I've gotten a lot of flak from the [online] nudist community about my sex-positive advocacy. And it hurts, because I consider myself a warrior for nudism, and it's like having the army you're enlisted in turn against you; I just don't think you have to choose between the two. The war we're fighting is for the liberation of the human body, not to defend the puritanical ideology of Bible-thumping prudes. You can advocate for nudism without taking an antagonistic stance towards the freedom of sexual expression.
That said, appreciating nudity isn't always about sex. This is true whether or not eroticism is involved. "Eroticism" is an evocative term, but I use it in the broad sense that we are sexual organisms, and much of what we do - even outside of sexual foreplay and intercourse - relates to our instinctive desire to mate and procreate, especially when we take into consideration the aesthetics of physical beauty as perceived in the human form (in contrast to a sunset or a pretty flower). There are indeed times when the broad category of eroticism is uninvolved in the appreciation of nudity, but even when it is, it's not necessarily an invitation for the censor. Like glamour or fashion photographers who deal in physical attraction, but not in an explicit way - except that the models happen to be undressed. It is textile culture that automatically assumes that the presence of nudity implies explicit sexuality; nudists ought to know better.
I just wish I didn't have to tiptoe around my genuine and passionate interest in the human body - both as an artist, and as a nudist; that more people would understand that nude recreation, as well as the production of nude art, is not a sex act; that less people would have so many hangups about their own and others' bodies; and that it wasn't such a taboo to have an appreciation for the aesthetics of the human form that goes above and beyond the average feelings of physical attraction to one's intimate [or prospective] partner(s) that most people are familiar with.
None of this is to disparage any part of the natural and healthy human sexual instinct. The fact that I don't want my interest in nudity reduced to a sexual fetish doesn't justify a sex-negative platform. I just wish I could more freely share this aspect of my life without it being tied up with all the baggage that sex brings. Whatever my sexual activities might involve, my interest in nudity is not limited to intimate encounters - isn't that the definition of nudism? It's a lifestyle. It's a hobby and a passion, and to a growing extent, a career. I don't feel it should be wrapped up and hidden away, spoken of only in hushed whispers, kept private, like the details of my sex life are - which, outside of my additional involvement in pornography (which occupies its own separate space in my life), I have no compelling interest to share with anyone outside of my circle of intimacy. In other words, I don't need my friends and family to know what I do on OnlyFans, in order to want to be open about my passion for nude photography, and my interest in casual nude recreation, without being judged a pervert or a loony.
It's just that it's really hard to explain to dyed-in-the-womb textiles (the kind that were born with their clothes on) why I go to the woods (or anywhere, really) and take pictures of myself with my clothes off, when I feel that the art should speak for itself. But they don't just see a beautiful human form (assuming they see that at all - I'm not trying to boost my ego, here, it's just that I AM a professional model), they see a person naked in the woods and they wonder what strange and possibly perverted activities they might be up to. Which is not to say that I can't enjoy the eroticism of being naked in nature (because I do, when the appropriate conditions arise), but to boil all of my art, as well as my appreciation for nude recreation, down to a kind of sex play (and to censor it accordingly) is totally unfair.
And I realize this argument would be more convincing if I wasn't constantly making concessions to human sexuality - which is exactly the official stance that nudists take. I'm just trying to express myself as honestly as I can, because we ARE all sexual organisms, and it's not helpful to pretend that we don't have these feelings, and that these behaviors aren't also an aspect of our lives. (Also, I tailor my lecture to the metaphorical conference room, and this just happens to be the place where I'm free to speak openly about sexuality). That just leaves you guessing at what nudists are hiding from the conversation. I'm trying to put it all out in the open, which is part of what I believe nudism stands for - not "anything goes", but a dedication to authenticity. Many prefer to go for a more political approach, oversimplifying the subject for an unsophisticated audience. It's plausible that this strategy could be more effective, but I have a natural aversion to hypocrisy, and I don't have it in me to lie for profit. Even if it would be pragmatic for me to do so. Alas, I am an idealist at heart.
