Some're to Fall

Even though we're constantly being reminded of it, it's still easy to forget - and hard to imagine - that the world looks different to different people. Although I do have an appreciation for fashion, I tend to take it for granted (because it's how I personally feel) that the unclothed human body is the ideal form of beauty, and that clothes are there to frame and accentuate - like the polished backing that sets off a glittering gem - not to cover and obscure. So that, the skimpier the outfit, the better it looks (provided the person wearing it is attractive to start with, of course). Which is why I love summer fashion so much.

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one dressed for summer, the other dressed for fall]
Some like to bundle up; I like to strip down.

Matters of taste are notoriously subjective - this I know. That's the appeal of freedom. Everybody gets to make their own choices, and the result is an abundance of diversity. Something for everyone. Of course, it's human nature to advocate for your own interests, but what gets to me is when cultural pressure is applied in order to lock out certain choices. You don't have to like skimpy clothes, because you don't have to wear skimpy clothes. But it's a consistent pattern that people who do (or would, if they had the agency) like to wear skimpy clothes receive a lot of judgment for their choices, often deterring them from doing it.

We're a social species. Not all of us are as fiercely nonconformist, and immune to peer pressure as I am. In fact, I'd wager that most people are not like me in that respect. We want to fit in. We want to be accepted. It takes a lot of courage to buck the trend and stand out, and stick to your guns while doing it. If I were even a smidge less independently-minded, I'd have given up on presenting as the gender I feel like in my heart, a long time ago. I haven't. But I worry how many people are out there suppressing their identity and their happiness in order to feel that sense of belonging that we all crave.

And the result is that the mainstream tends to railroad minority interests. Isn't it enough that these interests are in the minority? Do we have to exert pressure to stamp them out entirely? If it were simply the case that nobody else liked to walk around with a lot of skin exposed, I'd be disappointed, but I'd be out of luck. I could make a case for my approach, but I can't control how other people think. But the fact that there are people out there who would probably join me, but don't, out of a fear of judgment - well, that just riles me up. If you don't like it, don't do it, but leave others alone to do their thing!

And when you put a moralizing edge on top of it - as there always is, in matters that relate to beauty and the human body, which are inextricably entwined with the aesthetic element of our fundamental sexuality - you're rigging the game against me. I can't say, "but it should be okay for people to walk around town in string bikinis" (much less nude) without losing respectability and sounding like a single-minded pervert (as opposed to a connoisseur of aestheticism*). The opponent has, in effect, hollowed out the base of my argument so that merely standing on it causes it to collapse. It's sabotage!

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one wearing a jacket and boots, the other in a bikini]
I wanna go where the weather suits my clothes.

*[This might be a tough claim to swallow, as most people are not attracted to most people they encounter. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but think about the feeling you get when you do encounter somebody you find attractive, and then imagine getting to see more of them. I keep thinking back to pool culture, and how quickly we become acclimated to a veritable panorama of bare skin. Also, there's a confidence factor involved. Self-consciousness may inspire average-looking people to cover up, but it's the moralizing and the slut-shaming that's jealously heaped on people who should be showing it off that feels distinctly unjust to me.]

The reason we're not limited to an academic discussion of hypotheticals here is because it all pivots on the fulcrum of what we're allowed (or, more importantly, not allowed) to expose our children to. Anything that's deemed inappropriate for children is naturally going to take on an edge of taboo - since it's a form of knowledge that will be actively denied of them. To think that such an ingrown notion will instantly disappear the moment they reach maturity is nothing short of magical thinking. The effect is that we will always carry a little bit of shame surrounding these topics, because it's what we were taught in our most malleable years. (For things like drinking and smoking, I have little sympathy, as those are detrimental to the health. Sexuality, while perfectly natural and healthy, is fraught with complications. But awareness of human anatomy? We're talking about the fundamentals here!).

And that is why conservatives* in Wisconsin are currently trying to criminalize nudism [NSFW], despite the fact that science and unbiased reason back up the claim that there is nothing harmful about people being exposed to the human body from a young age. (How insane is it to outlaw the sight of what every single one of us possesses beneath our clothing?). Why does it feel like we're moving backward; that our civilization is regressing? Haven't we reached a point where we can simply be unclothed humans without assuming that it will turn us into unrestrained sex fiends? Or that we can admire the natural beauty of the human body - simultaneously holding its erotic qualities in our mind, while recognizing the distance between our imagination and the reality before our eyes? Clearly, we have not. And I'm growing tired of waiting around for the rest of society to evolve. I didn't get thrown into this American experiment just to die with my dreams unfulfilled.

