pervs - they're good people). The world is backwards.
I like to open people's minds to new possibilities outside their limited exposure to the mainstream. But dealing with close-minded people is exhausting, and hazardous to one's health. I can't force anyone's eyes open, but oh, the sights I can show those who are willing to look...
When someone talks about self-respect - as in, others lacking it - it's usually a cover for their inability to show basic human respect to others. It's just easier to blame the victim, and convince yourself they don't deserve respect, than face up to your own infirmity.
What if the hazards of sex work are not intrinsic to the work, but are manufactured by an intolerant society in order to prove a point? Then, any attempt to mitigate those hazards would be obstructed in favor of an abolitionist approach. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've been at war for too long. And I never wanted to be a soldier. But society isn't content to just let people have their sexy fun, without everyone offering their own opinions and judgment on what is right and proper, in an unprotected orgy of shame and loathing. If you ask me, that's the only true perversion. And the only sex crime is a violation of consent (including consent to access information), the only victim being one whose consent has been violated - not the moral character of law or society or an uninvolved third party. So if a woman consents to pose nude for a magazine cover (especially if she is compensated for it), you can just fuck right off with your moralistic notion of "objectification". I've never heard of a pervert campaigning against your freedom to form a bridge club.
You don't have to like exhibitionists. You don't even have to accept them into the fold. But people don't even try to understand them. That's what gets to me. They just write exhibitionists off as antisocial perverts with no conscience. But guess what? We're human, like you. We understand personal boundaries, and social conventions. We can't be boiled down to an ignorant stereotype. And we have feelings, too. Try talking to us sometimes, and asking us questions; instead of just assuming our motives and shutting us out of the conversation. Nor are exhibitionists a monolithic entity, reducible to a DSM diagnosis (like transvestites and homosexuals). We're diverse individuals. Do you let what others do define who you are as a nudist? Then nothing anyone else has done defines who I am as an exhibitionist.
I know how it sounds, but I'm not advocating for skeevy creeps to be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm advocating for decent people to be able to accept their sexual feelings without shame, and for sexual creativity not to be relegated to the realm of "vice". It's nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about human sexuality. And I realize that's a lot to ask, but it wouldn't be right to demand anything less. I've never been happy with the way things are. I want them to be better. And I think they can.
Porn isn't always about gaping orifices. Sometimes it's about beautiful bodies. And you can't argue that beautiful bodies constitute porn, and then treat them like you would gaping orifices. Sometimes porn is tasteful, artistic, even nudist-positive.
Our culture segregates everything to do with sex from the rest of our lives. But every stripper, every cam girl, every escort, every pornographer...is also a human being. With friends, family, kids, parents, hobbies, pastimes, sometimes even day jobs. I'm not saying the sexual element has to be integrated into dinner party conversation, but we shouldn't punish people for having this other side. Strippers can become teachers - embracing the erotic element of living as a sexual organism isn't a character flaw, or a vice. I don't support the illusion that these are distinct worlds that must never collide. A person can be two things simultaneously without their work or play sexualizing everything they do or say. There's no reason a known pornographer can't lend public support to nudism. True objectification is telling these people that, in the course of maintaining their erotic personality, they must never hint at any interests, or display evidence of having a life outside of the erotic services they are rendering.
There's an increased anxiety when I go out dressed as a woman. And it's not fear of sexual attention from men. I've experienced that. Sometimes it's annoying (for the love of God, don't honk at pedestrians please); most of the times it's just mildly flattering. No, it's the fear of not passing - not being seen as a woman, but being seen as an impostor. I'm sure men do horrible things to women. But what do they do to "men" that inadvertently "trick" them into experiencing what is retroactively revealed to be "gay thoughts"? It's not just men, though. The women's restroom is far from a safe space. God forbid I should be identified as a pervert and assigned sordid intentions. I'm sorry, but restrooms aren't the least bit sexy to me. I just want to do my business in peace and get out of there.
Re: "All bodies are beautiful." I don't want anyone to think that I'm defending judgment and insensitivity; I'm not. But honesty is important, too. Nudists prop up an unattainable fantasy whereby visual evaluation goes out the window, and it's inhuman. Nobody can live up to it. I support body acceptance. People have different opinions, and acceptance can be found in their mix - that there is not one monolithic idea of beauty. But that's different than expecting an individual to see every body exactly the same. And still, seeing bodies differently doesn't justify treating them differently. Your visual appraisal of another person's body means little to nothing - THAT's the naturist lesson. Not that you aren't allowed to have preferences in the first place. I know the very concept that some people's bodies could be viewed as "less than" others is heartbreaking. But we can't just ditch something because we don't like it. Maybe if we could change human nature first, but I'm not sure we even should. Democracy does not mean everybody is perfectly equal. It means we strive for equity - equal opportunity - and that everyone has the same fundamental rights. Exceptionalism is a phenomenon in life that makes experiences better for people when they're rare. Relative value judgments exist because the extraordinary becomes exceptional in contrast to the ordinary. Not that I would be opposed to an experiment in which the extraordinary becomes ordinary. But even then, judging what's extraordinary involves excluding the ordinary. It'd be great if you were so wired as to see everybody you meet as extraordinary, but that's just not reality.* Maybe "true" naturists lack a certain fundamental capacity to evaluate others' appearance. Maybe that's an adaptive improvement. But expecting everyone to be able to meet that standard (in order to be a nudist) is unrealistic. What of the rest of us? You're asking us to attain brain states we don't have, essentially reaching some kind of level of transformative enlightenment. I will say it again. The lesson is learning to put your judgments in context, and treat people fairly in spite of them - this is the miracle of kindness. It requires maturity, instead of self-deception and adherence to an unattainable social requirement.
*In other words, pretending the ordinary is extraordinary is not the same as changing the ordinary into the extraordinary - that is, saying beer bellies are hot versus giving everyone a six pack (abs, I mean).
The "nudism vs. naturism" debate is elitist at its core. Yes, there are different kinds of nudists, and some take it more seriously than others, but there are more than two kinds, and their differences are not designated by the terms "nudist" and "naturist". It would be easy to look at the two terms and jump to conclusions: that "nudism" is superficially about getting naked, while "naturism" connotes a deeper philosophy. But this does a disservice to the multitudes who use the terms interchangeably, as colloquial variations. Nudists are in no way "less than" naturists. A "nudist" may be principled and enjoy nature, while a "naturist" may be a recreational day tripper. But are these even really two different things? The beliefs of "nudists" and the activities of "naturists" largely overlap. Indeed, there is no functional difference between the two; the idea that there is is a myth. Even at their most distinct, they are still just two facets of the same thing: nude recreation, and its ideology. And to accuse a "nudist" of lacking ideology is elitist ignorance.
If I can be accused of being a nudist and NOT being a nudist by two different people for the SAME reason - insufficient ideological devotion/purity - because the second person believes nudism is what the first person believes naturism is, then we have a terminology problem.
I sympathize with and support the notion that nudism is not about looking (although this message is better transmitted by those who are not what some might call "lookers"), but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that looking is ANTI-nudist. It's not.
I thought nudists were supposed to accept people as they are. All they ever seem to do is judge me by impossible, superhuman standards. I've never advocated for the mixing of sex with nudism, only the freedom to be a nudist and still have a public sex life. Being a nudist doesn't require a shame-fueled, guilt-ridden, sex-negative mindset. I've been treated by nudists as an idiot and a nuisance and an impostor because I celebrate the erotic appeal of the human body. I've never been treated that poorly by a pervert. I've never once had a pervert view my stream and tell me, "you support nudism? You're not a TRUE pervert!" If even perverts know that not everything a person does is sexual, then why can't nudists understand that not everything a nudist does is part of the lifestyle? Nudists, take heed: you are actively contributing to body shame. Lying to yourself and pretending everyone is a supermodel, while every impure thought in your head generates self-loathing, is not the route to well-being. Let's make nudism truly a judgment-free zone.
I don't share erotic self-portraits out of some unrepressed urge to impose my sexuality on others. I do it because I admire the art form, and I've had the privilege through years of sharing my work to connect with others that appreciate what I do. So if you don't like them, just move along. You're not my audience, and I have no use for your judgment.
There's a certain comfort with the human body that comes from being a nudist. It may not be immediate, and it may never be complete, but if you're going to spend time naked, especially with other people, you're gonna learn not to let certain things bother you. Most people don't want to see their friends naked. They don't want to know how they groom their pubic hair. They don't want to hear the reasons why we sit on towels. They don't want to talk about what happens when men get erections and women get periods. If you're a nudist, you're going to encounter these things (in discussion if not in person). And I can't help feeling that you can't BE a nudist without gaining a certain level of comfort with that other activity our bodies were designed for - sex. What people can't seem to wrap their minds around is that this can be true, and it can also still be true that nudism is non-sexual. That sex acts can still be verboten, but that the topic may come up and we can all be a little bit more mature about it. We're never going to make nudism look perfectly kosher to an established textile. It's always going to be about the human body unfiltered, and people who are uncomfortable with that are going to take issue with it. Disavowing the primacy of our sex drive won't change that.
I see nudists committing the same mistakes and fallacies about sex that they criticize people for making about nudity. "Sex-positive" is an attitude, not an act. It's not code for "public sex is a-ok". "Sex-positive nudism" is NOT just another term for "swinging". I don't want people to have sex in nudist spaces. I don't want people to openly display porn in nudist spaces. I don't appreciate it, either, when people assume that nudity is only ever about sex, and then treat it the same way they treat porn. But I also don't appreciate it when nudists assume anything sex-Y or sex-UAL - or erotic, if you will - is explicit sex, and treat it as such. Or presuppose that an oppositional stance to expressions of human sexuality is a requirement for being a nudist. That's what I mean by "sex-positive". I'm not against porn. I don't resent the *implicit* daily eroticism of living. And I don't appreciate nudists thinking they can shit on me because I choose not to hide the fact that I am simultaneously a nudist and a sexual organism. Because that's NOT the same thing as saying I think I should be allowed to have sex whenever and wherever I want. I'm not advocating for sex at Bare Buns Resort any more than in McDonald's. I'm just sick of nudists not treating me with respect because I also make erotic art.
The only requirement for being a nudist is engaging in nudity for any nonsexual reason outside of the context in which a textile would normally be nude (e.g., taking a shower). Everything beyond that is joining a cult.
(Volume 6)
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
Unnaturally Acting
A Redditor recently posted a link to the nudist movie Act Naturally [no longer available], available to watch for free online. I'd heard about this movie, and so decided to give it a watch. Unfortunately, I was not too impressed with it, so I wrote down some of my thoughts, copied here from the discussion on Reddit [NSFW].
---
I don't like to criticize art, because I know how much work goes into it, and it's like trampling on people's dreams, but I struggled through this movie. The acting is cringey (ironic, for a movie called "act naturally"), the writing is riddled with clichés, the camera work is dodgy (it seems like more care was put into positioning the actors than trying to hold the camera steady), and the nudity occupies a strange middle ground where it shows too much to satisfy prudish viewers, yet is still strangely shy about full frontal (except in the few instances where the film inexplicably subjects the viewer to what amounts to an unsolicited dick pic, up close and personal*).
Also, there's a strangely sexual undercurrent (along with excessive drinking - although that, sadly, is not an inaccurate portrayal of nudism in my experience), with masturbation, used condoms, casual hook-ups, and gay jokes littered throughout - presenting a rather more liberated view of nudism, which isn't altogether a bad thing (although it's a bit cruder than I would approach the issue), but seems at odds with the public image nudism seems preoccupied with putting forth.
Maybe it's included to appeal to a younger, less uptight demographic, or else just to fill out the movie's plot with some sexual and romantic tension. Regardless, I feel like this movie's intended audience isn't really nudists**, and yet I can't envision any reason a non-nudist would watch it, unless he's being subjected to it by a nudist friend. In which case, I would ask: is this the sort of cinematic experience the nudist community has to offer the world? Because I think we need to do better.
