Straddling the Line Between Taking It Off and Showing It Off
Preface: This article is an expression of my views and the culmination of my experiences as an exhibitionist and a nude photographer interacting with the online nudist community (mainly on Twitter and Reddit) over the past two years.
What relevance does exhibitionism have to the topic of nudism? Ask a great many nudists, and they will tell you, "absolutely none!" But I believe this is an oversimplification of the issue. After all, it keeps popping up. But before we can say anything meaningful about how (or whether) exhibitionism fits into the practice of nudism, we ought to clarify just what exhibitionism is. And we can start by determining what it is not.
How Exhibitionism is Misrepresented
Everyone thinks they know what exhibitionism is, but being able to recite a medical diagnosis published in the DSM (a manual with a historically poor track record of describing human sexual diversity) is no substitute for lived experience. As a self-described exhibitionist, I am frequently confronted by people who insist that my personal feelings and experiences are less instructive than the cartoonish image in their heads of the "trench coat flasher". Yet, in over ten years of engaging in exhibitionism, I have never known such a creature to exist in real life. My image of the average exhibitionist isn't the hypothetical night prowler stalking the subways with a hard-on for unsuspecting marks; it is the increasingly visible trend of young, confident women showing off their bodies to adoring fans on the internet.
To what extent are our preconceived notions about exhibitionism truly representative of the phenomenon described by that term? Linguistically speaking, the root of exhibitionism is exhibition, which is a type of display, that we can boil down to "showing off in front of others" (presumably in an erotic context). Nothing about this implies that for the exhibition to be sexually stimulating, it must be performed in front of someone who is not expecting it, or that a negative reaction is actually desired. In fact, common sense dictates that if the audience enjoys the exhibition - even encourages it - then it will be more satisfying to the exhibitionist. Indeed, voyeurs are the perfect foil for exhibitionists; voyeurism and exhibitionism represent two sides of the same coin - people who enjoy sexual display, whether as performer or audience. Together, they form a consensual loop of mutual benefit.
Why, then, do exhibitionists sometimes act out, and perform for less than enthusiastic audiences? This is a more complex question than I am able to answer, but suffice to say, I believe it is more of a human nature question than an exhibitionist one. The trouble is that exhibitionism is disproportionately exposed to the public in the form it takes when it accompanies psychiatric distress and antisocial disruption. Good exhibitionists that behave themselves don't typically make the news. It's no wonder, then, that people cling to the DSM diagnosis. Yet, when I've tried to explain that there is more to exhibitionism than a medical diagnosis, people have shut me down, insistent that what I am describing is not technically exhibitionism - because it is not covered by the DSM diagnosis! Thus we are locked into a repeating cycle, even as things like homosexuality and "transvestism" have expanded in the public consciousness to include non-medical phenomena that are not the result of mental disorder. We live in a world where it is increasingly becoming understood that even such a thing as sexual sado-masochism (another DSM diagnosis) can be practiced in a consensual context. So why not exhibitionism?
But what about unsolicited dick pics, you ask? I understand that this is a frustrating problem for many women. My opinion as an exhibitionist is that this is actually less of an exhibitionist thing, and more like a primitive form of flirting - on a level of sophistication with cat-calling (albeit considerably more explicit). I have never sent an unsolicited dick pic, and have no desire to. I have taken many pictures of my dick - ranging from artistic to humorous to straight-up sexy - but not to spring on unsuspecting females, in the vain hope that they'll consider it an enticing invitation, but to share on image hosting platforms for appreciative voyeurs, to browse and admire at their leisure. You might be surprised by how many people out there LIKE looking at stranger's dicks - if only you would ask first.