[description: two figures stand in a bedroom - one dressed, the other nude]
Being undressed is not an adult activity.

*[A note on partisanship. Although these measures far too frequently receive bipartisan support, conservatives rightfully bear the brunt of the responsibility for them. Liberal politicians should absolutely be held accountable for their spinelessness in not standing up to conservative rhetoric. However, saying that they are just as responsible as the party that consistently brings these issues to bear in the first place would be delusional. It has been proven time and time again that these are issues conservative politicians are concerned about (or, more accurately, know that they can bolster their reputation among their gullible constituents by pretending to be concerned about). When you bring a bill to the table that's been disingenuously labeled the "Child Protection Act" (it sounds like a cliché but this is literally the case in Wisconsin), you're guaranteed bipartisan support because the alternative is political suicide. And that, my friends, is what we call "justice" here in these United States.]

Opposing Government Regulation of Porn Use

Modern politics is like a creepy stalker. I don't want to have anything to do with it. I just wish it felt the same way about me.

Recent news has been targeting me on two separate fronts, as a gender-nonconforming individual who occasionally stars in sexually explicit media. All of these anti-trans bills going around are legitimately heartbreaking (almost as much as the relative silence they're being met with, outside of dedicated trans activist circles), but what I want to talk about today is these attempts at enacting stricter regulations on sexual expression.

But first, let me direct your attention to the fact that in both of these cases, the issue is disingenuously being framed as a measure designed to protect children (when the literal opposite is true), because that is absolutely the best way to silence opposition. It's clear to me that any bill or policy that mentions children should be held under the highest scrutiny.

"The political figure of the innocent and imperiled child just has a never-ending purchase on American politics ... [it] essentially shuts down debate because it immediately creates a binary in which anybody who disagrees with you is [a] perverted groomer." - Whitney Strub, associate professor of history at Rutgers University [source]

This time, the forces of chastity are pressuring the government to require you to transmit your ID online (opening yourself up to the risk of identity theft, and the possibility for discrimination and blackmail), just to watch porn. And they're disguising it as age verification, because who can argue with that? I've struggled in the past to explain why these sorts of restrictions are an egregious assault on our rights, but the way they're framed (as "protecting" children) makes it very hard to do, and that's what makes these bills so insidious.

Others are better at constructing effective arguments against the meat and potatoes of these bills (click the Guardian and FSC links above), but what gets to me is that the most specious argument (which most stances, for or against, tend to agree on) is also the hardest one to refute, on emotional grounds. It just kills me that, in what hails itself to be the land of free speech and civil protest, I can't find a way to say "the perceived harm of a person under the age of 18 being exposed to pornography is exaggerated, and most certainly does not justify an unconstitutional overreach into individual liberty and privacy" without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot, because nobody is going to take me seriously.

But I do believe that. And I'm not dangerously insane. I agree that it's reasonable to take precautions to prevent young children from being exposed to hardcore pornography - the industry already does that. On the other hand, discovering porn is practically a rite of passage for older kids who actively seek it out. Sexuality doesn't switch on at 18. Maybe we shouldn't encourage this, but it happens. And it doesn't destroy their lives. And though porn isn't the best education, it's not like we do a good job of educating them otherwise.

Whatever harm is caused by watching porn (and believe me, these harms are exaggerated by a sex-negative bias), I simply don't think it's reasonable to unquestionably go to such lengths as violating people's Constitutional rights to freedom of expression and privacy, all to prevent some teenager from consenting to something the law doesn't permit them to consent to. This is textbook nanny state politics. Why is the "party of small government" not opposing this?

I mean, it seems particularly ludicrous to me, because I look after kids, and I don't want them exposed to that kind of material at their age, but they're exposed to it anyway, outside of my control. And you know what? They're just fine. But I can't say "the kids are alright" without making it sound like I don't care about the kids - and I absolutely do! But even if I think it's too much too early (not that the standard approach of "too little too late" is any better), I still don't think it justifies Draconian measures of prevention, that are informed by and contribute to the deadly stigma of sex work. What makes it even more frustrating, is that I can't prevent these kids from voluntarily exposing themselves to this material (no matter what restrictions we enact, you cannot kill the human spirit), yet I'm not realistically given the option of introducing them to the healthful benefits of nonsexual nudism. It's backwards!