* This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the principal actors were uncomfortable with full frontal nudity, leading the filmmakers to contract out those scenes to faceless extras - which would explain the disjointed closeups and montages. But the result reminds me of the totally gratuitous (the only time I've ever used that word unironically) and unnecessary porn scenes added to Caligula, turning what should have been an epic Roman tragedy into cheap smut.
** Is it really fun for experienced nudists to relive the awkwardness and antagonism the textile world has against us? Or is it just catharsis to see those characters turn around in the end? (Although I didn't really feel like the transformation in this film was either full or very convincing). I think most nudists' first time at a resort was after they were already interested, so yeah, there's some nervousness involved, but not the outright antagonism of a textile being forced to disrobe. Is this a kind of torture porn for nudists - watching textiles forcibly indoctrinated into the lifestyle?
On the other hand, I know that representing textiles' initial impressions of nudism could act to make those characters more relatable to a wider audience, but do we really want to emphasize that awkward transitional period? Rather than showing what nudism is like at its best, when you're fully integrated into the lifestyle, as a desirable goal to pursue? Instead of leaving textiles thinking, "god this is so awkward; yeah, they get comfortable with it in the end, but it hardly seems worth it."
I think there's room for documentary-style videos of what resort life is like - and that's why we need more cameras documenting life inside resort fences, but can't we, as nudists, come up with different stories that integrate nudism into a wider world, with plots that go beyond "visiting a resort"? (Or at the very least, have an actual story where the action taking place at a resort is purely incidental). To show nudism as it could be - integrated logically into society, without paying lip service to textile neuroses ("lol, naked people are odd"), or depicting nudism as a cult of eccentric (if lovable) outsiders? I think we need to raise the bar and set our standards higher.
---
I don't like to criticize art, because I know how much work goes into it, and it's like trampling on people's dreams, but I struggled through this movie. The acting is cringey (ironic, for a movie called "act naturally"), the writing is riddled with clichés, the camera work is dodgy (it seems like more care was put into positioning the actors than trying to hold the camera steady), and the nudity occupies a strange middle ground where it shows too much to satisfy prudish viewers, yet is still strangely shy about full frontal (except in the few instances where the film inexplicably subjects the viewer to what amounts to an unsolicited dick pic, up close and personal*).
Also, there's a strangely sexual undercurrent (along with excessive drinking - although that, sadly, is not an inaccurate portrayal of nudism in my experience), with masturbation, used condoms, casual hook-ups, and gay jokes littered throughout - presenting a rather more liberated view of nudism, which isn't altogether a bad thing (although it's a bit cruder than I would approach the issue), but seems at odds with the public image nudism seems preoccupied with putting forth.
Maybe it's included to appeal to a younger, less uptight demographic, or else just to fill out the movie's plot with some sexual and romantic tension. Regardless, I feel like this movie's intended audience isn't really nudists**, and yet I can't envision any reason a non-nudist would watch it, unless he's being subjected to it by a nudist friend. In which case, I would ask: is this the sort of cinematic experience the nudist community has to offer the world? Because I think we need to do better.
* This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the principal actors were uncomfortable with full frontal nudity, leading the filmmakers to contract out those scenes to faceless extras - which would explain the disjointed closeups and montages. But the result reminds me of the totally gratuitous (the only time I've ever used that word unironically) and unnecessary porn scenes added to Caligula, turning what should have been an epic Roman tragedy into cheap smut.
** Is it really fun for experienced nudists to relive the awkwardness and antagonism the textile world has against us? Or is it just catharsis to see those characters turn around in the end? (Although I didn't really feel like the transformation in this film was either full or very convincing). I think most nudists' first time at a resort was after they were already interested, so yeah, there's some nervousness involved, but not the outright antagonism of a textile being forced to disrobe. Is this a kind of torture porn for nudists - watching textiles forcibly indoctrinated into the lifestyle?
On the other hand, I know that representing textiles' initial impressions of nudism could act to make those characters more relatable to a wider audience, but do we really want to emphasize that awkward transitional period? Rather than showing what nudism is like at its best, when you're fully integrated into the lifestyle, as a desirable goal to pursue? Instead of leaving textiles thinking, "god this is so awkward; yeah, they get comfortable with it in the end, but it hardly seems worth it."
I think there's room for documentary-style videos of what resort life is like - and that's why we need more cameras documenting life inside resort fences, but can't we, as nudists, come up with different stories that integrate nudism into a wider world, with plots that go beyond "visiting a resort"? (Or at the very least, have an actual story where the action taking place at a resort is purely incidental). To show nudism as it could be - integrated logically into society, without paying lip service to textile neuroses ("lol, naked people are odd"), or depicting nudism as a cult of eccentric (if lovable) outsiders? I think we need to raise the bar and set our standards higher.
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Nudism and Sex-Negativity
You can't talk about nudism without eventually bringing up the subject of sex. You just can't. Ironic though it is, this is at least as fundamentally true (and maybe more so) as the fact that nudism is not about sex. We should accept that. And if it's because a lot of outsiders mistake nudism for a sexual lifestyle, that's only because there is an aspect to nudity - not the whole thing, but an aspect - that is intrinsically sexual in nature. As long as we are sexual organisms biologically programmed to appraise each other's potential for mating based at least partially on visual stimuli, nudity is going to carry the potential for sexual stimulation. (This is perhaps more true in a textile society where nudity is taboo, and less frequently encountered outside of a sexual context, but even in a nudist utopia, people would still be attracted to each other's nude bodies, the way people in our society are still physically attracted to each other even while dressed). And while we may at some point in an advanced, transhuman future find a way to change this, I'm not even sure we necessarily ought to (because unless you're an anhedonic prude, this sort of stimulation is not at all undesirable). As it is, until then, you can't talk about nudism without eventually bringing up the subject of sex.
Now, being sex-positive in a sex-negative culture introduces some challenges. Due to our culture, most people are sex-negative to some degree. Being sex-positive, I'm willing to confront sex-negative attitudes, but it's exhausting having to do it all the time. If I join a music group, people rarely talk about sex. If I join a sports group, people rarely talk about sex. If I join a cooking group, people rarely talk about sex. How many more examples do I need to provide? But if I join a nudist group, it's only a matter of time before the subject of sex comes up, and usually in judgmental tones. I'd be happy to just not talk about it, because that's not what the group is about, but it always happens, without fail. There seems to be this intrinsic antagonism between sex and nudism, because sex apparently hampers a lot of people's enjoyment of nudism in a way that it doesn't hamper the enjoyment of music, or sports, or cooking, or what have you. And that's because of this intrinsic connection between nudity and sex, that nudists just can't seem to accept. And while there ARE sex-positive nudists, they are viewed by the sex-negative nudists as not simply having a difference of opinion, but actively obstructing the principles of the lifestyle.
I don't agree with this. And I don't mind people having differences of opinion, but being a nudist means that I have to be constantly bombarded by people's sex-negative opinions. And it's exhausting. Now, regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of beliefs on nudism and sex, is nudism a lifestyle that seeks to exclude portions of the population, selecting a special, enlightened populace to participate in a secret society? Or is nudism for every body? Agreeing with the basic tenet that nudism is not about sex does NOT require you to have certain judgmental opinions on sex in general - such as that voyeurs and exhibitionists deserve to be looked down upon, that nude and erotic photography is all "pornography" if it's not 100% asexual, that people looking at naked bodies and having feelings of physical attraction is a perversion of nature, or even that wearing clothes that emphasize sex appeal is vulgar and indecent. As long as you understand what nudism is and what it is not, you don't have to hold any of these opinions; you can enjoy sex and sexual expression without shame, and still be 100% loyal to the cause of nudism. But you're going to have to put up with a lot of guff.
Now, being sex-positive in a sex-negative culture introduces some challenges. Due to our culture, most people are sex-negative to some degree. Being sex-positive, I'm willing to confront sex-negative attitudes, but it's exhausting having to do it all the time. If I join a music group, people rarely talk about sex. If I join a sports group, people rarely talk about sex. If I join a cooking group, people rarely talk about sex. How many more examples do I need to provide? But if I join a nudist group, it's only a matter of time before the subject of sex comes up, and usually in judgmental tones. I'd be happy to just not talk about it, because that's not what the group is about, but it always happens, without fail. There seems to be this intrinsic antagonism between sex and nudism, because sex apparently hampers a lot of people's enjoyment of nudism in a way that it doesn't hamper the enjoyment of music, or sports, or cooking, or what have you. And that's because of this intrinsic connection between nudity and sex, that nudists just can't seem to accept. And while there ARE sex-positive nudists, they are viewed by the sex-negative nudists as not simply having a difference of opinion, but actively obstructing the principles of the lifestyle.
I don't agree with this. And I don't mind people having differences of opinion, but being a nudist means that I have to be constantly bombarded by people's sex-negative opinions. And it's exhausting. Now, regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of beliefs on nudism and sex, is nudism a lifestyle that seeks to exclude portions of the population, selecting a special, enlightened populace to participate in a secret society? Or is nudism for every body? Agreeing with the basic tenet that nudism is not about sex does NOT require you to have certain judgmental opinions on sex in general - such as that voyeurs and exhibitionists deserve to be looked down upon, that nude and erotic photography is all "pornography" if it's not 100% asexual, that people looking at naked bodies and having feelings of physical attraction is a perversion of nature, or even that wearing clothes that emphasize sex appeal is vulgar and indecent. As long as you understand what nudism is and what it is not, you don't have to hold any of these opinions; you can enjoy sex and sexual expression without shame, and still be 100% loyal to the cause of nudism. But you're going to have to put up with a lot of guff.
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 4)
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3
Here are some of my views as a sex-positive: Pornography is a legitimate form of speech, deserving of legal protections. The 2257 Regulations are unconstitutional, and obscenity law unfairly discriminates against sexual expression. Sex work is work. Necessary work. If you want to help sex workers, give them more options, not fewer, and respect the choices they make. Access to comprehensive sex education is a fundamental right. People deserve unstigmatized access to contraception, medical testing, and abortions as needed. The ability to either grant or withhold sexual consent is a right, not a privilege. Masturbation is healthy. Monogamy is a choice. Fantasies are harmless. We should celebrate, rather than medicalize, human sexual diversity. The only perversion of sex is rape. Too much emphasis is placed on the value of virginity for girls, and on the value of getting laid for boys. Nobody should be shamed for their sexual interest or experience, or lack thereof. Am I missing anything important?
I'm not saying my perspective is right, and everybody else's perspective is wrong. I'm saying my perspective is legitimate, and deserves representation. Because I might not be the only one looking for an alternative to the way things are.
If anything demonstrates that sex and nudity are separate, it's that opening up about sex tends to make one more open about nudity, yet the reverse is not true - as attested to by the existence of many nudists who shun their natural would-be allies in the sex trades.
Living in a textile culture - I get it, seeing somebody naked outside of a bedroom encounter is weird. I'm a nudist, and I still feel this way when a nude (or even partially nude) body is juxtaposed against the norm of clothing. But don't knock it until you've tried it. Because when you're nude you realize that it's not about what is seen, it's about what is felt. And you realize that your hangups aren't worth preventing yourself or others from experiencing that joyful feeling of natural freedom, in a safe and nonjudgmental environment.
Deception is unethical. Coercion is unethical. Exploitation is unethical. Traveling in order to trade sex for money is not. Maybe if sex work weren't a crime, there would be less room for lying, cheating, and intimidation in the course of fulfilling this necessary social service.
Firstly, the existence of a particular type of content on a website does not imply that the website permits, let alone supports, that type of content. Enforcing content restrictions (especially consistently and in a balanced way) is a logistical challenge. Now, machine algorithms may reduce the burden, but at the cost of distancing the human element. So that particular decisions on which content to permit or restrict become further removed from a subjective consideration of what is "appropriate". That said, companies do make policy decisions on acceptable content, and bear responsibility for the lines they draw. However, I do not think these decisions have as much to do with a CEO's ideological stance, as the pressure to conform to community standards. Which is to say, you can criticize Mark Zuckerberg for disallowing nudity on Facebook, while Jack Dorsey permits porn on Twitter, but at a certain point, you have to hold the community responsible for their reaction to seeing naked bodies in their feeds.
