OnlyFans Bans Public Sex
It's sad that sex workers (and erotic content creators in particular) have to live like beaten dogs, humbly accepting every petty restriction placed on them by society and the platforms through which they try against the odds to earn a living. But that's the way things are. So when OnlyFans decides (I was going to say "announces", but they haven't announced anything, it sounds like they've just secretly amended the rules and started punishing the new rulebreakers without warning) to ban "public sex" my reaction is, "well, that makes sense". Public sex is, technically, illegal, and these sites usually forbid illegal content (or they wouldn't be around for long), not out of any sort of moral judgment, but just to cover their asses.
(A separate question, though, is why banks get to determine society's decorum. I mean, it's because money is power, but who's got the money, and do they really deserve it, based on how they're wielding that power? If money is power, and power corrupts, then is it inevitable that a society can only ever be run via corruption? Or is this just more evidence that socialism is superior to capitalism?).
But the part that really concerns me is the fear, enhanced by some reports I've been reading, that OnlyFans is starting to outlaw any and all erotic media shot outdoors - because that's easier than determining what's public and what's private (like how it's easier to ban the sight of genitalia than to determine whether somebody is doing something with it that ought to be considered "indecent"). So, the language of the rule itself is difficult to criticize - banning anything that "was recorded in or is being broadcast from a public place where members of the public are reasonably likely to see the activities being illustrated." But how it's enforced is of more concern. Will I no longer be able to shoot erotic material in my own backyard, because there's a chance that my neighbors could see me? What about a remote hiking trail - who can say how remote it really is, how many regular hikers that trail gets, and what potential cityscape view could be seen if the camera were to be rotated 180 degrees?
Once again, sex workers are being marginalized and pushed into the corners, swept under the rug, and locked up inside our own homes where there's no chance that we'll "bother" anybody. How long will it be before I can no longer even stand naked in front of a window, because we live in a society that's terrified of its own fundamentally sexual nature? I guess I'll find out soon enough, since I shoot a lot of outdoor content, and I'm not about to stop without a direct confirmation that it's not allowed (because it's an artist's duty to push the boundaries and not succumb to a chilling effect which is essentially a muzzle on free speech).
Sunday, March 21, 2021
Friday, March 12, 2021
Subject vs. Artist
I sometimes wonder whether I'm a better photographer or a better model. As an artist, I strive to be good at both. It was photography - and not modeling - that got me started. I discovered I was an exhibitionist along the way, but the reason I started taking pictures was because I had an appreciation not for being naked on camera, but for seeing others naked on camera. I had envisioned shooting other models, but I've never had the people skills to make that happen. So instead of just practice, self-portraiture eventually became my everything.
When people appreciate my work, I sense that they view me centrally as an attractive model. But I view the value of what I do a little more broadly than that. I AM an attractive model, and no doubt that's important. But there are a lot of attractive people who don't share themselves with the world like I do. But it's not just willingness, it's the interest and the appreciation that all mixes together to create the intention and the opportunity where I recognize that erotic nude art is valuable and desirable, I have practiced it for years to improve my craft, and I am here to spend time and effort to create it and share it with others.
It's good that I am attractive, and I never would have gotten anywhere if I hadn't had the opportunity to be a successful self-portrait artist, but I feel like my fans are totally caught up in their attraction to me specifically, that all they must think about coming from me in the future is more sexy pictures of me, because I've rarely heard anyone make any comment to the effect of, "boy, I would love to see you apply your camera to other models".
And it's not like I get a lot of attention (that I am aware of) from people who see my art, and may not specifically be attracted to me, but see the value in what I'm doing and what it could do for other models. I've always wanted to create art that doesn't eschew but transcends the erotic value of "a sexy picture", so that it is still sexy but also artistic beyond that in a way that a person can recognize without being specifically attracted to the model featured.
I don't want to disparage in any way the fans that have carried me along, without which I wouldn't be where I am today, joining me with enthusiasm in an activity that I genuinely love. I just want to be more than someone people follow because they think I'm hot (or even that I'm hot and a good artist, but only follow to the extent that they get to continue to view good art that showcases my hotness). I'd like to believe that in my 10+ years of doing this, I am something more than your average 18 year old hottie casually sexting selfies online (who are, nevertheless, a lot more popular than I am).
If I had the opportunity to shoot another model (not just a fellow pervert who thinks having me take pictures of them naked sounds thrilling), I don't know if I could even do it, but that's not the point. I want people to recognize the value of my skills as they could be applied to other models besides myself. Imagine the kinds of pictures I could take of that 18 year old hottie! (But I guess there's no shortage of people willing to fill that role; that's why so much porn is trash). With the combination of my artistic eye and perverted mind, unhindered by the many limitations of self-portrait photography. I don't want to be the only person that imagines these things.