But make no mistake, this has nothing to do with kids watching porn. This is puritans who have a categorical opposition to pornography. When they talk about the negative impact on kids being exposed to pornography, they're talking about everybody. They just know that focusing on kids is the way they're gonna get average people to agree with them. This is how we swallow discriminatory stereotypes about pornography - which is a vast and varied medium.

In a truly free society, if somebody else doesn't like porn, they have no control over your choice to watch it. In our society, the government will be pressured by religious conservatives to do whatever it takes to discourage you from watching porn, and punish you if you go through with it anyway. And it works, because we will "happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty for the benefit of the most precious treasure of the people" - the innocent, defenseless child.

Are OnlyFans Models Being Deprived of Fresh Air?

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).

Myth - Nudity in National Parks

"Nudity is legal in national parks — little known fact"

Actually, this is a widely spread falsehood, based on the fact that "technically, federally owned U.S. Forest Service and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land doesn't have any federal law banning public nudity". Yet, "each national forest, grassland, and all BLM lands honor state and county laws" (all this from the same article [NSFW]). Which means that nudity is no more or less legal in national parks than it is anywhere else. Which is to say: barely (if that).

That "BLM officials have said that they will take situations of public nudity on a case-by-case basis" doesn't provide much in the way of comfort for anyone wishing to engage in nude recreation on public land unmolested. That it's not strictly illegal is not the same as saying that it is legal, particularly when it can so easily be misconstrued (by a usually unsympathetic audience) as "indecency". The best advice I could give anyone determined to take the risk is not to get caught, for all that's worth.

As a result, holidays like "Nude Hiking Day" are very difficult to celebrate, even for those fervent adherents to the lifestyle. That's a cause that the nudist community ought to take up, for the benefit of every one of its members. And yet, one need only look at the treatment Stephen Gough (the "Naked Rambler") has received to find out how those who dare to stand up for their essential liberties are treated (sometimes even from within the nudist community, sadly).

Self-Respect

[description: a figure in a minskirt and knee-high socks holds a ruler against an exposed thigh]

Self-respect isn't measured in inches. I wear short skirts because they're fun, and flirty. They make me feel sexy. That's not a symptom of low self-esteem; it's a celebration of confidence. I love my body, and I think it looks good. I enjoy showing it off. Have you ever noticed how shame is the tool of those who criticize revealing attire? It's because they know it well: modesty is a product of fear and loathing.

By the way, how come "modesty" (as it relates to fashion) is never applied to men? It's always a code word for slut-shaming women. Your shorts are too short. Your skirt is too high. Your shirt is too low. It doesn't cover your stomach. Where's the rest of that outfit? Men don't really have to worry about these things, because they don't have a sense of "virtue" and "purity" - by which society measures them - to protect. Nearly every time a school dress code controversy comes up (excepting the rare and relatively unspectacular issue of boys growing their hair long), it's about what the girls are wearing. Except, it's not really about what the girls are wearing. It's about how hot and bothered by what the girls are wearing the policy makers are. It's a damn shame they can't just take responsibility for their own feelings, instead of trying to punish others for making them feel dirty.

---

On a related issue, I think the problem with a lot of feminist rhetoric is that in the process of calling out the abusive aspects of the sexual environment through which women must navigate, male sexuality is vilified, without providing men with a paradigm of how to relate sexually to women in a way that is not abusive. Too often it comes down to, "when a man looks at a woman, he is victimizing the woman", and as someone who is sexually attracted to women, I am offended by that. It doesn't mean I don't think there is any problem with male culture, or the way men treat women. It's just that, being sexually attracted to a woman isn't part of that problem. Having the feelings is not wrong, or hurtful to anyone. It all depends on how you deal with them - whether you use them as a shallow excuse to treat women poorly, or not.