Occasionally I'll see someone complaining about the apparent double standard by which "innocent" nudity is censored (e.g., on Facebook), while heavily-sexualized depictions of minimally clothed bodies are not (see: the Super Bowl halftime show controversy). There's a comparative value judgment there, like one of these is morally superior to the other, and that society's moral compass is inverted, giving thinly veiled smut a stamp of approval, while censuring more wholesome depictions of the human body. This perspective has some merit, but I'm afraid it reeks of sex negativity. It's not a moral failing to appreciate sex appeal. Yet some nudists think this sex-obsessed mindset is responsible for warping an innocent perception of nudity. Which leaves me with a question. Is the fact that nudity is sexualized a rational justification for its censure in a society that allegedly gives sexual expression free reign? Or is there something else about nudity that makes it distinctly more offensive to textiles than clothed bodies dripping with sex?
Man made clothes. God made us naked. I don't respect any religious belief that compels us to drape a cloth over God's greatest masterpiece. Can you imagine a bigger insult to the divine? Clothing is a middle finger to God.
Not all sexualities are created equal. Being straight and vanilla is like playing life on easy mode (at least as far as that one detail is concerned). But I'm not into judgment, exclusivity, and kink shaming. Sexual feelings do not dictate character. And being sex positive means I cannot view the instinctual, aesthetic process of finding something or someone physically appealing as anything but a beautiful and uplifting phenomenon. What happens after that, in response to those feelings, is a separate issue.
We tell ourselves stories to help us understand the way the world is, and then we force everything we encounter to fit into the plot. That's how paradigms trap us. So many people seem to have so little imagination about how things could be different than they are now. Scientists are certainly not immune to this phenomenon, but I like that science, in its purest form, examines the world without bias, and then tries to construct a model to fit the data, instead of searching for data to fit the model. A healthy mind should periodically ask itself: what paradigms am I trapped within? What am I blinded to, that doesn't penetrate the lens through which I was taught to view the world?
What feminism gets right: I've been catcalled. I've been honked at. I've even been mistaken for a prostitute while walking down the street. (And called homophobic slurs for causing people to question their sexuality). It's obnoxious, and I wish it would stop. What feminism gets wrong: The problem isn't "sexualization" - thinking my body or what I'm wearing is sexually appealing. The problem is men feeling comfortable expressing those feelings (often loudly and publicly) with little or no concern as to the effect this has on women. So if you think I look hot in my jogging shorts - that's fine. I didn't put them on to catch your attention, but that's okay if they do. But you don't have to tell me about it. And if you do, please consider doing so in a way that's respectful and unthreatening.
Yesterday I wrote about an important distinction that often gets lost in the ambiguous terminology of "sexualization". Here's why it matters: no amount of women saying "this isn't supposed to be sexy [for you]" is going to stop men from thinking sexual thoughts. Identifying thoughts as the source of the problem tacitly admits that this behavior is a reasonable response to those thoughts. Teaching men not to respond sexually to their environment is futile (and not even ideal, unless you want to live in a sexless dystopia). Teaching men the difference between appropriate and inappropriate ways to respond to those thoughts, on the other hand, is the way forward. So don't say, "making this about sex is the issue." Men can and should absolutely learn to control their behaviors, but they can't stop themselves from thinking about sex. It's not the thoughts that are at issue, it's how men are taught (or not taught) to handle them. But as long as our prudish society continues to frame the feelings themselves as immoral, there will be no resolution. And it's not even because we're trying to change something that can't be changed, but - more poignantly - because we're trying to change something that *shouldn't* be changed. Which is human beings being sexually attracted to other human beings. Because that's what it sounds like when a sexual organism cries out, "stop sexualizing me!" We have but to look to the Femizon Tribe, a matriarchal society that successfully managed to stamp out sexualization, before facing extinction within a single generation...
I don't know why some nudists don't understand the appeal of watching other people do things naked. Are they assuming there must be a sexual motivation? But I thought there was more to nudity than just sex. Can there be no appreciation of naked beauty that is wholesome? What about the feeling of belonging, of normalization, that watching other people do things naked brings? Can it not assuage the fear and anxiety, instilled by a textile culture, that what nudists do is irrational and eccentric, evidence, even, of a damaged mind? Does the fact that yes, some people can and will look at people doing things naked and think sexual thoughts (some of them even genuine nudists!) negate all of this? If so, then why do we continue to practice nudism, as long as there is someone who might misinterpret it?
I know this is a cliche among nudists, but I'd love to see nudist cinema with higher production values. We may never succeed in making society a clothing optional one, but can't we at least posit that fantasy in a film franchise? I don't mean stories that take place around nudist clubs, but stories that posit a clothing-optional society. Like science fiction or fantasy. But not used to justify a few isolated scenes for titillation, but as a matter-of-fact backdrop against which to weave a tale. Imagine if a non-independent studio tried to get a film like this made. It would never happen. Think of the uproar. Theaters wouldn't play it. It would be relegated to the XXX circuit. Forget having any characters (not even actors, just characters) under the age of 18. And this is just a movie. You really think we can convince society to go clothing optional? Maybe we should focus on trying to get that movie made first. Without compromising on the nudity. If society can't swallow that, then they're not going to swallow our lifestyle.
As a form of dress, nudity is generally considered to be informal. It's intimate - not something you wear out in public. It's most often associated with things like pajamas and underwear (and sometimes swimwear). It's what you're left with when you're too lazy to get dressed. And to be fair, nudity is often about comfort and convenience. But some of us put work (sometimes a considerable amount) into our bodies, that is most apparent when undressed. And for some of us lucky ones, nudity is even our work uniform! (Speaking as a nude model). So I don't think it's fair to say that nudity is always informal, or representative of somebody who doesn't care about how they look, or doesn't put any effort into their appearance. It's not *always* about the victory of comfort over vanity.
I want nothing more than for women to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality. And I acknowledge that it's hard for a woman to be sex-positive in a culture that glorifies predatory male sexuality. This is an issue that absolutely must be addressed. But I will never be comfortable with letting this problem justify a sex-negative approach that vilifies a sexual appreciation for females. No sex is not the solution to bad sex. We cannot eviscerate male sexuality without providing an uplifting alternative.
Clothing is not consent. But consent for what? If I stood naked before you, my choice of dress would not be an invitation to treat me any differently than if I were fully clothed. The question is, what kind of behavior is appropriate regardless of what a person is wearing? Offensive remarks, unwanted advances, etc. are no more appropriate if I'm showing a lot of skin. But that doesn't mean you can't look at me and appreciate what you see. It's about respect. But respect is not exclusive of sexual attraction. We would do well to learn this. What's getting missed here is that people think rude behavior is inherent to sexuality. So they blame people for thinking sexual thoughts, assuming it's what's causing the rude behavior. We just need to teach people to deal with their sexual thoughts more politely.
When you say "stop sexualizing me in my shorts" you're not saying, "stop harassing me, it's rude and intimidating," you're saying, "thinking my body is sexy is evidence of a diseased and antisocial perspective." Which, itself, is antisocial - and sex-negative. Telling people not to think shorts are sexy is very much like nudists telling people not to think nudity is sexy. Like we're supposed to go through life, denying that we find other people physically appealing, and then feel bad about ourselves when it inevitably happens. I know a lot of women suffer from the constant pressure to be physically attractive. But what does it do to your self-esteem when you assume that somebody must be a creep in order to find you desirable? Is this a form of demisexual supremacy? "You may not be attracted to me until you get to know me." Or, perhaps more poignantly, "until I get to know you." Because that's not the dominant form of human mating. Love - or even lust - at first sight is not intrinsically harmful, except inasmuch as one's desire goes unrequited. I see this universal condemnation of all expressions of male sexuality towards women as the misandry it is. And I know it's not a kosher topic in our feminist society, but does the fact that misogyny exists mean we can't talk about misandry? Or that misandry is justified? Except that misandry doesn't just target misogynists. It targets all men. And I don't believe in punishing one man for his brother's sins. And if feminism - true feminism - is good for men, then men's rights - the truly just concerns - must also serve women. The solution to one extreme is not another extreme. Two wrongs don't make a right. Equality is a two-way street. A bridge built from only one shore is not a bridge at all - it is just a pier. A launching point for trade and cooperation, not conquest and subjugation.
I am hereby coining the phrase "demisexual supremacy". Demisexual supremacy is the notion that one should not be physically attracted to another before getting to know them; that a superficial, visual attraction (love or lust at first sight) is somehow corrupt. It is tied to the idea that you need consent before having sexual thoughts or fantasies of another, and is related to the monogamistic standard embodied by the biblical passage, "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Except extrapolated to include those who are not otherwise in committed relationships. Demisexual supremacy is just another front for the attack on physical beauty and erotic aesthetics, and an attempt to further demonize human sexuality as religions have done in the past. Disclaimer: Demisexual supremacy hinges on the concept of demisexuality, but it is not associated with demisexuals. Demisexual supremacy is not about what people actually feel (descriptive), but the notion that demisexuality is how people *ought* to feel (imperative).
"Sexualize" means "to render sexual". Using it to imply antisocial behaviors such as leering and cat-calling is sex-negative. It assumes that the addition of a sexual context will inevitably invite these behaviors. This is a self-defeating perspective. I'm sex-positive. I view adding a sexual context to something as adding another angle from which to enjoy and appreciate it. I am capable of behaving myself and treating others with respect even in the presence of sexual triggers. Assuming that a sexual context and antisocial behavior go hand in hand undermines the possibility of saving sexuality from this corruption. Blaming the sexual thoughts at the source of this behavior just makes sex an irredeemable enemy. Note that I have no problem whatsoever with the term "harassment", as it is appropriately descriptive. I hope you are beginning to see what I mean when I say that the term "sexualization" is problematic. It's vague, and it shifts the focus from where it ought to lie.
"Objectification", in practice, means viewing people as objects (often for sexual gratification). The problem I have with this term is that it is often used to describe a healthy aspect of sexuality - the physical, superficial layer. The thing is, viewing someone in this way does not negate the ability to simultaneously see them as a person. True objectification is psychotic, criminal behavior, often resulting in torture and homicide. Most people in society thankfully do not engage in it. Using the term, however, to refer simply to the act of admiring another person's physical assets, which in itself does not require relinquishing an understanding that the "object" of their attention is still a person, is more sex-negative bullying.
Why is the idea that you want to be comfortably undressed, without bearing the burden of textile anxieties about what to wear and how it looks, considered such a dangerous prospect, when confronted by the thought that somebody might see a naked body unprompted? Or even that, prompted, certain people (usually, other people's children) would be inexorably harmed by direct experience of human anatomy? How does one cope with the knowledge that one's values are not in alignment with the values of the society in which one lives?
#UnpopularOpinion Erections aren't sex acts. Physical arousal (independent of deliberate stimulation) is an involuntary process, and harmless. Being turned on is no more a crime when you're naked than when you're dressed. We may as well stigmatize people for smiling or laughing.
Equality isn't for women. Equality isn't for people of color. Equality isn't for the LGBT community. Equality is for no one, unless it's for EVERYONE!
If there are two opposing ideologies within nudism, they are not nudism and naturism. They are materialism and idealism. Either you believe that nudity connects you to the Earth, and the truth of our animal origins, including an acceptance of our fundamental sexual natures, or you believe that nudity raises us to a higher plane, free from the corruption in modern society. I don't practice nudism in order to escape the human experience, I practice nudism in order to revel in it.
How about intersectionality? I know nudists want to keep sex out of their lifestyle, but my first priority as an artist and advocate is to the human body, and that's the link between nudism and erotica. I will never not support sex workers advocating nudism and vice versa.
Softcore erotica occupies a middle ground between the simple, innocent nudity that nudists advocate, and pornography. As such, it contains elements of both. This is a problem for the zealot, as it represents contamination within an ideology of purity. For the aesthete, however, it represents the marriage of two of life's greatest pursuits - beauty and eroticism - without the explicit vulgarity of porn, or the hollow puritanism of nudism. Yet it can be appreciated (or scorned) by nudists and perverts alike.
