I talk a lot about nudism and exhibitionism, but what about voyeurism? After all, voyeurism is just the flip side of exhibitionism. I've said before that nudism and voyeurism have a naturally symbiotic relationship - pairing people who like to be naked with people who like to see people naked. But that pisses a lot of nudists off (not entirely unjustly, to be fair), because looking misses the point of nudism, and being looked at can easily make people uncomfortable. The relationship often becomes parasitic, when in my view, it should be commensalistic - which means that one party benefits while the other is neither helped nor harmed. Although the relationship could easily become mutualistic by offering a financial incentive to enterprising nudists.
I recognize that our culture has an issue with over-sexualizing nudity. People shouldn't assume that an instance of nudity has a sexual context, and nude recreation shouldn't be treated as a sex act. But you can accept that fact, and still acknowledge that human beings (especially in a textile society) have a sexual curiosity about the human body. I argue that it's possible to recognize that nudism is non-sexual, but still take advantage of the erotic potential of seeing naked human bodies - especially in action, or in novel situations, or engaged in visually interesting activities (such as athletics).
This is most practical where a degree of separation distances the erotic appreciation from the nudist activity, to avoid giving that nudist activity a sexual context as it is occurring. The best way to create this separation is through video or photographic recording - which nudists are unfortunately allergic to. Speaking purely hypothetically, I could imagine a nudist resort rigged with a live web feed (visitors would of course be informed, and provide consent before being recorded), in a kind of nude version of a Big Brother-type reality show. This strategy raises two potential issues, however.
One is whether the nudist "models" understand the purpose (or potential) of their being recorded. If they don't, this raises ethical concerns. But if they do, then that colors the activity by consciously giving it a sexual context. It is no longer truly nudism. Naturally, it is best to do everything above board, but then we'd be entering the territory of pornography. An argument could be made that where pornography is available, giving non-sexual nudity a sexual context is unnecessary. All I can offer is my own gymnophilic perspective, from which I can find erotic excitement in nudity distinct from its involvement in sexual activity. I think there is value in this kind of "eroticization" of nudity separate from explicit porn. You may disagree, but if as an artist this is a subject I desire to explore with likeminded individuals, then I should have the freedom to do so.
The other issue, which is a possibility (or even likelihood) regardless of the intent of the producers and knowledge of the participants, is that this material will be [mis-]interpreted by third parties as evidence that there IS an unspoken sexual context to nudism. This is collateral damage that I would prefer to avoid, but at the end of the day, you can't be responsible for the misinterpretations of others; all you can do is perform your due diligence in correcting these misinterpretations. I make a conscious effort never to label anything as nudism that is not, and to always clearly define what nudism is. The fact that I depict things other than nudism (some of which involve nudity) shouldn't impact my ability to continue depicting nudism. But this is where I think a lot of "low-hanging fruit" providers of "nudist" material re-marketed as porn fail miserably at respecting the lifestyle they're shamelessly exploiting.
However, the fact that a lot of people do a bad job of this isn't an argument against those who do a good job of it. And while you're not likely to be convinced of this if you're not part of the small minority who enjoys this kind of "erotic non-sexual nudity", the value of presenting it - handled properly by someone with respect for nudism - is worth the risk of misinterpretation that may arise. At least so long as we live in a free country and possess the unalienable right to pursue happiness. All of this is to say that even though the erotic appreciation of nudist media may stand on shaky ground, I am not bothered if people derive erotic enjoyment from the nudist media I produce, so long as they display an adequate understanding of the line between nudism and their sexual fantasies (something about which I have no qualms correcting people - if in a friendly and non-judgmental manner).
As for when other people share images that are not intended, but end up being intrepreted, in a sexual way, I will say the following. I respect the desire to maintain an environment of polite decorum, e.g., in comments, as well as the wishes of the owner in terms of resharing that image in different environments (within the bounds of fair use). That's policing people's behaviors, which is reasonable. But sometimes I see people criticizing others for finding an image sexually appealing in the first place, as if they aren't entitled to their own interpretation. This is attempting to punish people for thoughts and feelings that maybe ought to have been kept private, but that - unlike behavior - a person is not able to prevent oneself from having.
This goes beyond guarding a set of community standards (e.g., preventing unexpected and unsolicited sexual comments), and extends to shaming people - for the crime of experiencing sexual desire. I see this a lot (too much, really) when we talk about inappropriate sexual behaviors. Instead of highlighting the importance of context - when and where and how (or if) it is appropriate to express one's sexual feelings - there is an enormous pressure to make people feel bad for even having those sexual feelings in the first place. That's sex-negative. And it's unethical. Not to mention against the founding principle of this blog. It's like substituting abstinence for proper sex education. Getting turned on isn't a crime. It's what you do next that counts.