Because when the former happens, we get these disgusting situations where the only expression of male sexuality that is visible (and talked about) is the abusive kind, and women learn to associate male sexuality with abuse. So that the problem with girls wearing short skirts, for example, becomes the expectation that men will leer at them. And the response to that is, if you think a girl in a short skirt is sexy, you're being a pig. But that's not true. And it's offensive to us men (and women) who can appreciate the sex appeal of a girl in a short skirt, without translating that into behavior that makes the girl feel uncomfortable or victimized.

"...the [men in my life] who like women sometimes have the pure and honorable thought that a woman they see is attractive and sometimes they even fantasize, but they know how to act appropriately toward those women and respect their boundaries."
 - Madison Kimrey

This girl gets it. We need more messages like this - they're way too rare. Messages that tell men that it's okay to be sexually attracted to women (because it's unavoidable - no force in the universe is strong enough to prevent men from fantasizing about women), and that emphasize the difference between perfectly acceptable and definitely unacceptable ways to handle those feelings (instead of just calling out the latter and leaving it at that). Because if you don't give men a positive outlet, they're going to have no choice but to resort to a negative one. Tell a man he's evil because he has those feelings, and he might just be inclined to prove you right.

In a different discussion, on sexualized Halloween costumes (an issue that's near and dear to my heart), Madison Kimrey considers a typical example of the conservative approach, in which an offended bystander complained until the store (inevitably concerned with bad PR and prioritizing damage control) pulled the offending product. She offers her criticism, saying that "instead of appealing to the store to provide more choices for girls, [the offended party] instead chose to limit the choices of others." This is the rational and humanitarian approach to this disturbing phenomenon (that I have been advocating for at least the last five years). So why do I never hear anybody taking this stance? I think I like this girl.

---

I came across this twitpic while searching for inspiration re: dress code violations, and I thought it was brilliant:

[description: a boy in brief underwear is contrasted with a girl cocooned in a full-body sweater]
"If anything, school taught me that this was the dress code for guys vs. the dress code for girls."

The most disturbing thing about this image is that it's only a slight exaggeration. I swear, I've seen it with my own eyes - boys regularly cavorting in their underwear, while girls are dressed head to toe (to preserve their "virtue"). Because girls' bodies are "sexualized". I don't really like that word, because human beings are sexual creatures by nature, but in terms of how society views these things - if a boy's skin is showing, it's just a body. But if a girl's skin is showing, it's scandalous. Even if we're just talking about children. The grand irony, however, is that this rule is flipped completely upside-down at the swimming pool - males are forbidden from wearing briefs, while females can be expected to be donning tiny triangles attached with strings. Again, even where children are concerned. I don't understand human psychology sometimes...

---

But, there is a bright patch amidst this sea of darkness:

Schoolboys allowed to wear skirts under new 'gender neutral' uniform rules

How I wish I could have grown up today (or maybe in a few more years, when this trend starts to snowball - fingers crossed). One of my most treasured fantasies is to relive my high school prom, wearing a stunning dress and heels.

"Diversity campaigners have warned current policies risk discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pupils (LGBT)."

I hope this trend trickles down to swimming pools, too - I've made this same argument against the sexist double standard regarding men's swimming briefs for several years now. If girls can do anything boys can do, then boys can do anything girls can, too.

"This change follows requests from a small number of families."

And you can bet there are a large number of families ready to protest it, because they're uncomfortable with the fact that they can't force the world to adhere to their small-minded ability to comprehend what's going on around them. What's ironic is the fact that they'll protest this expansion of freedom as if it were a restriction on their own choices. "Duh, lib'ruls forcing me to acknowledge that not everyone wants to live the way I want them to, instead of just letting me go on dictating other people's lives, the way we've been doing it for generations." Does it really take a genius to figure out that your choices don't encompass "choosing" other people's choices for them? It's baffling, the stupidity of mankind.

But you know what? I don't give a fuck what your opinion on a boy wearing a skirt is. If that boy wants to wear that skirt, I'll defend to the death his right to do so. Because that's the American way. And I don't look too kindly on insinuations that there's anything wrong with it, either. Every day, we exert enormous amounts of pressure on people to conform to ill-fitting stereotypes, and it causes undue stress and trauma. I don't care what your narrow-minded, conservative justifications are - if you're contributing to this toxic environment, then you're a horse's ass. There's no two ways about it.