For me, nudity isn't just comfortable. It isn't just convenient. It's not just spiritually fulfilling. It's also thrilling. It can be erotic, but not in a vulgar way. And I'm not ashamed of that. It makes nudity fun, and because nudity is fun, I practice nudism.
I just think that if a lot of nudists (whether they admit it or not) sometimes find an erotic thrill in nudity, then we ought to incorporate that into our understanding of what draws people to nudism, rather than just pushing them away and saying "you are the enemy". It doesn't mean we have to reconsider the inappropriateness of explicit sexuality within the lifestyle. But inconvenient truths demand to be folded into one's model of reality, lest our commitment to a puritan ideology distance us from that reality.
I'm interested in naked beauty, not just naked bodies. And to appreciate naked beauty, you have to be open-minded about nudity. It's not that the beauty element is intrinsic to nudism, but it makes sense that people who appreciate naked beauty will be attracted to nudism. Nor is it a disqualifying factor. The issue is whether an appreciation of beauty contradicts body positivity. And my belief is that for body positivity to succeed, it cannot. Because as long as we have eyes, we're not going to convince ourselves that looks don't have meaning.
Some nudists talk about naked beauty, but they don't all mean the same thing. If you think just any random pic of an out of shape naked person demonstrates the beauty of the human body, then you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes beauty. The extraordinary delights us because of its contrast to the ordinary. When the ordinary becomes extraordinary, then the extraordinary becomes ordinary. There IS a sense in which all bodies are "beautiful", but I don't think "beauty" is actually the correct word. If a person that I wouldn't call a beauty takes off their clothes, being naked doesn't somehow make them beautiful. I wouldn't say this to anyone in particular, but I feel like it's an inconvenient truth of human nature, and I can't turn my back on the truth.
Internalized sex-negativity is taking it for granted that pornographers are wolves engaged in a destructive vice that we reluctantly permit consenting participants to engage in only because our democracy affirms their freedom to contribute to their own moral degradation. Rather than pornography being a positive affirmation of life and pleasure - which is possible only so long as we don't insist on shaming people for enjoying it. It's not a flattering look, not being able to tell the federal government from religious fundamentalists.
I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't gamble. I don't sleep around. I abhor violence. My life is not filled with vice. But I have masturbated on camera for strangers, and I am not ashamed. What if the celebration of pure eroticism was viewed as a virtue and not a vice?
If pronouns are important to you, I respect that. But I'm trans, and pronouns aren't my identity. I certainly don't think cis-people need to declare their own pronouns in solidarity. Are bi-pronouned or pronoun-fluid people getting the bisexuality treatment? It's like the gay marriage issue. Yes, of course it's important, and it's about respect, and equal opportunity. But it doesn't affect everyone equally, and it doesn't have to be everyone's first priority. Lemme pee first, then we can talk about pronouns.
Call me odd, but I don't see erections the way most people see them. To me, they aren't a harbinger of vigorous intercourse. They're innocent, playful, maybe a bit mischievous, but in a wholesome way. They stand on their own - an ode to sensual delight, more mental than physical.
Sometimes, being naked in nature, exposed to the elements (e.g., rain) turns me on. It's not necessarily an excuse to engage in sexual behavior, it's just an erotic thrill. And I don't think it's that far removed from a spiritual interpretation of naturism. Our bodies are divine. Erotic feelings are a celebration of life. We come from nature. It makes sense that these things could be intertwined. And I think it's beautiful. And harmless. It's simpler, even purer than intercourse (which can be beautiful, too). If you're not going to call this a form of "sex", then tell me, what else should it be called? Human sexuality is about so much more than "bumping uglies". That's what makes it so fascinating. And so entertaining. I pity those who have such a poverty of erotic imagination.
If you look in the mirror, like what you see, and decide to share that view with others because you know they'll enjoy it, that's not exploitation in any way, shape, or form. Especially if you charge for it. It's certainly healthier than hating your reflection.
If you condemn exploitation, but do not support free agency, then you're just moralizing. You don't care about people being treated fairly, you only care about controlling their available modes of expression. (And source of income, if you don't support commercialization either).
Nobody would be asking "is morality subjective" if we all had the same morals. The real question is, whose morality is superior? You could say God's, but then you're stuck trying to determine which human interpretation of God's will is the truth. No, the thing that matters is ethics - how you treat other people. If you treat other people fairly and with reciprocity, then I don't give a fuck what your morals are. But if your morals contradict ethics, then you're not really moral, you're just an asshole.
(Volume 5)
Here are some of my views as a sex-positive: Pornography is a legitimate form of speech, deserving of legal protections. The 2257 Regulations are unconstitutional, and obscenity law unfairly discriminates against sexual expression. Sex work is work. Necessary work. If you want to help sex workers, give them more options, not fewer, and respect the choices they make. Access to comprehensive sex education is a fundamental right. People deserve unstigmatized access to contraception, medical testing, and abortions as needed. The ability to either grant or withhold sexual consent is a right, not a privilege. Masturbation is healthy. Monogamy is a choice. Fantasies are harmless. We should celebrate, rather than medicalize, human sexual diversity. The only perversion of sex is rape. Too much emphasis is placed on the value of virginity for girls, and on the value of getting laid for boys. Nobody should be shamed for their sexual interest or experience, or lack thereof. Am I missing anything important?
I'm not saying my perspective is right, and everybody else's perspective is wrong. I'm saying my perspective is legitimate, and deserves representation. Because I might not be the only one looking for an alternative to the way things are.
If anything demonstrates that sex and nudity are separate, it's that opening up about sex tends to make one more open about nudity, yet the reverse is not true - as attested to by the existence of many nudists who shun their natural would-be allies in the sex trades.
Living in a textile culture - I get it, seeing somebody naked outside of a bedroom encounter is weird. I'm a nudist, and I still feel this way when a nude (or even partially nude) body is juxtaposed against the norm of clothing. But don't knock it until you've tried it. Because when you're nude you realize that it's not about what is seen, it's about what is felt. And you realize that your hangups aren't worth preventing yourself or others from experiencing that joyful feeling of natural freedom, in a safe and nonjudgmental environment.
Deception is unethical. Coercion is unethical. Exploitation is unethical. Traveling in order to trade sex for money is not. Maybe if sex work weren't a crime, there would be less room for lying, cheating, and intimidation in the course of fulfilling this necessary social service.
Firstly, the existence of a particular type of content on a website does not imply that the website permits, let alone supports, that type of content. Enforcing content restrictions (especially consistently and in a balanced way) is a logistical challenge. Now, machine algorithms may reduce the burden, but at the cost of distancing the human element. So that particular decisions on which content to permit or restrict become further removed from a subjective consideration of what is "appropriate". That said, companies do make policy decisions on acceptable content, and bear responsibility for the lines they draw. However, I do not think these decisions have as much to do with a CEO's ideological stance, as the pressure to conform to community standards. Which is to say, you can criticize Mark Zuckerberg for disallowing nudity on Facebook, while Jack Dorsey permits porn on Twitter, but at a certain point, you have to hold the community responsible for their reaction to seeing naked bodies in their feeds.
Occasionally I'll see someone complaining about the apparent double standard by which "innocent" nudity is censored (e.g., on Facebook), while heavily-sexualized depictions of minimally clothed bodies are not (see: the Super Bowl halftime show controversy). There's a comparative value judgment there, like one of these is morally superior to the other, and that society's moral compass is inverted, giving thinly veiled smut a stamp of approval, while censuring more wholesome depictions of the human body. This perspective has some merit, but I'm afraid it reeks of sex negativity. It's not a moral failing to appreciate sex appeal. Yet some nudists think this sex-obsessed mindset is responsible for warping an innocent perception of nudity. Which leaves me with a question. Is the fact that nudity is sexualized a rational justification for its censure in a society that allegedly gives sexual expression free reign? Or is there something else about nudity that makes it distinctly more offensive to textiles than clothed bodies dripping with sex?
Man made clothes. God made us naked. I don't respect any religious belief that compels us to drape a cloth over God's greatest masterpiece. Can you imagine a bigger insult to the divine? Clothing is a middle finger to God.
Not all sexualities are created equal. Being straight and vanilla is like playing life on easy mode (at least as far as that one detail is concerned). But I'm not into judgment, exclusivity, and kink shaming. Sexual feelings do not dictate character. And being sex positive means I cannot view the instinctual, aesthetic process of finding something or someone physically appealing as anything but a beautiful and uplifting phenomenon. What happens after that, in response to those feelings, is a separate issue.
We tell ourselves stories to help us understand the way the world is, and then we force everything we encounter to fit into the plot. That's how paradigms trap us. So many people seem to have so little imagination about how things could be different than they are now. Scientists are certainly not immune to this phenomenon, but I like that science, in its purest form, examines the world without bias, and then tries to construct a model to fit the data, instead of searching for data to fit the model. A healthy mind should periodically ask itself: what paradigms am I trapped within? What am I blinded to, that doesn't penetrate the lens through which I was taught to view the world?
What feminism gets right: I've been catcalled. I've been honked at. I've even been mistaken for a prostitute while walking down the street. (And called homophobic slurs for causing people to question their sexuality). It's obnoxious, and I wish it would stop. What feminism gets wrong: The problem isn't "sexualization" - thinking my body or what I'm wearing is sexually appealing. The problem is men feeling comfortable expressing those feelings (often loudly and publicly) with little or no concern as to the effect this has on women. So if you think I look hot in my jogging shorts - that's fine. I didn't put them on to catch your attention, but that's okay if they do. But you don't have to tell me about it. And if you do, please consider doing so in a way that's respectful and unthreatening.
Yesterday I wrote about an important distinction that often gets lost in the ambiguous terminology of "sexualization". Here's why it matters: no amount of women saying "this isn't supposed to be sexy [for you]" is going to stop men from thinking sexual thoughts. Identifying thoughts as the source of the problem tacitly admits that this behavior is a reasonable response to those thoughts. Teaching men not to respond sexually to their environment is futile (and not even ideal, unless you want to live in a sexless dystopia). Teaching men the difference between appropriate and inappropriate ways to respond to those thoughts, on the other hand, is the way forward. So don't say, "making this about sex is the issue." Men can and should absolutely learn to control their behaviors, but they can't stop themselves from thinking about sex. It's not the thoughts that are at issue, it's how men are taught (or not taught) to handle them. But as long as our prudish society continues to frame the feelings themselves as immoral, there will be no resolution. And it's not even because we're trying to change something that can't be changed, but - more poignantly - because we're trying to change something that *shouldn't* be changed. Which is human beings being sexually attracted to other human beings. Because that's what it sounds like when a sexual organism cries out, "stop sexualizing me!" We have but to look to the Femizon Tribe, a matriarchal society that successfully managed to stamp out sexualization, before facing extinction within a single generation...
I don't know why some nudists don't understand the appeal of watching other people do things naked. Are they assuming there must be a sexual motivation? But I thought there was more to nudity than just sex. Can there be no appreciation of naked beauty that is wholesome? What about the feeling of belonging, of normalization, that watching other people do things naked brings? Can it not assuage the fear and anxiety, instilled by a textile culture, that what nudists do is irrational and eccentric, evidence, even, of a damaged mind? Does the fact that yes, some people can and will look at people doing things naked and think sexual thoughts (some of them even genuine nudists!) negate all of this? If so, then why do we continue to practice nudism, as long as there is someone who might misinterpret it?
I know this is a cliche among nudists, but I'd love to see nudist cinema with higher production values. We may never succeed in making society a clothing optional one, but can't we at least posit that fantasy in a film franchise? I don't mean stories that take place around nudist clubs, but stories that posit a clothing-optional society. Like science fiction or fantasy. But not used to justify a few isolated scenes for titillation, but as a matter-of-fact backdrop against which to weave a tale. Imagine if a non-independent studio tried to get a film like this made. It would never happen. Think of the uproar. Theaters wouldn't play it. It would be relegated to the XXX circuit. Forget having any characters (not even actors, just characters) under the age of 18. And this is just a movie. You really think we can convince society to go clothing optional? Maybe we should focus on trying to get that movie made first. Without compromising on the nudity. If society can't swallow that, then they're not going to swallow our lifestyle.
