Sexuality is a broad spectrum, and human diversity is vast. My own brother identifies as asexual, and I'm still wrapping my head around all the different kinds of asexuality there are. I told him I sympathize with the feeling that the raw sex act is kind of unappealing in all its messiness, but that I do not identify with asexuality because I still unmistakably experience those strong feelings of physical attraction and desire.
It was a revelation to me, reading Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us by Jesse Bering somewhat recently, that our disgust reaction is typically subdued with regard to people we find attractive. It's not rational to want to, e.g., put your tongue between somebody's legs, or let them excrete bodily fluids onto or into you, but we're programmed to find even the suggestion of such acts appealing - provided they're performed (or imagined) with somebody who stirs in you a physical desire.
It's helped me to understand some of my own feelings. Most people know instantly when they're attracted to someone, but if you notice somebody suspiciously dropping their standards of what they would usually find unappealing, targeted toward a certain person, that could be an indication that they're attracted to that person. I think some people have a broader range of attraction than others - and that's why, for example, it seems like some guys will fuck anything with a hole - but I think it's perfectly normal to have a narrower range and not want to engage in such behaviors but with a much smaller subset of the population. In the case of certain kinds of asexuality, that subset could well be zero.
Anyway, my brother told me he was "aegosexual" (as in, a-ego-sexual), which I understand to mean that you can still experience sexual feelings, but without having any desire to participate in sex. For example, you can have fantasies about other people (or characters) having sex, without wanting to insert yourself into the act. As someone who's obsessed with their own reflection, I think it's kind of sad not to have that experience of feeling sexy in your own body (and as an exhibitionist, feeling that your body is desired by others). But I was thinking that maybe I have something of a similar approach to erotic art.
When I create a magnificent piece of art, I want to share it with people. It just so happens that the type of art I'm most passionate about is art that showcases the beauty of the human body. Sometimes that's erotic in nature, other times it's not. But I distinguish such art from pornography in that its purpose is not strictly or even primarily sexual (what goes on in the viewer's head is their own private business). In my mind, it's divested from any kind of intimate relationship. So, aside from the public censure of genital exposure (which usually limits me to coyly posed nudes), I should be able to share it with friends, family, and strangers alike.
The thing is, I feel the same way about an excellent piece of art whether it's a "simple" nude or an erotic portrait. Obviously, not every picture I take is something I would be comfortable sharing broadly, with family and friends, or any other people I would feel weird about having sexual thoughts or feelings about me. But a really good piece of erotic art? Not cheap smut, but a carefully crafted diamond of eroticism?
It doesn't matter that I'm fully exposed. It doesn't matter that I'm presenting myself to the camera. It doesn't matter that my penis is throbbingly erect. I still think I should be able to hang it over the fireplace and print it on Christmas cards distributed to my family during the holidays. Yes, it's blatantly sexual. But it's not an invitation. It's not flirtation. It's not foreplay. It isn't about engaging in a sexual relationship with me. It's about a general celebration of human sexuality. In a way that's more impersonal, despite how personal such a depiction might seem.
Not everybody can be depicted in such a way. But I'm not an average-looking person; I'm a model. And although beauty is subjective, on some kind of objective scale I must be more to the attractive end of the spectrum (at least in my best moments - which is what I try to capture in these pictures). Those views aren't designed for private intimacy. They're designed to be plastered on billboards, and I don't think it would be inappropriate to put them there. And if I had friends or family who engaged in the same artistic pursuit, I'd be more than happy to share an appreciation for the fruits of those labors, without any kind of expectation of sexual intimacy.
All of these are things I've been saying for years. But now I'm thinking, maybe it could be related in some way to this asexuality stuff. The sexuality is present, conceptually, but divested from the subject of the photograph (me). It's like a Platonic form of eroticism - not in the sense of crossing a sexual boundary with your Platonic friends, but in being able to enjoy the erotic delights without reacting in a way that is explicitly sexual. Like appreciating the appeal of a sex scene in a movie enjoyed with friends, without treating it like a porno to be masturbated to. Or, you know, just talking or joking around about sex without creating an expectant atmosphere of sexual tension (like I know a lot of friend groups are capable of doing).
---
On a related subject, I've noticed for a long time now that my appreciation of eroticism - especially in an artistic context - both in myself and others, manifests in a way that is sometimes absolutely sexual, but often isn't. I browse naked pictures of beautiful people almost daily, and most of the time there isn't even a physical response. That's not why I do it. Mostly. But I still enjoy it. It still stimulates me on a psychological level. After all, not every part of attraction is purely sexual. When a man spots a beautiful woman and stumbles over his words, it's not (necessarily) because there's a bulge in his pants. I just think you can also appreciate the physical attributes on a level that's almost Platonic, too.
Maybe this is part of what I've been trying to explain as the difference between sexuality and eroticism. It's like when nudists say the human body is beautiful. Is there a sexual component involved? Of course there is! But there's more to it than that. And you can admire the same aesthetics that promote desire, also in a way that's not explicitly sexual. Most people can appreciate somebody who's attractive on some kind of generally objective level, regardless of whether or not they'd invite them into bed, given the opportunity. As a sex-positive activist, I don't think we should discount the potential sexual element, as nudists fervently do. But at the same time I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion. There is eroticism without explicit sexuality.
It's the difference between talking about sexual acts, and talking about sexual attitudes. Which is where I think a lot of nudists misunderstand me. Are we not able to appreciate erotic media and stimuli in ways that are, for lack of a better description, non-sexual? I get it. It's complicated. The language doesn't do justice to the complexities inherent in these concepts. The human brain is so complex. How is it that humans are frequently too dumb to understand the capacity of their own brains? We're trapped inside our closed minds, unable to imagine anything we weren't taught when the world was simplified for the benefit of children. And it's frankly repugnant, the way humans reject any attempt at increasing the resolution in our understanding of our own nature. They'd rather shut their eyes, and clamp their hands over their ears. We have so much more potential, and yet people just waste it. But it's not those people I cry for, it's the rest of us who are subjugated by the inability of the ignorant masses to imagine anything beyond their own tiny worldview. That's why I hate democracy. It's a tyranny of idiocy.