But to whatever extent that exhibitionism may be involved in behavior that targets unsuspecting victims, I believe it is an imbalance of priorities or a misjudgment of interests - the exhibitionist mistakenly considers his own enjoyment of exposure as representative of a more general psychology, and therefore expects a positive response, rather than deriving pleasure from the anticipation of a negative response. In my understanding, the thrill in the risk of getting caught is distinct from any possible thrill of ACTUALLY getting caught, and the exhibitionist fantasy of getting caught usually hinges on the exploration of a more open sexuality (the thrill of being seen), than the sadistic pleasure of ruining another person's day. Regardless, whatever one finds desirable in fantasy, this is a separate issue from what behaviors one chooses to engage in; a person should be judged by their own decisions, not by the decisions of others who may have shared a similar fantasy.
Having covered what I believe exhibitionism is not, what does it mean, then, to be an exhibitionist? In my opinion, exhibitionism is about appreciating the visual aspect of eroticism, having confidence in one's appearance, and reveling in the feeling of being admired, independent from the source of that admiration, as well as any strict requirement for intimate physical contact. It dovetails excellently with an artistic mindset (via the aesthetic appreciation of erotic beauty), and, when pursued for its own sake - as the purest exhibitionists do - and not simply as a means to an end (i.e., foreplay), presents a potential opportunity for sexual stimulation that is contact-free and thus 100% safe from the transmission of disease, as well as unplanned pregnancy. I believe it should be viewed as a more wholesome form of eroticism than many physically and psychologically messier alternatives, and yet it (along with its partner, voyeurism) remains one of the few forms of sexual desire that is still viewed with paranoia and disdain even among sexual progressives, due to the stigma generated from unrepresentative stereotypes.
A Sex-Positive Detour
Hold that image of wholesome exhibitionism in your mind; we're going to return to it in a bit. But first, before we examine how exhibitionism fits into nudism, I'd like to clear up another misconception. Whenever I mention sex-positive nudism, there are invariably some who think I am talking about nudists having sex out in the open. This is not the case. "Sex-positive" is not just a word that perverts use to demonstrate how much they love sex; it is a social movement with a history and ties to feminism. What it represents is not a libertine, "anything goes" philosophy. It represents a positive attitude toward human sexuality, distinguished by its opposition to a sex-negative culture that regularly shames and stigmatizes what are natural and healthy sexual feelings and behaviors. Sex-positivity challenges the premise that our fundamental sexual nature is an organic flaw, a moral failing, or a sin; and invites us to revel in and celebrate the joy of sexual pleasure. It is NOT a synonym for sexual obsession, addiction, or total sexual abandon. A positive approach to sex must necessarily honor the desires - and therefore, the consent - of any and all participants. Therefore, sex-positivity must still navigate the social and personal boundaries we construct around sex.
So when I say that we need a more sex-positive nudism, I am not asking nudism to embrace public sexual behavior. Rather, I am asking nudism to confront its own sex-negative assumptions, just as sex-positivity positions itself as an alternative to a sex-negative culture. These assumptions are the result of an antagonism that has developed between nudism and sex. As many nudists will cite, the wider culture rarely encounters nudity outside of a sexual context, and so has been conditioned to necessarily associate the one with the other. There is also an additional stigma placed on anything to do with sex - including legal and economic restrictions on who can engage in it and where. So, the institution of nudism suffers unnecessarily from the misinterpretation that it is a sexual lifestyle. Nudists attempt to rectify this state of affairs by reminding people - loudly and frequently - that nudism is nonsexual, and that not all nudity carries a sexual context.
All of this is true, and a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is when this antagonism grows out of bounds, and nudists become akin to soldiers in a crusade against sexual expression, or any sexual interpretation of nudity whatsoever. The desire to illustrate a nonsexual context for nudity becomes a fervor to eliminate any possible sexual connotation (lest it confuse some hypothetical third party about the relationship between nudity and sex), and nudists begin to sound like religious fundamentalists decrying the moral corruption of a sexually obsessed culture. I believe this is a distraction from, and not a fundamental tenet of, what nudism stands for - which is an honest and open approach to the human body. I do not view sex-positivity as contradicting that, and I do not think it is constructive to make sex-positive individuals feel unwelcome within the lifestyle, and so I resent the conception of a nudism built upon a framework of sex-negativity. This is what I mean when I say that nudism needs sex-positivity, and it is in no way incompatible with the belief that sexually explicit behavior does not belong within nudism.