As a form of dress, nudity is generally considered to be informal. It's intimate - not something you wear out in public. It's most often associated with things like pajamas and underwear (and sometimes swimwear). It's what you're left with when you're too lazy to get dressed. And to be fair, nudity is often about comfort and convenience. But some of us put work (sometimes a considerable amount) into our bodies, that is most apparent when undressed. And for some of us lucky ones, nudity is even our work uniform! (Speaking as a nude model). So I don't think it's fair to say that nudity is always informal, or representative of somebody who doesn't care about how they look, or doesn't put any effort into their appearance. It's not *always* about the victory of comfort over vanity.
I want nothing more than for women to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality. And I acknowledge that it's hard for a woman to be sex-positive in a culture that glorifies predatory male sexuality. This is an issue that absolutely must be addressed. But I will never be comfortable with letting this problem justify a sex-negative approach that vilifies a sexual appreciation for females. No sex is not the solution to bad sex. We cannot eviscerate male sexuality without providing an uplifting alternative.
Clothing is not consent. But consent for what? If I stood naked before you, my choice of dress would not be an invitation to treat me any differently than if I were fully clothed. The question is, what kind of behavior is appropriate regardless of what a person is wearing? Offensive remarks, unwanted advances, etc. are no more appropriate if I'm showing a lot of skin. But that doesn't mean you can't look at me and appreciate what you see. It's about respect. But respect is not exclusive of sexual attraction. We would do well to learn this. What's getting missed here is that people think rude behavior is inherent to sexuality. So they blame people for thinking sexual thoughts, assuming it's what's causing the rude behavior. We just need to teach people to deal with their sexual thoughts more politely.
When you say "stop sexualizing me in my shorts" you're not saying, "stop harassing me, it's rude and intimidating," you're saying, "thinking my body is sexy is evidence of a diseased and antisocial perspective." Which, itself, is antisocial - and sex-negative. Telling people not to think shorts are sexy is very much like nudists telling people not to think nudity is sexy. Like we're supposed to go through life, denying that we find other people physically appealing, and then feel bad about ourselves when it inevitably happens. I know a lot of women suffer from the constant pressure to be physically attractive. But what does it do to your self-esteem when you assume that somebody must be a creep in order to find you desirable? Is this a form of demisexual supremacy? "You may not be attracted to me until you get to know me." Or, perhaps more poignantly, "until I get to know you." Because that's not the dominant form of human mating. Love - or even lust - at first sight is not intrinsically harmful, except inasmuch as one's desire goes unrequited. I see this universal condemnation of all expressions of male sexuality towards women as the misandry it is. And I know it's not a kosher topic in our feminist society, but does the fact that misogyny exists mean we can't talk about misandry? Or that misandry is justified? Except that misandry doesn't just target misogynists. It targets all men. And I don't believe in punishing one man for his brother's sins. And if feminism - true feminism - is good for men, then men's rights - the truly just concerns - must also serve women. The solution to one extreme is not another extreme. Two wrongs don't make a right. Equality is a two-way street. A bridge built from only one shore is not a bridge at all - it is just a pier. A launching point for trade and cooperation, not conquest and subjugation.
I am hereby coining the phrase "demisexual supremacy". Demisexual supremacy is the notion that one should not be physically attracted to another before getting to know them; that a superficial, visual attraction (love or lust at first sight) is somehow corrupt. It is tied to the idea that you need consent before having sexual thoughts or fantasies of another, and is related to the monogamistic standard embodied by the biblical passage, "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Except extrapolated to include those who are not otherwise in committed relationships. Demisexual supremacy is just another front for the attack on physical beauty and erotic aesthetics, and an attempt to further demonize human sexuality as religions have done in the past. Disclaimer: Demisexual supremacy hinges on the concept of demisexuality, but it is not associated with demisexuals. Demisexual supremacy is not about what people actually feel (descriptive), but the notion that demisexuality is how people *ought* to feel (imperative).
"Sexualize" means "to render sexual". Using it to imply antisocial behaviors such as leering and cat-calling is sex-negative. It assumes that the addition of a sexual context will inevitably invite these behaviors. This is a self-defeating perspective. I'm sex-positive. I view adding a sexual context to something as adding another angle from which to enjoy and appreciate it. I am capable of behaving myself and treating others with respect even in the presence of sexual triggers. Assuming that a sexual context and antisocial behavior go hand in hand undermines the possibility of saving sexuality from this corruption. Blaming the sexual thoughts at the source of this behavior just makes sex an irredeemable enemy. Note that I have no problem whatsoever with the term "harassment", as it is appropriately descriptive. I hope you are beginning to see what I mean when I say that the term "sexualization" is problematic. It's vague, and it shifts the focus from where it ought to lie.
"Objectification", in practice, means viewing people as objects (often for sexual gratification). The problem I have with this term is that it is often used to describe a healthy aspect of sexuality - the physical, superficial layer. The thing is, viewing someone in this way does not negate the ability to simultaneously see them as a person. True objectification is psychotic, criminal behavior, often resulting in torture and homicide. Most people in society thankfully do not engage in it. Using the term, however, to refer simply to the act of admiring another person's physical assets, which in itself does not require relinquishing an understanding that the "object" of their attention is still a person, is more sex-negative bullying.
Why is the idea that you want to be comfortably undressed, without bearing the burden of textile anxieties about what to wear and how it looks, considered such a dangerous prospect, when confronted by the thought that somebody might see a naked body unprompted? Or even that, prompted, certain people (usually, other people's children) would be inexorably harmed by direct experience of human anatomy? How does one cope with the knowledge that one's values are not in alignment with the values of the society in which one lives?
#UnpopularOpinion Erections aren't sex acts. Physical arousal (independent of deliberate stimulation) is an involuntary process, and harmless. Being turned on is no more a crime when you're naked than when you're dressed. We may as well stigmatize people for smiling or laughing.
Equality isn't for women. Equality isn't for people of color. Equality isn't for the LGBT community. Equality is for no one, unless it's for EVERYONE!
If there are two opposing ideologies within nudism, they are not nudism and naturism. They are materialism and idealism. Either you believe that nudity connects you to the Earth, and the truth of our animal origins, including an acceptance of our fundamental sexual natures, or you believe that nudity raises us to a higher plane, free from the corruption in modern society. I don't practice nudism in order to escape the human experience, I practice nudism in order to revel in it.
How about intersectionality? I know nudists want to keep sex out of their lifestyle, but my first priority as an artist and advocate is to the human body, and that's the link between nudism and erotica. I will never not support sex workers advocating nudism and vice versa.
Softcore erotica occupies a middle ground between the simple, innocent nudity that nudists advocate, and pornography. As such, it contains elements of both. This is a problem for the zealot, as it represents contamination within an ideology of purity. For the aesthete, however, it represents the marriage of two of life's greatest pursuits - beauty and eroticism - without the explicit vulgarity of porn, or the hollow puritanism of nudism. Yet it can be appreciated (or scorned) by nudists and perverts alike.
For me, nudity isn't just comfortable. It isn't just convenient. It's not just spiritually fulfilling. It's also thrilling. It can be erotic, but not in a vulgar way. And I'm not ashamed of that. It makes nudity fun, and because nudity is fun, I practice nudism.
I just think that if a lot of nudists (whether they admit it or not) sometimes find an erotic thrill in nudity, then we ought to incorporate that into our understanding of what draws people to nudism, rather than just pushing them away and saying "you are the enemy". It doesn't mean we have to reconsider the inappropriateness of explicit sexuality within the lifestyle. But inconvenient truths demand to be folded into one's model of reality, lest our commitment to a puritan ideology distance us from that reality.
I'm interested in naked beauty, not just naked bodies. And to appreciate naked beauty, you have to be open-minded about nudity. It's not that the beauty element is intrinsic to nudism, but it makes sense that people who appreciate naked beauty will be attracted to nudism. Nor is it a disqualifying factor. The issue is whether an appreciation of beauty contradicts body positivity. And my belief is that for body positivity to succeed, it cannot. Because as long as we have eyes, we're not going to convince ourselves that looks don't have meaning.
Some nudists talk about naked beauty, but they don't all mean the same thing. If you think just any random pic of an out of shape naked person demonstrates the beauty of the human body, then you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes beauty. The extraordinary delights us because of its contrast to the ordinary. When the ordinary becomes extraordinary, then the extraordinary becomes ordinary. There IS a sense in which all bodies are "beautiful", but I don't think "beauty" is actually the correct word. If a person that I wouldn't call a beauty takes off their clothes, being naked doesn't somehow make them beautiful. I wouldn't say this to anyone in particular, but I feel like it's an inconvenient truth of human nature, and I can't turn my back on the truth.
Internalized sex-negativity is taking it for granted that pornographers are wolves engaged in a destructive vice that we reluctantly permit consenting participants to engage in only because our democracy affirms their freedom to contribute to their own moral degradation. Rather than pornography being a positive affirmation of life and pleasure - which is possible only so long as we don't insist on shaming people for enjoying it. It's not a flattering look, not being able to tell the federal government from religious fundamentalists.
I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't gamble. I don't sleep around. I abhor violence. My life is not filled with vice. But I have masturbated on camera for strangers, and I am not ashamed. What if the celebration of pure eroticism was viewed as a virtue and not a vice?
If pronouns are important to you, I respect that. But I'm trans, and pronouns aren't my identity. I certainly don't think cis-people need to declare their own pronouns in solidarity. Are bi-pronouned or pronoun-fluid people getting the bisexuality treatment? It's like the gay marriage issue. Yes, of course it's important, and it's about respect, and equal opportunity. But it doesn't affect everyone equally, and it doesn't have to be everyone's first priority. Lemme pee first, then we can talk about pronouns.
Call me odd, but I don't see erections the way most people see them. To me, they aren't a harbinger of vigorous intercourse. They're innocent, playful, maybe a bit mischievous, but in a wholesome way. They stand on their own - an ode to sensual delight, more mental than physical.
Sometimes, being naked in nature, exposed to the elements (e.g., rain) turns me on. It's not necessarily an excuse to engage in sexual behavior, it's just an erotic thrill. And I don't think it's that far removed from a spiritual interpretation of naturism. Our bodies are divine. Erotic feelings are a celebration of life. We come from nature. It makes sense that these things could be intertwined. And I think it's beautiful. And harmless. It's simpler, even purer than intercourse (which can be beautiful, too). If you're not going to call this a form of "sex", then tell me, what else should it be called? Human sexuality is about so much more than "bumping uglies". That's what makes it so fascinating. And so entertaining. I pity those who have such a poverty of erotic imagination.
If you look in the mirror, like what you see, and decide to share that view with others because you know they'll enjoy it, that's not exploitation in any way, shape, or form. Especially if you charge for it. It's certainly healthier than hating your reflection.
If you condemn exploitation, but do not support free agency, then you're just moralizing. You don't care about people being treated fairly, you only care about controlling their available modes of expression. (And source of income, if you don't support commercialization either).
Nobody would be asking "is morality subjective" if we all had the same morals. The real question is, whose morality is superior? You could say God's, but then you're stuck trying to determine which human interpretation of God's will is the truth. No, the thing that matters is ethics - how you treat other people. If you treat other people fairly and with reciprocity, then I don't give a fuck what your morals are. But if your morals contradict ethics, then you're not really moral, you're just an asshole.
(Volume 5)
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Behind The Bushes
Much of nudist culture revolves around desexualizing the practice of being nude. And I recognize and respect the need to create a nonsexual atmosphere within nudism. But at the same time, I don't want to lose the ability to find erotic delight in the experience of being naked - whether it's indoors, outdoors, alone, or around other people.
Obviously, boundaries need to be respected, but people put so much baggage onto the concept of sexuality. The only appropriate context in which to be aroused is during a private, intimate encounter with like-minded others.