The Inevitability of Nude Selfies

[description: typical MySpace-angle nude bathroom selfie]

I'd like to share this article with you because it demonstrates the propagation of a perspective I've held for years now, and I've been hoping for a long time that people's beliefs would eventually shift in this direction. The horrors of sexting are not typically generated by those involved in the more or less private sharing of harmless "sexy" pics (including relative internet anonymity), but by those who would pass judgment on those who engage in this very common, human behavior - the bullies and the demagogues, always ready to sling insults, and looking to make an example of some poor soul who dares to transgress the moral code of God and society. Never the perverts - the voyeurs and the exhibitionists who delight in taking and sharing these photos with each other, although they bear the brunt of the stigma because they are the engine that drives this "despicable" activity. When, in reality, sexting is merely the inevitable analog of an ages-old practice between young (and old, too) people, who are programmed to flirt and frolic, and are now doing so on a digital landscape. It's not going away. And I don't see why it should. That people take and send and share nude and sexy pics of each other is a wonderful thing. They should do more of it. And they should be commended for it, as I have always said. Those that would shame and bully and stigmatize them - sometimes to the heartbreaking extent of suicide - they are the real poison of our society.

“What seems more difficult for youth, as for adults, is to imagine the possibility that girls are legitimately entitled to digitally mediate sexuality or express sexual desire, for example, through taking, sending or posting images of their bodies via phones privately, or on social network sites more publicly,” she said.

I was pleased to find this quote in a related article, since I had recently been milling about the topic of moral conservatism - the kind rampant in under-progressed countries where women are treated like chattel. And I came to the conclusion that the foundation for this kind of patriarchal worldview is the oppression and subjugation of female sexuality. It ties in to the troubling Madonna-whore complex, whereby a man wants his woman to be a sexual object, but only for him. Thus, any public expression of sexuality, or any expression of sexuality outside of accepted bounds is shamed and shut down. (Usually, in this context, the father owns his daughter's virginity until the day it is sold at a premium to her husband-to-be - with severe penalties in place for so-called "damaged goods"; which is an exceptional way to police women's sexuality).

As I see it, female empowerment can only come through owning and expressing (not repressing) women's sexuality - on women's terms. Ironically, a significant subset of feminists are in bed with the very same religious conservatives they should be at odds with. They slut-shame as much as the patriarchal men do - maybe even more so, since they (mostly) don't harbor a secret, un-politically correct sexual desire for women that they can't quite reconcile with their wish to own the woman's sex, at the behest of the rest of the population. These self-styled "feminists" have nothing to gain from women's sexual empowerment, and potentially everything to lose from an increase in competition on a rubric they might very well not be able to compete on. Yeah, that's a low blow. I admit it. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

A Learning Opportunity

So, there's a story in the news [broken link] about a Playboy model who is being accused of body shaming, after posting a critical photo on her Snapchat of a woman she encountered in a gym locker room shower. I'm not interested in defending this woman's actions, but I do think it bears mentioning that people are quick to jump to conclusions, and I can see how this whole situation could be the result of a massive misunderstanding, if the woman in question did truly intend the image to be an in-joke with her friend, and not posted publicly. (The fact that people are so quick to jump down another person's throat only supports the dim view of humanity that these people are ironically criticizing this woman for exhibiting - does nobody else notice the irony of this situation?). Also, the gym in question has publicly labelled this woman's actions as "appalling" - which, frankly, I think is a bit of an exaggeration (though I'm prone to hyperbole myself, so maybe I should be more forgiving). Was it insensitive and ill-advised? Yes. But "appalling"? I don't know that I'd even go so far as to say that this behavior warrants banishment, much less criminal charges. But, of course, companies these days have to kowtow to every little criticism, lest they sacrifice their public image and risk losing business.

Anyway, I have a couple of comments about this news story - involving both this woman's actions, and the response it has received from the public. Now, if this woman truly did intend to body shame this other woman she encountered in the locker room shower - and especially publicly, on the internet - as people are assuming (because you have to be honest, that's what it looks like), then that is behavior that deserves criticism. At the same time, I would caution people not to react so strongly as to warrant the justification of censorship. This woman experienced a genuine feeling - and while it was not the most positive feeling, and she chose to express it in an insensitive way, I don't want people to become scared of expressing their genuine feelings. If PC culture gets to the point where people believe they are not allowed to even think that other people's bodies are unappealing, then it has gone too far, because we no longer have freedom or control over our own thoughts. What we need to do is place the emphasis on how we express our thoughts and feelings - and how that affects others. So that instead of submitting to the knee-jerk impulse to express one's self at the expense of others, we will see the value in stopping to think about why we feel the way we do, what that means to us, and how we can express it in a way that ultimately contributes to making the world a better place (which is what I do - or at least try to do - when I sit down and analyze my thoughts in preparation for posting them to this blog).