Fitting Exhibitionism Into Nudism
How, then, does exhibitionism fit into nudism, if that doesn't mean people having sex in public? Remember the wholesome image of exhibitionism I invoked above. Now imagine if it were non-sexually explicit. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with groups of people who enjoy having sex in front of each other, or with each other, or outdoors, or what have you - all within a consensual context. But this is not nudism. And this is not the sort of exhibitionism that underlies nudism. That sort is the same kind of exhibitionism that underlies much of human socialization, even while we're dressed. It is not sexually explicit, but it is about showing off in front of others, and it may contain erotic connotations even while it remains "family friendly". It happens when a young woman struts on the beach in her new bikini, or a young man rushes to lift a heavy object in order to show off the muscles he's been working on at the gym. This, too, is a form of exhibitionism.
It is also a form of flirting, but one that need not be accompanied by actual physical sexual arousal. Nor is it a display that is usually considered inappropriate to be conducted before the eyes of children. There is no reason this behavior would not, or should not, carry over into the world of nudism. For many people, part of the appeal of social nudity is the opportunity to show off one's body, or appreciate the bodies of others, with no more or less of a sexual connotation than it carries in a textile environment (just like everything else a nudist does - simply without clothes). While this form of display is certainly not what every nudist hopes to get out of nudism, and may offend the sensibilities of some who rely on nudism to be a safe space from physical judgment (these judgments need not be vocalized), it would be unnatural to exclude this one element of human behavior from any social gathering, and disingenuous to suggest that it does not go on, regardless of anyone's objections.
Further, the presence of exhibitionists within nudism reinforces many of the points I made about the nature of exhibitionism above. The fact that an exhibitionist would find nudism appealing at all - a lifestyle in which full exposure is unremarkable, and the sight of the human body is neither shocking nor offensive - only lends evidence to the view that exhibitionists enjoy exposure in front of consenting audiences (with consent, in this case, referring to the nudity, and not the addition of any sexually explicit behavior). And though some may misunderstand the nonsexual nature of nudism, surely many will be aware of it, as nudists spare no opportunity to remind the world - demonstrating that explicit sexual activity is not a fundamental requisite of exhibitionism. Those who do mistake nudism as a convenient forum for public acts of so-called indecency are undoubtedly ill-informed, and probably inexperienced in organized social nudism (as they are, in my understanding, handily dealt with by local nudists whenever such a situation arises). I suspect they constitute a larger problem for the public image of nudism online, which presents its own unique set of challenges.
The Myopia of Online Nudist Advocacy
Occasionally, those who have no direct experience of nudism will come to the conclusion that, since they never seem to encounter nudists in their everyday life (an inevitable result of society's intolerance towards nudity, requiring nudists to limit their nude recreation to private spaces, and leading many nudists to keep their lifestyle a secret), they must exist somewhere out of view, in an isolated pocket of society - the proverbial "nudist colony" or commune - where they never have to wear clothes. The truth is, nudists are all around us. They may spend nights, weekends, and/or vacations recreating nude with other like minds, but they still have to go to work or school, do their shopping, and visit friends and family in textile society like the rest of us - wearing clothes. Maybe not by choice, but by necessity. Nudists spend a lot more time wearing clothes than textiles spend naked. Yet, when was the last time you saw a dedicated nudist account on social media post an image of people wearing clothes? Nudist accounts online often myopically restrict their vision to spreading the message of nudism, with everything not related to that message considered at best a distraction, and at worst, an outright obstruction to that goal.
Maybe this is a result of the taboo surrounding nudity - in society, as well as on social media. Many nudists feel that they cannot freely post about their nudist activities, so they must create alternate accounts. They still have an outlet for their other interests, so the alt account becomes a dumping ground for nudist topics. Yet, I believe it would be beneficial for nudists to integrate their nudist activities into their regular accounts, for the visibility of nudism, as well as to demonstrate that their lives aren't utterly consumed by this one interest (contributing to the stereotype that nudists live in a microcosm of society where they never wear clothes). However, a stigma is generated among nudists themselves when those interests include tangential subjects that are related to nudity, yet viewed as conflicting with nudist principles (usually due to the presence of a sexual context).