Can't a person enjoy the erotic delight of a sensual existence, without it having to culminate in an explicit encounter? To be able to enjoy a playful, non-goal-oriented sexuality? To be able to find oneself in the moment, be it playing in the trees outdoors, to recognize one's nakedness and animal nature, and to take erotic delight in it, without it initiating a societal script of hardcore debauchery? Can't one run and jump around and occasionally get an erection without it being labelled an explicit atmosphere?
Am I the only person that thinks there is a legitimate state between innocent and explicit, worth appreciating as an end in and of itself, and not merely a stop on the road to a sexual encounter? That people are not merely sexual or nonsexual, with all their sexual moments confined to isolated encounters of an explicit nature? Am I really so unusual?
Is this something that perhaps more would be capable of enjoying, if only they knew it were an option? Or is the vast majority of the population of the opinion that arousal must necessarily lead to satisfaction, and that if it cannot, then it would have been better not to have been aroused at all? And if so, then why am I so different, and how am I to reconcile living in this world with people I can hardly understand?
Obviously, boundaries need to be respected, but people put so much baggage onto the concept of sexuality. The only appropriate context in which to be aroused is during a private, intimate encounter with like-minded others.
Can't a person enjoy the erotic delight of a sensual existence, without it having to culminate in an explicit encounter? To be able to enjoy a playful, non-goal-oriented sexuality? To be able to find oneself in the moment, be it playing in the trees outdoors, to recognize one's nakedness and animal nature, and to take erotic delight in it, without it initiating a societal script of hardcore debauchery? Can't one run and jump around and occasionally get an erection without it being labelled an explicit atmosphere?
Am I the only person that thinks there is a legitimate state between innocent and explicit, worth appreciating as an end in and of itself, and not merely a stop on the road to a sexual encounter? That people are not merely sexual or nonsexual, with all their sexual moments confined to isolated encounters of an explicit nature? Am I really so unusual?
Is this something that perhaps more would be capable of enjoying, if only they knew it were an option? Or is the vast majority of the population of the opinion that arousal must necessarily lead to satisfaction, and that if it cannot, then it would have been better not to have been aroused at all? And if so, then why am I so different, and how am I to reconcile living in this world with people I can hardly understand?
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Streaking During Quarantine
Let me start by saying that this discussion is not going to be about the practice of running nude through crowds of people (although if you're going to do this, at least wear a mask!), but about going x number of days without getting dressed - something that is facilitated by the isolationist nature of social distancing in our current pandemic-focused, quarantine-heavy culture. Conversations in the online nudist community over the past few months have brushed on the suggestion that many people cooped up at home are discovering for the first time the comfort and convenience of casual nudity, as well as the opportunity for those already familiar with this practice to engage in it much more frequently than they have previously been able.
Not for the first time the topic has come up on Reddit of how long individual nudists have been able to maintain their "streak" of remaining nude for so many days without having to get dressed. It so happens that I have not had the need to wear clothes for over four months now. How is this possible? I work from home. We've not had guests in the house, that would require me to get dressed. My partner and I have agreed that it's safer if only one of us leaves the house, and since she has to leave the house for work, she's agreed to pick up the groceries.
Truth be told, I have a knack for social isolation, given that I'm fairly asocial and introverted by nature. Which is not to say that I don't miss spending time with friends and family, but under the circumstances, better safe than sorry. I acknowledge that I am privileged to have the opportunity to avoid so many risks, and not everyone can be as safe. Still, it would be foolish of me not to take advantage of that privilege, and it concerns me how cavalier some others in society appear to be behaving, with regards to the possibility of transmitting infection (even when you may not realize that you're sick).
Is it awesome being able to go weeks, even months, without thinking about having to get dressed? Absolutely! I'm also lucky enough to have a yard, so I can get outside and enjoy the hot summer weather. But what I've learned from this experience is that streaks don't really matter. What matters is being able to spend so much time nude, not how long you can go before you have to cover up. After so many days, it's just a number. And at what number would you be satisfied? There's always somebody else who's gone for longer. Like retirees who live on the grounds of a nudist camp.
The truth is, I haven't been 100% exposed 100% of the last four months. But where do you draw the line? Is it "covering up" if you sleep under a blanket at night? Are you not nude if you put on shoes before walking on the treadmill? What if you wrap a towel around your waist to grab the mail or greet somebody through the door? If you can be nude 95% of the time (and damn near nude the other 5%), isn't this more important than maintaining an unbroken chain of time without covering anything up? It's the quality of the experience, and not the quantity that counts.
On only a handful of occasions in the last 100+ days, I've gotten dressed - truly dressed. But only briefly. And, most importantly, it was voluntary (mainly for photoshoots). I don't always hate the experience of wearing clothes - they can be fun, and practical. Sometimes it's more the obligation that bothers me (and the resulting implication that nudity is bad or wrong). It would be great if we could live in a culture where people were free from the textile mandate to get dressed. In this world, I would be dressed more than I am now, but naked far more than I am under normal circumstances. The ideal balance would be somewhere in the middle - not necessarily naked all the time, but more naked than dressed.
Not for the first time the topic has come up on Reddit of how long individual nudists have been able to maintain their "streak" of remaining nude for so many days without having to get dressed. It so happens that I have not had the need to wear clothes for over four months now. How is this possible? I work from home. We've not had guests in the house, that would require me to get dressed. My partner and I have agreed that it's safer if only one of us leaves the house, and since she has to leave the house for work, she's agreed to pick up the groceries.
Truth be told, I have a knack for social isolation, given that I'm fairly asocial and introverted by nature. Which is not to say that I don't miss spending time with friends and family, but under the circumstances, better safe than sorry. I acknowledge that I am privileged to have the opportunity to avoid so many risks, and not everyone can be as safe. Still, it would be foolish of me not to take advantage of that privilege, and it concerns me how cavalier some others in society appear to be behaving, with regards to the possibility of transmitting infection (even when you may not realize that you're sick).
Is it awesome being able to go weeks, even months, without thinking about having to get dressed? Absolutely! I'm also lucky enough to have a yard, so I can get outside and enjoy the hot summer weather. But what I've learned from this experience is that streaks don't really matter. What matters is being able to spend so much time nude, not how long you can go before you have to cover up. After so many days, it's just a number. And at what number would you be satisfied? There's always somebody else who's gone for longer. Like retirees who live on the grounds of a nudist camp.
The truth is, I haven't been 100% exposed 100% of the last four months. But where do you draw the line? Is it "covering up" if you sleep under a blanket at night? Are you not nude if you put on shoes before walking on the treadmill? What if you wrap a towel around your waist to grab the mail or greet somebody through the door? If you can be nude 95% of the time (and damn near nude the other 5%), isn't this more important than maintaining an unbroken chain of time without covering anything up? It's the quality of the experience, and not the quantity that counts.
On only a handful of occasions in the last 100+ days, I've gotten dressed - truly dressed. But only briefly. And, most importantly, it was voluntary (mainly for photoshoots). I don't always hate the experience of wearing clothes - they can be fun, and practical. Sometimes it's more the obligation that bothers me (and the resulting implication that nudity is bad or wrong). It would be great if we could live in a culture where people were free from the textile mandate to get dressed. In this world, I would be dressed more than I am now, but naked far more than I am under normal circumstances. The ideal balance would be somewhere in the middle - not necessarily naked all the time, but more naked than dressed.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
Privacy vs. Transparency
I just had a thought. Nudists often ask the question, "how do I practice nudism on my own property, without upsetting the neighbors?" Privacy screens are often the best solution, but sometimes other nudists wonder, "why not just ask your neighbors if they mind?" But the problem with this solution (other than the possibility that they will not be so obliging), is this: I currently have a relatively private yard that I enjoy lounging (and recreating) naked in. But there are times when even I cannot do so - namely, when we have non-nudist-friendly guests over.
(There's this impression that nudists never seem to intermingle with less-than-fully-tolerant populations - e.g., nudists who boast that they don't even own swimsuits, and insist that a nudist should never have tan lines - but there are virtually no nudists in my regular family and friend group, and only very few that are comfortable with me being nude around them, and I'm not just going to cut off relations with these people because they insist on me wearing clothes).
So, the thing is, I don't even always know very well ahead of time when we're going to have guests over (obviously not during the pandemic, but under normal circumstances I mean). Can you even imagine having to stay up to date on your neighbors' visitation schedules? How do you know it's safe to go out and lounge in the shade for an hour, and that your neighbor's not going to have someone over in half an hour to show off their new deck? How does your neighbor know you're going to decide to do some naked gardening in the afternoon, and that he shouldn't invite his conservative parents over for a cookout?
It'd be all well and good if we lived in a more tolerant society, where people could more easily overlook the fact that somebody might be nude on their own property, instead of this hyper-anxious, litigious mindset - and any situation in which you think most people would behave reasonably can easily be turned upside-down by adding some hypothetical children into the mix. Whether the charge sticks or not, the last thing you want to do when you're just trying to relax and enjoy the weather is explain to a cop how you're not actually a depraved pervert who likes to expose himself to kids.
Besides, you might have some golden ideal of neighborly brotherhood in your head, in which neighbors look out for one another, sharing household tools and the like. But not everyone wants to live like that. I always strive to be amicable toward strangers, but I am not a social butterfly (in spite of my enjoyment of social nudism). And my home is my sanctuary. It's where I go (or stay) to get away from people. It's the last place I want to have someone strike up a conversation with me when I'm minding my own business. I'm a firm believer in the adage "good fences make good neighbors", and it seems to me that the taller they are, the better.
(There's this impression that nudists never seem to intermingle with less-than-fully-tolerant populations - e.g., nudists who boast that they don't even own swimsuits, and insist that a nudist should never have tan lines - but there are virtually no nudists in my regular family and friend group, and only very few that are comfortable with me being nude around them, and I'm not just going to cut off relations with these people because they insist on me wearing clothes).
So, the thing is, I don't even always know very well ahead of time when we're going to have guests over (obviously not during the pandemic, but under normal circumstances I mean). Can you even imagine having to stay up to date on your neighbors' visitation schedules? How do you know it's safe to go out and lounge in the shade for an hour, and that your neighbor's not going to have someone over in half an hour to show off their new deck? How does your neighbor know you're going to decide to do some naked gardening in the afternoon, and that he shouldn't invite his conservative parents over for a cookout?
It'd be all well and good if we lived in a more tolerant society, where people could more easily overlook the fact that somebody might be nude on their own property, instead of this hyper-anxious, litigious mindset - and any situation in which you think most people would behave reasonably can easily be turned upside-down by adding some hypothetical children into the mix. Whether the charge sticks or not, the last thing you want to do when you're just trying to relax and enjoy the weather is explain to a cop how you're not actually a depraved pervert who likes to expose himself to kids.
Besides, you might have some golden ideal of neighborly brotherhood in your head, in which neighbors look out for one another, sharing household tools and the like. But not everyone wants to live like that. I always strive to be amicable toward strangers, but I am not a social butterfly (in spite of my enjoyment of social nudism). And my home is my sanctuary. It's where I go (or stay) to get away from people. It's the last place I want to have someone strike up a conversation with me when I'm minding my own business. I'm a firm believer in the adage "good fences make good neighbors", and it seems to me that the taller they are, the better.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 3)
For those unfamiliar with this series, I refer you to my explanation in the first volume. For even more tweets, I point you also to volume 2. Now let us commence volume 3!
---
I try always to be mature and respectful, but I am a sensitive soul. I promote peace, tolerance, and above all, being able to enjoy the good things in life without shame and judgment. Yet some consider this justification to lie and say hurtful things towards me. Confidence does not come easy to me. It is hard-earned. And even then, still fragile. I suffer from anxiety, and always in the back of my mind there is a pernicious voice whispering doubts, echoing the worst things others could say about me. Above all, I worry constantly that the path I've chosen may not be the right one, but I can do nothing better than follow my instincts. I am logical, and willing to entertain rational criticism of my decisions - if done so politely, and respectfully. The world does not begin and end with nudism. If people had the legal right to be naked, there would still be problems in the world. One of them is making people feel like shit because they enjoy one of the simplest and healthiest sources of pleasure on the planet. If promoting peace, tolerance, and psycho-sexual wellbeing is incompatible with advocating for the nudist lifestyle, then I will voluntarily step back and divorce myself from it publicly, because that is not a worldview I wish to support. However, I will never stop supporting non-sexual nude recreation, even if it is not called "nudism" (or "naturism"). And while I support the consensual practice of "swinging", at this time, I am not, and have never considered myself part of that lifestyle. So, where does the nudist community weigh in? Honestly I'm starting to wonder if I would even miss all the judgment and generalizations and hasty conclusions. Is this what nudism wants to represent itself as? Please let me know. It's your decision, not mine.