Now, about the legality of taking photos in locker rooms. Firstly, let me say that what this woman did is exactly the sort of thing that gives voyeurism a bad name - using it as a weapon to criticize and embarrass other people, instead of the harmless (and pleasure-inducing!) goal of sexual gratification. In truth, there is a subset of the population that also believes there is something intrinsically harmful (or "degrading", if you want to use a word that stands for illusionary harm) about being the unknowing subject of "naughty" behaviors conducted in secret behind closed doors - but this fear is nothing more than bogus superstition. There's no harm in somebody being attracted to you, and if they take a surreptitious picture of you (that maybe you didn't even notice!) to remember that by, and to maybe use as a masturbatory aid later on, or even to share with other people who will use it in the same way, who cares? It hurts no one - the only thing it serves is to make other people feel good. Keep in mind that none of this justifies true violations of privacy, or stalking, or any antisocial behaviors. But unobtrusive (and especially public) voyeurism that does not involve harassment or abuse of any kind (including verbal) is an unqualified benefit to society.

Still, people are afraid of having their privacy violated (even in public). They get nasty when strangers take their pictures, because they assume they're going to post them to their Facebook with critical captions, and be made a public laughing stock. In short, people expect other people to be insensitive jerks. Which is realistic. But wouldn't it be nice if we lived, instead, in a world where people had the expectation that other people wouldn't be insensitive jerks? Which is pretty much the way people are reacting to this story. They're calling this woman out on her insensitive behavior. Why, then, do we focus on the inherent wrongness of taking the picture? Of all people, even nudists (which is where I first heard about this story) use this story as an example to justify the expectation of privacy. Which is ironic, because nudists freely and regularly shower in front of each other without fanfare. Isn't it entirely against nudist principles to emphasize the importance of privacy regarding something they don't consider private (that is, people's bodies) over the importance of just not judging people on their looks? Why do nudists still think this kind of privacy is important, then?

Unless they, too, are only shielding themselves from the jerks out there who want nothing more than to criticize their bodies. But isn't this the perfect opportunity to put our money where our mouths are, and invite the entire world to peer into our secret nudist communes, to see once and for all what nudism is really like? Instead of suspiciously insisting that it's not about sex, and then hiding behind tall fences? Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the world the importance of treating people with dignity and respect, regardless of what they're wearing, or what their body looks like? To me, this seems like an ideal teaching opportunity for nudists, and the best way to expand knowledge and awareness of our lifestyle to the masses. And we're wasting it, because we're all too lazy and scared of being judged. We keep to ourselves in our little secret societies, hiding behind our fences sipping beers in front of our trailers, shunning cameras because god forbid somebody from the outside world should see us naked. And we call ourselves nudists? Well, let me tell you, that's not the nudism I want to be a part of. The only question I have is, who's going to join me?

Brazil to sue Facebook for censoring nudity

This story here [broken link] is interesting. It's a rare inversion of the usual concern websites have about censoring nudity in order to respect conservative cultures who are offended by it. This is a case where nudity (at least in this particular context) is part of the culture in question, and it's Facebook's conservative censorship that is what's offensive (which, if you ask me, should be the default case).

What these huge online corporations try to disguise as cultural sensitivity is really a conservative streak, and they should just be honest and own up to that. You're never going to be able to satisfy everyone. And conservative cultures are not the ones deserving of our respect. The developed world is supposed to be based on principles of freedom - freedom of choice, freedom of expression. We need to stop catering to the sensibilities of our less evolved neighbors.