When I visit a nudist resort, I'm there to practice nudism. I know the rules, and I abide by them. I'm there as a nudist, because I enjoy nudism, whatever other interests I may have. I refrain from inappropriate behavior, just as I do in a textile environment. But the internet is more complicated. I came to nudism online through my interest in nude photography. And nude photography, like nudity in general, encompasses a wide range of contexts, from casual nudist portraits to fine art nudes to sexually suggestive (or even explicit) erotica. As an artist, I am fascinated by nudity, whether for its symbolism, its aesthetic beauty, or its sex appeal. These are all different things, but they are united by a single thread (or rather, lack of thread) - the unclothed human body. And it's not always straightforward for me to distinguish, say, a nudist image from an exhibitionist one, when that meaning often times depends on the viewer's individual interpretation.
Some nudists would argue that you cannot be a nudist and an exhibitionist - but my existence proves them wrong. Just because nudism and exhibitionism are different things doesn't mean that one negates the other, and that a person can't genuinely appreciate both. Other nudists will acknowledge this, and yet still argue that one should not mix nudism and exhibitionism on a single account. I understand the justification for this view - the need to oversimplify the issue of nudity, to prevent confusion over the distinction between sex and nudism. But nudity is often complex. There are plenty of accounts that stress the nonsexual nature of nudism. Is there no value whatsoever in hearing alternative opinions on nudism from the perspectives of people engaged in sex-related (or sex-adjacent) fields? Because the fact - however inconvenient it may be - is that these interests often coincide.
A fascination for nudity and an openness toward the human body in one form can lead to a fascination and openness in other forms. But instead of reaching out as allies in the fight against the taboo surrounding the human body, nudists view sex-positive advocates as enemies, responsible for "sexualizing" the human body, even as sex-positives themselves may genuinely respect and support the nonsexual aims of nudism - having, in the course of embracing human sexuality, acquired a level of comfort with the human body above and beyond what is typical of textiles, and learned a corresponding truth about the value of casual, not-necessarily-sexual nudity. There is a reason for the imbalance evident in the fact that people who embrace sexuality are more likely to be nudists, than nudists are likely to embrace sexuality - because the culture of nudism is inherently biased against sexuality in a way that sex-positive advocacy is not against nonsexual nudity. Which leaves us with a lot of so-called perverts who may have much to say in support of nudism, but whose voices are not welcome within the lifestyle due to the enduring stigma of sex.
I try very hard to be clear about what nudism is and isn't in all my communications, and never ascribe the label "nudism" or "nudist" to anything that blatantly opposes what I believe nudism to stand for (which excludes anything sexually explicit), but without limiting my ability to also say things about nudity that aren't nudist in nature. I have never claimed that everything I do or say reflects on nudism. Yet this is the overwhelming pressure that nudists apply to nudist advocates online. It's as if you are their employee, and your birthday suit is the company uniform, and anything you do or say while wearing it reflects on the company.
Let's face it. Nudism is about nudity, but not all nudity is about nudism. Nudists don't own the subject of nudity, yet they often try (futilely) to own the conversation on nudity, especially online. Non-nudist expressions of nudity are not merely non sequiturs, they are framed as threats to the existence of nudism. When, in reality, people interested in one facet of nudity may be interested in another. But this natural kinship is being destroyed. We hurt ourselves more by fighting amongst one another, than we would if we banded together (no matter the different flags we fly), in support of greater acceptance and respect for the human body, in conjunction with a dedication to sexual liberty within the confines of consent - which has never included environments in which people engage in nonsexual nudist recreation. Let's stop judging people by how their superficial appearance affects the public image of nudism, and start judging them by the actual principles they believe and support. Nudity is complex. And so are people.