Unfortunately, nudism attracts a certain subset of the population that views nudity in black and white terms. In these people's eyes, to be a nudist, you must be a celibate monk. If you cannot meet that standard, then you are a degenerate pervert. There is no middle ground. Even if you just think that nudity can maybe sometimes be a little bit sexy, and that it's fine to indulge that feeling under the appropriate circumstances, you are automatically labelled a "swinger", a promoter of public sex, and an enemy to everything nudism stands for. I call these people "prudists", but it is cold comfort. Standing up for sexual well-being IS a righteous cause, but it does not carry the self-righteous assurance of the "moral high ground". Doing what's right means having to endure the establishment calling you the villain.
Most people in this textile culture appreciate the erotic appeal of nudity. Understanding and indulging in the many varied and oft-overlooked non-sexual benefits of nudity need not come at the expense of that. It is not a binary switch: an either/or dichotomy.
Becoming an erotic model on the internet boosted my self-confidence and improved my body image enormously. And that was *before* I got fit. Plus, the one advantage it had over nudism was not making me feel like a monster for enjoying the #1 thing our bodies were made to do.
I find it ironic - though no less disheartening - to be associated with the sort of riffraff accused of exploiting nudism disingenuously as a front for sexual aims; or when somebody announces a fact I openly attest to as if they were digging up dirt on me since - as someone who *supports* nudism's true aims - the only reason I occupy a moral grey area is that I am incapable of deception, and refuse to pretend that I don't sometimes have erotic feelings towards nudity just because it's not good PR to say so. If the truth frightens you, then by all means stand back, because I am your enemy.
I think one of the things that draws me to nudism is the emphasis on it being natural, healthy, and wholesome. I'm prepared to be lambasted for this opinion, but I feel the same way about eroticism. I'm not talking about permitting explicit sex acts on public streets. But the fact that people have sexual feelings, are physically attracted to others, and can appreciate the aesthetics of eroticism - in art, as in life - this is not a sin or a vice or a harmful truth that needs to be shielded from vulnerable minds. I'm not trying to persuade the world to let me expose it to something degenerate that no one wants to look at. Consent is the prime directive. But people moralize excessively about sex, to the point that it becomes an imperative, and not merely a difference of opinion.
Yes, I sell nude photography on Patreon. I am an artist, and my time and creativity is valuable. Do you know what else I do? I generate original content; I don't just share (or steal) and retweet others' work. I am a creator, not just another consumer. What do you contribute? And no, selling nude photography doesn't mean I'm putting a price on nudity. You're not paying to see me naked - anyone can do that for free with minimal effort. You're paying for premium access to the art I produce, and to support me so I can continue producing it.
What if these two assumptions about the Antichrist are incorrect? 1) That most believers will recognize him for what he is and not be duped into following him. 2) That he will be a deliberate agent of evil, rather than a mere fool who leads us to destruction through incompetence?
I don't understand how we live in a culture so obsessed with the concept of individual liberty and not being told what to do that we seem utterly incapable of staying in our homes to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE, yet we do NOT have the freedom to walk around naked if we feel like it...
When I was a teenager, I began taking sexy pictures (of myself) for my girlfriend. The relationship didn't last, but my appreciation for erotic photography did. I eventually came to the conclusion that it would be selfish to limit the sight of my body to intimate partners. Erotic art is not just a means to an end - a form of foreplay shared between lovers. It's something that can be appreciated even by strangers (as anyone who has ever enjoyed porn knows). Most of us are already voyeurs. I just took a step further and became an exhibitionist.
The thing about prejudice is that 90% of everything is crap, and people are no exception. So whatever quality you hate for irrational reasons, you'll be able to find despicable people with that quality. But it may not be the quality that's despicable; it may just be people.
Primarily as a visual creature, and secondarily as an erotic photographer, I revel in the superficial appeal of the human body. Why are people so uncomfortable with this? God did not create all this beauty in the world so that we could stumble around with our eyes shut tight.
There are voyeurs and exhibitionists out there right now, trying to learn how to navigate their sexual feelings in an unfriendly world. Should we teach them how to do it ethically - because it *can* be done - or shame them for their feelings, and hope it somehow works out? When it comes to sex, we throw people to the wolves, and expect them to figure things out for themselves. We actively *punish* educators. And then we think the results tell us something about sex, when really, the only thing it tells us is how we've failed ourselves.
Relatively speaking, we live in a largely sexually-liberated culture (albeit not without a lot of pushback), that wisely values the concept of consent (above moralizing, to an increasing degree), but there is still a lot of stigma surrounding voyeurism and exhibitionism. Voyeurism is not defined by invasion of privacy. Voyeurism is a delight in the erotic appeal of sight; the appreciation of human bodies. It is a contactless, truly safe form of sexual pleasure, that can be satisfied increasingly easily in this age of internet pornography. Similarly, exhibitionism is not defined by violation of consent. It is the mirror image of voyeurism, with which it works best in tandem. Exhibitionism is self-confidence, a delight in being desired - NOT ridiculed. It, too, can be indulged easily and ethically online. I want to see voyeurism and exhibitionism respectfully regarded as a legitimate variation of human sexuality, a valuable alternative to messy contact sex, not defined by criminal behavior or psychopathology, as healthy as masturbation, and facilitated by pornography.
When confronted with the concept of nudism, many textiles express the concern that being exposed to naked people would make them uncomfortable. What they fail to acknowledge is how frequently they make nudists uncomfortable - by compelling them to remain dressed.
There's a difference between something being sexy, and something being sexual. If you're not so single-minded as to believe that every stimulus must lead to satisfaction, then it is possible to find nudity sexy, while still acknowledging that it is not sexual.
Some people think losing weight makes you more attractive. This is a LEGITIMATE perspective. I would be lying to myself and unhappy if I pretended that I liked the image I saw in the mirror better before I lost forty pounds. I did it for myself, and I'm happier now. If people commenting on how losing weight makes you more attractive causes you to feel like you were worthless before, then you're still committing the fallacy of believing too highly in the importance of physical beauty. That some people think you're "more attractive" now does NOT mean that you were unattractive before. Nor that nobody prefers the way you looked before. People commenting on your looks are doing just that and nothing more. How you look does not define who you are, how talented you are, how successful you can be, etc.
Why is "live and let live" such an uncommon philosophy? It's a big world out there. Is there not room enough for all kinds? I have anxiety, so I know how hard it is when your peace of mind depends on the beliefs of others. But the solution is tolerance, not judgment.
My perspective is that anything that normalizes nudity helps nudism, even if it's "sexualized". Why? Because there is always room to make the distinction between sex and nudity - but if nudity is normalized regardless of its association, then nudism stands to benefit, too. The reason "sexualized" nudity is a threat to nudism is because sex carries a stigma, and nudism wants to be free of a stigma it doesn't deserve. But if the stigma itself is reduced, then nudism's position improves, no matter where society stands on the sex vs. nudity debate. I know that there would still be work to be done to keep sex out of nudism, and maybe a little bit more than we would otherwise have. But in the meantime, we'd be less marginalized and freer to practice our nudism while we work on that problem. It's a tradeoff. So what's your priority? Do you want to carve a nonsexual haven out of a liberated society, or wedge nudity into an otherwise conservative society? I'd rather live in a world that's less erotophobic. And I daresay nudism has more potential in such a world.
For a great many of us, life is hard and filled with adversity. The way the sexes treat each other deserves scrutiny. On the whole, feminism has been a hugely positive social movement (when it's not inexplicably allied with religious conservatives). What concerns me is how it may contribute to an antagonism between the sexes, by giving many uncritical people who are feeling legitimately hurt (not always due to anyone's fault) an excuse to blame all the problems in their life (and the world) on men.
I'm trying to navigate (in my head) individual liberty, tolerance of diversity, and the law's seemingly contradictory commitment to moral proscription (esp. regarding "vice crimes"). To what extent is it right for a nation to dictate the lifestyle choices of its citizens? If I'm practicing X (fill in what you like), the first question to ask is, "what's wrong with X?". And if you can't convince everyone that X is fine (and it's inevitable that you won't), then the next question becomes, "if YOU don't like X, what's wrong with ME doing it?" Two responses to this question could be, it's unethical (it violates someone's rights), and it's immoral (it's "bad" for you). This is in line with my theory that ethics is the objective rules we agree upon, while morality is the subjective rules we decide for ourselves. The moral case may (giving the benefit of the doubt) be a legitimate complaint for the wellbeing of others. But even then, it should be an individual's choice whether or not to lead a "virtuous" life - or even to decide for one's self what constitutes a life of virtue. The ethical case is the only one in which a compulsion to dictate the choices of others (in order to protect innocent victims) would be justified. But even then, it should be undertaken only after a rational and scientific evaluation of the behavior in question.
It's as simple as this: prejudice against porn. Living within porn, by choice, I've found that it can be a pleasant experience. But if you have a prejudice against porn, then you are more likely to notice the bad, miss the good, and interpret the neutral in a negative light. Porn is an intrinsically positive thing, for the individual and society. If there is corruption rampant within it, it is only because good people have forsaken it. But it is worth saving. From outside, the only solution appears to be eradication. But reform is possible.
What's the point of making a skirt into a pair of shorts? Why not just wear shorts? If it's a matter of modesty, you can always put on your own shorts - they even make underwear like that. But a skort takes away that choice, and is an insult to everything skirts stand for.
While it's true that the taboo created by a textile culture can enhance the excitement of nudity through novelty, even in a hypothetical perfect nudist utopia, in which everyone is always naked, people would still be attracted to human bodies. It's how we're designed.
I don't WANT nudism to be "a refuge from sex". That doesn't mean I think nudists should permit open sex acts, or that I disagree with the fundamental non-sexuality of nudism. But if it's "normal, just naked", then it should be no more or less sexual than textile culture.
Honestly, I've encountered a lot of rhetoric about "sexualization". But do you know what's more harmful? Politicization. People politicize everything these days, and it's destroying our society. At least sex is a good thing. Why do people want to add politics to everything?
A police force that doesn't inspire trust in its citizens is just government-backed terrorism. With power comes responsibility. Abuse it, and lose it. Gun-toting authority figures don't get a free pass just because their job is dangerous. A badge is EARNED, or it is meaningless.
Predatory behavior is not the manifestation of an abnormal appetite, but a selfish disregard of ethics in pursuit of what is otherwise an ordinary hunger. It is not the desire itself, but the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve one's desire that is the moral failing.
It is impolite to stare, because staring makes people uncomfortable. But the impulse, when driven by curiosity or admiration, is not evil. One of the things I appreciate about the spirit of nudism, in opposition to the textile mindset, is the notion that it is okay to look. In other words, that one is allowed to indulge in a feast for the eyes. But how to do so without making anyone uncomfortable? This is one of the perks of performance art, in which performers - whether they consider themselves exhibitionists or not - permit themselves to be viewed at length by spectators - whether they consider themselves voyeurs or not. Better yet, visual recordings and reproductions may be scrutinized indefinitely, for public AND private reasons. This is why I produce video and photographic art.