For I am not just the subject of my photography, I am also its author. When you see a picture of me, you see me primarily as the model - the attractive figure central to the work. What you can't usually see, and is easy to acknowledge but harder to keep at the forefront of your mind, is that I am also the architect of that image. The image exists not just because my body looks good, but because my mind conceived of that image, determined that its existence would have value, and put forth both the physical and mental effort to create it from pure imagination. Given the opportunity (and a willing subject), I could do that with any body that looks good - not just my own.
When people appreciate my work, I sense that they view me centrally as an attractive model. But I view the value of what I do a little more broadly than that. I AM an attractive model, and no doubt that's important. But there are a lot of attractive people who don't share themselves with the world like I do. But it's not just willingness, it's the interest and the appreciation that all mixes together to create the intention and the opportunity where I recognize that erotic nude art is valuable and desirable, I have practiced it for years to improve my craft, and I am here to spend time and effort to create it and share it with others.
It's good that I am attractive, and I never would have gotten anywhere if I hadn't had the opportunity to be a successful self-portrait artist, but I feel like my fans are totally caught up in their attraction to me specifically, that all they must think about coming from me in the future is more sexy pictures of me, because I've rarely heard anyone make any comment to the effect of, "boy, I would love to see you apply your camera to other models".
And it's not like I get a lot of attention (that I am aware of) from people who see my art, and may not specifically be attracted to me, but see the value in what I'm doing and what it could do for other models. I've always wanted to create art that doesn't eschew but transcends the erotic value of "a sexy picture", so that it is still sexy but also artistic beyond that in a way that a person can recognize without being specifically attracted to the model featured.
I don't want to disparage in any way the fans that have carried me along, without which I wouldn't be where I am today, joining me with enthusiasm in an activity that I genuinely love. I just want to be more than someone people follow because they think I'm hot (or even that I'm hot and a good artist, but only follow to the extent that they get to continue to view good art that showcases my hotness). I'd like to believe that in my 10+ years of doing this, I am something more than your average 18 year old hottie casually sexting selfies online (who are, nevertheless, a lot more popular than I am).
If I had the opportunity to shoot another model (not just a fellow pervert who thinks having me take pictures of them naked sounds thrilling), I don't know if I could even do it, but that's not the point. I want people to recognize the value of my skills as they could be applied to other models besides myself. Imagine the kinds of pictures I could take of that 18 year old hottie! (But I guess there's no shortage of people willing to fill that role; that's why so much porn is trash). With the combination of my artistic eye and perverted mind, unhindered by the many limitations of self-portrait photography. I don't want to be the only person that imagines these things.
For I am not just the subject of my photography, I am also its author. When you see a picture of me, you see me primarily as the model - the attractive figure central to the work. What you can't usually see, and is easy to acknowledge but harder to keep at the forefront of your mind, is that I am also the architect of that image. The image exists not just because my body looks good, but because my mind conceived of that image, determined that its existence would have value, and put forth both the physical and mental effort to create it from pure imagination. Given the opportunity (and a willing subject), I could do that with any body that looks good - not just my own.
Monday, March 1, 2021
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 6)
Each time I post one of these I wonder, how long will this series go on? And, inevitably, I end up with more Tweets to share before too long. But this time, I'm taking a break from the toxic drama of social media, in order to focus instead on sharing naked, sexy, girly art with my fans on OnlyFans [NSFW]. I have a strong desire to defend myself and what I do in the court of public opinion, but sometimes it's easier to just do it and not worry about making an argument for it. Because you can construct arguments in support of erotic imagery all day long (and I have), but, as I have stated in the past, the best defense against the influence of prudishness is simply to flood the internet with more sexy pics and videos. Spread it faster than they can censor it. -_^
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?
Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.
I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.
The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.
I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.
Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.
I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.
Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.
Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.
P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.
I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.
Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.
Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.
I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".
Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.
I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.
I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.
More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?
It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.
Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.
I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.
I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.
Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?
A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.
Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.
Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?
Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.
People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.
You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.
There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.
Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.
Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".
A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.
So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.
Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.
People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.
I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.
Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.
What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?
I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.
Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.
We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.
Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.
(Volume 7)
Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?
Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.
I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.
The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.
I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.
Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.
I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.
Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.
Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.
P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.
I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.
Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.
Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.
I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".
Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.
I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.
I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.
More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?
It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.
Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.
I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.
I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.
Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?
A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.
Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.
Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?
Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.
People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.
You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.
There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.
Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.
Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".
A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.
So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.
Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.
People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.
I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.
Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.
What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?
I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.
Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.
We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.
Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.
(Volume 7)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)