Tops and Bottoms

(Apologies to those expecting a discussion of BDSM - this post is about clothing =p).

It seems to me that the only good thing, fashion-wise, about being a biological male is being allowed to walk around (sometimes) without a shirt on. I like to wear things like bras and bikini tops on occasion, because it gives me a more feminine look, but since I don't actually have breasts, they're really not practical for my anatomy. They don't stay in place, they often don't even fit right, and it's just more clothes that I don't actually need to wear - and if you know anything about me, you should know that I like to wear as little as possible. I think the worst thing would be to be a girl with a flat chest. Not that I don't appreciate women with smaller chests (because I do - double D's are so overrated; I've always been more of an A student ;-p). But to not really have the need for upper support yet still be forced by law (in most cases) to wear a top... Yeah, I totally support topfreedom.

And bottomfreedom, too, but total freedom aside, what about bottom equality? It's true that women are more restricted from the waist up, but what often gets overlooked is the inequality between what men and women are socially permitted to expose below the waist. Not only are women's shorts shorter (and they have the option to wear free-flowing skirts), but if you compare underwear and especially swimwear - since it's expected to be worn in public - there is a huge stigma against the exposure of men's lower buttocks and upper thighs that is not at all present for women. Even though, like nipples, these parts of the human anatomy are not actually classified as sexual organs.

[description: a man in knee-length board shorts and a woman in a bikini are viewed from behind]

Though it may be true that this fashion asymmetry is an organic product of the anatomical differences between men and women (women's more fully developed breasts versus men's external genitalia), the fact remains that a woman may be comfortable going topless, while a man may comfortably wear a pair of briefs. We should strive to hold all human beings regardless of sex, gender, or anatomy to the same rules of public decorum. Though if we are to insist on discriminating based on anatomy, I daresay the argument for covering women's breasts is stronger than that for covering men's buttocks and thighs (which, unlike their chests, are effectively no different than women's). The reason the former is the larger issue is due to the demand informed by gendered stereotypes on men's and women's bodies.

Poignantly, in this era of gender experimentation and increasing tolerance of diversity, strict adherence to such gendered stereotypes disproportionately affects gender and sexual minorities. Women who wish to are welcome to continue wearing supportive tops, just as men who wish it may continue covering their thighs and buttocks. But those who wish to be held to the same standard that the other half of the population is held to ought to be permitted the freedom to do so. Anything less would be unjust. Not to mention transphobic.

In the interest, then, of highlighting this asymmetry, and promoting fashion equality, I propose a visibility protest in which men and women swap their swimwear, with women going topless in knee-length board shorts, and men wearing revealing bikinis. The following recommendations are optional, depending on whether you're willing to risk engaging in civil disobedience, but 1) the protest may be staged in an area where topfreedom has already been achieved to keep female protestors safer, and 2) men are advised to choose their swimwear carefully, as most women's bikini bottoms are not designed to hold cargo, and it would be helpful to demonstrate to the public (as I know from experience can be done) that men can wear bikini briefs without exposing themselves.

So, who's in?

Skinny Dip Rant

What would you say if I told you that I went skinny dipping? Would you share in my excitement, or would you chastise me for tempting the fates and risking public indecency? What if I told you that I left my swimsuit at the car, instead of wearing it to the shore and stripping off there? Why? Because doing so extends my naked time (hiking through the woods plus swimming, instead of just swimming).

But what if I also told you that being stuck without an escape route makes the experience all the more thrilling? Does that mean there's something wrong with me? It's not that I WANT to get caught, or to expose myself to anyone involuntarily, but being further away from my clothes enhances the purity and the enjoyment of my nudity.

I wish I knew more people who understood this, that I could share these experiences with. I know it's not the safest or perhaps the smartest plan of action (although at the same time, I think the "danger" of being inadvertently spotted while enjoying what is supposed to be clandestine nude recreation - which means you're not conspicuously brandishing your genitals in front of strangers - is over-exaggerated), but it's a calculated risk with a verified personal reward.

And I want to be able to tell the story of how I couldn't get back to my car because somebody else had pulled in, and how I had to hide in the bushes until they followed the trail down to the lake and I could sneak past them*, to someone who can appreciate the humor and the excitement of the situation, instead of judging me and criticizing me for engaging in "reckless behavior".

Because, of all the vices people regularly indulge in (both legal and illegal - as all the beer cans callously littered across this nature preserve will attest to), is a little bit of naked mischief really such a horrible way to add a little spice and adventure to your life?

----------------

*I know opinions among nudists are divided on how to handle encountering textiles while engaging in so-called "secret naturism" outside of approved boundaries, and that many idealistically support the approach to stand proud and act like nothing's out of the ordinary. In theory, I too like that approach, as the only way to normalize nudity is to expose people to it. But in practice, it may actually do more harm than good, and everyone has to consider their own safety above the goals of "the lifestyle".

In any case, although hiding in the bushes means tacitly acknowledging that what you're doing is wrong, it also lends evidence to the case that you're not trying to be seen and thus cause a disturbance, which is often taken into consideration on the subject of indecent exposure. Although it may undermine the ideals of nudism, it shows an understanding and respect for those (who happen to make up the majority of the population) who are not nudists.

Teasing and Eroticism

The word "tease" is sometimes used to describe the erotic arts. My philosophy is this: not all of us will be lucky enough to bed a supermodel at some point in our lives. But we can still fantasize. If you're the kind of person who can't appreciate beauty without possessing it, then look away; my art is not intended for you. Although it is true that, as a photographer, whenever I spy beauty, I experience the very human desire to capture it (albeit in the form of a photograph, not as a pet), I am also able to admire it from afar; such views brighten my life. If I were limited to only seeing the beauty I can grasp in the palm of my hand, the world would be a much darker place. 'Tis better to be teased and have one's desire go unsatisfied, than to never experience desire at all.

And besides, masturbation can be fun, too. ;-p

A Prudist Brief

The thing about prudism (prudish nudism) is, it creates this dichotomy where nudity is either monastic, ostensibly practiced by erotophobic asexuals (the prudist ideal), or else it's laced with primal sexuality, in the context of hardcore pornography (the prudist's worst nightmare).

It doesn't leave any space for people who appreciate the human form both artistically and erotically, who aren't interested in lying to themselves about their feelings of attraction, and want to be involved in activities where naked (or nearly naked) people congregate, yet without it being a hunting ground for sexual partners.

Nudism professes that people can be naked and still behave civilly toward one another. Well, I profess that people can appreciate the eroticism of other people's bodies, and STILL behave civilly toward one another.

THOSE are the people I want to congregate with - and they are more likely to be nudists (who have a grounded attitude toward the human body) than textiles, who aren't accustomed to nudity outside of an explicitly sexual context.

I'm just saying, we can have that kind of nudism, without creating an atmosphere of sexual predation, yet still without pretending that we're not animals who appreciate the erotic appeal of the human form (heaven forbid!).