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)
