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)