(Volume 4)
---
I try always to be mature and respectful, but I am a sensitive soul. I promote peace, tolerance, and above all, being able to enjoy the good things in life without shame and judgment. Yet some consider this justification to lie and say hurtful things towards me. Confidence does not come easy to me. It is hard-earned. And even then, still fragile. I suffer from anxiety, and always in the back of my mind there is a pernicious voice whispering doubts, echoing the worst things others could say about me. Above all, I worry constantly that the path I've chosen may not be the right one, but I can do nothing better than follow my instincts. I am logical, and willing to entertain rational criticism of my decisions - if done so politely, and respectfully. The world does not begin and end with nudism. If people had the legal right to be naked, there would still be problems in the world. One of them is making people feel like shit because they enjoy one of the simplest and healthiest sources of pleasure on the planet. If promoting peace, tolerance, and psycho-sexual wellbeing is incompatible with advocating for the nudist lifestyle, then I will voluntarily step back and divorce myself from it publicly, because that is not a worldview I wish to support. However, I will never stop supporting non-sexual nude recreation, even if it is not called "nudism" (or "naturism"). And while I support the consensual practice of "swinging", at this time, I am not, and have never considered myself part of that lifestyle. So, where does the nudist community weigh in? Honestly I'm starting to wonder if I would even miss all the judgment and generalizations and hasty conclusions. Is this what nudism wants to represent itself as? Please let me know. It's your decision, not mine.
Unfortunately, nudism attracts a certain subset of the population that views nudity in black and white terms. In these people's eyes, to be a nudist, you must be a celibate monk. If you cannot meet that standard, then you are a degenerate pervert. There is no middle ground. Even if you just think that nudity can maybe sometimes be a little bit sexy, and that it's fine to indulge that feeling under the appropriate circumstances, you are automatically labelled a "swinger", a promoter of public sex, and an enemy to everything nudism stands for. I call these people "prudists", but it is cold comfort. Standing up for sexual well-being IS a righteous cause, but it does not carry the self-righteous assurance of the "moral high ground". Doing what's right means having to endure the establishment calling you the villain.
Most people in this textile culture appreciate the erotic appeal of nudity. Understanding and indulging in the many varied and oft-overlooked non-sexual benefits of nudity need not come at the expense of that. It is not a binary switch: an either/or dichotomy.
Becoming an erotic model on the internet boosted my self-confidence and improved my body image enormously. And that was *before* I got fit. Plus, the one advantage it had over nudism was not making me feel like a monster for enjoying the #1 thing our bodies were made to do.
I find it ironic - though no less disheartening - to be associated with the sort of riffraff accused of exploiting nudism disingenuously as a front for sexual aims; or when somebody announces a fact I openly attest to as if they were digging up dirt on me since - as someone who *supports* nudism's true aims - the only reason I occupy a moral grey area is that I am incapable of deception, and refuse to pretend that I don't sometimes have erotic feelings towards nudity just because it's not good PR to say so. If the truth frightens you, then by all means stand back, because I am your enemy.
I think one of the things that draws me to nudism is the emphasis on it being natural, healthy, and wholesome. I'm prepared to be lambasted for this opinion, but I feel the same way about eroticism. I'm not talking about permitting explicit sex acts on public streets. But the fact that people have sexual feelings, are physically attracted to others, and can appreciate the aesthetics of eroticism - in art, as in life - this is not a sin or a vice or a harmful truth that needs to be shielded from vulnerable minds. I'm not trying to persuade the world to let me expose it to something degenerate that no one wants to look at. Consent is the prime directive. But people moralize excessively about sex, to the point that it becomes an imperative, and not merely a difference of opinion.
Yes, I sell nude photography on Patreon. I am an artist, and my time and creativity is valuable. Do you know what else I do? I generate original content; I don't just share (or steal) and retweet others' work. I am a creator, not just another consumer. What do you contribute? And no, selling nude photography doesn't mean I'm putting a price on nudity. You're not paying to see me naked - anyone can do that for free with minimal effort. You're paying for premium access to the art I produce, and to support me so I can continue producing it.
What if these two assumptions about the Antichrist are incorrect? 1) That most believers will recognize him for what he is and not be duped into following him. 2) That he will be a deliberate agent of evil, rather than a mere fool who leads us to destruction through incompetence?
I don't understand how we live in a culture so obsessed with the concept of individual liberty and not being told what to do that we seem utterly incapable of staying in our homes to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE, yet we do NOT have the freedom to walk around naked if we feel like it...
When I was a teenager, I began taking sexy pictures (of myself) for my girlfriend. The relationship didn't last, but my appreciation for erotic photography did. I eventually came to the conclusion that it would be selfish to limit the sight of my body to intimate partners. Erotic art is not just a means to an end - a form of foreplay shared between lovers. It's something that can be appreciated even by strangers (as anyone who has ever enjoyed porn knows). Most of us are already voyeurs. I just took a step further and became an exhibitionist.
The thing about prejudice is that 90% of everything is crap, and people are no exception. So whatever quality you hate for irrational reasons, you'll be able to find despicable people with that quality. But it may not be the quality that's despicable; it may just be people.
Primarily as a visual creature, and secondarily as an erotic photographer, I revel in the superficial appeal of the human body. Why are people so uncomfortable with this? God did not create all this beauty in the world so that we could stumble around with our eyes shut tight.
There are voyeurs and exhibitionists out there right now, trying to learn how to navigate their sexual feelings in an unfriendly world. Should we teach them how to do it ethically - because it *can* be done - or shame them for their feelings, and hope it somehow works out? When it comes to sex, we throw people to the wolves, and expect them to figure things out for themselves. We actively *punish* educators. And then we think the results tell us something about sex, when really, the only thing it tells us is how we've failed ourselves.
Relatively speaking, we live in a largely sexually-liberated culture (albeit not without a lot of pushback), that wisely values the concept of consent (above moralizing, to an increasing degree), but there is still a lot of stigma surrounding voyeurism and exhibitionism. Voyeurism is not defined by invasion of privacy. Voyeurism is a delight in the erotic appeal of sight; the appreciation of human bodies. It is a contactless, truly safe form of sexual pleasure, that can be satisfied increasingly easily in this age of internet pornography. Similarly, exhibitionism is not defined by violation of consent. It is the mirror image of voyeurism, with which it works best in tandem. Exhibitionism is self-confidence, a delight in being desired - NOT ridiculed. It, too, can be indulged easily and ethically online. I want to see voyeurism and exhibitionism respectfully regarded as a legitimate variation of human sexuality, a valuable alternative to messy contact sex, not defined by criminal behavior or psychopathology, as healthy as masturbation, and facilitated by pornography.
When confronted with the concept of nudism, many textiles express the concern that being exposed to naked people would make them uncomfortable. What they fail to acknowledge is how frequently they make nudists uncomfortable - by compelling them to remain dressed.
There's a difference between something being sexy, and something being sexual. If you're not so single-minded as to believe that every stimulus must lead to satisfaction, then it is possible to find nudity sexy, while still acknowledging that it is not sexual.
Some people think losing weight makes you more attractive. This is a LEGITIMATE perspective. I would be lying to myself and unhappy if I pretended that I liked the image I saw in the mirror better before I lost forty pounds. I did it for myself, and I'm happier now. If people commenting on how losing weight makes you more attractive causes you to feel like you were worthless before, then you're still committing the fallacy of believing too highly in the importance of physical beauty. That some people think you're "more attractive" now does NOT mean that you were unattractive before. Nor that nobody prefers the way you looked before. People commenting on your looks are doing just that and nothing more. How you look does not define who you are, how talented you are, how successful you can be, etc.
Why is "live and let live" such an uncommon philosophy? It's a big world out there. Is there not room enough for all kinds? I have anxiety, so I know how hard it is when your peace of mind depends on the beliefs of others. But the solution is tolerance, not judgment.
My perspective is that anything that normalizes nudity helps nudism, even if it's "sexualized". Why? Because there is always room to make the distinction between sex and nudity - but if nudity is normalized regardless of its association, then nudism stands to benefit, too. The reason "sexualized" nudity is a threat to nudism is because sex carries a stigma, and nudism wants to be free of a stigma it doesn't deserve. But if the stigma itself is reduced, then nudism's position improves, no matter where society stands on the sex vs. nudity debate. I know that there would still be work to be done to keep sex out of nudism, and maybe a little bit more than we would otherwise have. But in the meantime, we'd be less marginalized and freer to practice our nudism while we work on that problem. It's a tradeoff. So what's your priority? Do you want to carve a nonsexual haven out of a liberated society, or wedge nudity into an otherwise conservative society? I'd rather live in a world that's less erotophobic. And I daresay nudism has more potential in such a world.
For a great many of us, life is hard and filled with adversity. The way the sexes treat each other deserves scrutiny. On the whole, feminism has been a hugely positive social movement (when it's not inexplicably allied with religious conservatives). What concerns me is how it may contribute to an antagonism between the sexes, by giving many uncritical people who are feeling legitimately hurt (not always due to anyone's fault) an excuse to blame all the problems in their life (and the world) on men.
I'm trying to navigate (in my head) individual liberty, tolerance of diversity, and the law's seemingly contradictory commitment to moral proscription (esp. regarding "vice crimes"). To what extent is it right for a nation to dictate the lifestyle choices of its citizens? If I'm practicing X (fill in what you like), the first question to ask is, "what's wrong with X?". And if you can't convince everyone that X is fine (and it's inevitable that you won't), then the next question becomes, "if YOU don't like X, what's wrong with ME doing it?" Two responses to this question could be, it's unethical (it violates someone's rights), and it's immoral (it's "bad" for you). This is in line with my theory that ethics is the objective rules we agree upon, while morality is the subjective rules we decide for ourselves. The moral case may (giving the benefit of the doubt) be a legitimate complaint for the wellbeing of others. But even then, it should be an individual's choice whether or not to lead a "virtuous" life - or even to decide for one's self what constitutes a life of virtue. The ethical case is the only one in which a compulsion to dictate the choices of others (in order to protect innocent victims) would be justified. But even then, it should be undertaken only after a rational and scientific evaluation of the behavior in question.
It's as simple as this: prejudice against porn. Living within porn, by choice, I've found that it can be a pleasant experience. But if you have a prejudice against porn, then you are more likely to notice the bad, miss the good, and interpret the neutral in a negative light. Porn is an intrinsically positive thing, for the individual and society. If there is corruption rampant within it, it is only because good people have forsaken it. But it is worth saving. From outside, the only solution appears to be eradication. But reform is possible.
What's the point of making a skirt into a pair of shorts? Why not just wear shorts? If it's a matter of modesty, you can always put on your own shorts - they even make underwear like that. But a skort takes away that choice, and is an insult to everything skirts stand for.
While it's true that the taboo created by a textile culture can enhance the excitement of nudity through novelty, even in a hypothetical perfect nudist utopia, in which everyone is always naked, people would still be attracted to human bodies. It's how we're designed.
I don't WANT nudism to be "a refuge from sex". That doesn't mean I think nudists should permit open sex acts, or that I disagree with the fundamental non-sexuality of nudism. But if it's "normal, just naked", then it should be no more or less sexual than textile culture.
Honestly, I've encountered a lot of rhetoric about "sexualization". But do you know what's more harmful? Politicization. People politicize everything these days, and it's destroying our society. At least sex is a good thing. Why do people want to add politics to everything?
A police force that doesn't inspire trust in its citizens is just government-backed terrorism. With power comes responsibility. Abuse it, and lose it. Gun-toting authority figures don't get a free pass just because their job is dangerous. A badge is EARNED, or it is meaningless.
Predatory behavior is not the manifestation of an abnormal appetite, but a selfish disregard of ethics in pursuit of what is otherwise an ordinary hunger. It is not the desire itself, but the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve one's desire that is the moral failing.
It is impolite to stare, because staring makes people uncomfortable. But the impulse, when driven by curiosity or admiration, is not evil. One of the things I appreciate about the spirit of nudism, in opposition to the textile mindset, is the notion that it is okay to look. In other words, that one is allowed to indulge in a feast for the eyes. But how to do so without making anyone uncomfortable? This is one of the perks of performance art, in which performers - whether they consider themselves exhibitionists or not - permit themselves to be viewed at length by spectators - whether they consider themselves voyeurs or not. Better yet, visual recordings and reproductions may be scrutinized indefinitely, for public AND private reasons. This is why I produce video and photographic art.
(Volume 4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)