Collegiate Privilege and Censorship

Plymouth student photographer's nude shots challenge gender stereotypes [broken link]

This is an interesting idea, and I actually think it's really well-done (although I'd like to see it developed in more depth). Of course, I've been challenging gender stereotypes in my photography for years, and I have yet to be the subject of even an internet news article (which, admittedly, doesn't carry much weight). This girl gets recognition because she's a college student? Her work is part of an accepted tradition of art study, and I'm just an independent loner? Undoubtedly, my work challenges a lot more than gender stereotypes - enough that most normal people would be intimidated by it, but you could certainly select a cross-section of my photography that shows the gender aspects without getting too freaky on the sex end of the spectrum.

The other comment I have about this article is the censorship of the images. I think it's terrible. Censorship is not healthy to anyone - by catering to gymnophobic sentimentalities, we're actually encouraging people's mental illness (gymnophobia), while robbing everyone else of the healthy opportunity to see a person's nude body in a non-fetishized manner (the censor bars fetishize specific parts of the body). But the absolute bottom line is that, even if it were justified to censor the images to preserve certain people's sensibilities, you should provide a link to the uncensored images for the benefit of non-neurotic readers.

The only semi-justifiable use of censorship is to keep people from inadvertently stumbling onto something they'd prefer not to see (indeed, that's the reasoning behind safety filters). That would explain using the censored image(s) in the article proper. It's by not providing an alternate source for the uncensored images that you've gone beyond merely protecting people's sensibilities, and have risen to the level of actually deleting information from an artist's work, and preventing the public from accessing certain kinds of information because you've decided what someone else is or isn't allowed to see. And that's the worst aspect of censorship - one that can't simply be explained away by claiming, "oh, we just don't want to offend anyone".

Getting Revenge on Revenge Porn

This is a reply to the following news article:

Danish Activist Emma Holten Is Sharing Nude Photos To Combat Revenge Porn [NSFW]

I actually think this is a great idea, and I'm really surprised to find someone willing to make the distinction between bad "sex" and good "sex" (by "sex" here I mean any erotic or sexually motivated activity or behavior). So many people are willing to use any evidence of bad sex in the world to criticize all sex, as if to demonstrate that sex is inherently evil, instead of pointing out the fact that some people use sex for good purposes, and others for bad. Like radfems who prop up anecdotal evidence of women being mistreated in porn or prostitution, and use it to paint entire professions as exploitative and abusive.

I can just imagine a woman being the unfortunate victim of "revenge porn", and using that evidence of the way men treat her and her images and her body as proof that men are pigs and their sexual desires predispose them to be abusive towards women (basically, your typical sex-negative feminist's point of view). But this woman recognizes that there are good and positive ways for one to display their body to others (namely, those ways that involve consent), and for men to relate sexually to women, and is willing to go to lengths to point that out instead of publicly demonizing sex because she had a bad experience with it.

Obviously, I don't want women to feel compelled to have to post naked pictures on their own terms just to combat having unscrupulous men stealing or tricking them into revealing parts of themselves they'd rather keep private. But on the other hand, there is a great demand for naked and sexy pictures of women - there's nothing wrong with that, it's just how men (if not humans in general) function. So the more women there are who are willing to put these pictures out there on their own terms, the less I think the women who'd prefer not to will have to endure the pressure to give in.

That, I think, is one of the big sex-related problems in our society. Obviously, sex is popular, and gets a lot of attention. But we're also neurotic about it, and are taught to be ashamed of it. Anyone who does "act out" sexually is going to receive negative attention (think about how the press treats Miley Cyrus). This is proportionately more true for women than it is for men. As a result, there's actually less supply of sexual expression in the world (in spite of anyone who lectures you about the "pornification" of society) than there is demand for it. The result is lots of sexual frustration, and, since people are only human (and men are statistically more aggressive than women), more men pressuring women than there should be.

Yet women who give in are shamed as sluts (by both women and men alike). For women, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Many of them err on the side of "don't", which is reinforced by the fact that I imagine in a lot of cases women's ability to enjoy sex is sabotaged by all these negative attitudes, and the fact that when they do it, more often than not they're doing it because a man is pressuring them, and not because they're the ones who are interested and have initiated it (and nobody's really making female pleasure a priority). So it's this huge spiral that feeds into itself and leaves us all worse off. The solution is not more pressure on unwilling women but rather less condemnation of the women who choose to participate in the game of sex on their own terms. Which, you might notice, is also a true feminist goal.

The "Social Psychology" of Sexting

Here's another news article about the "problem" of sexting, framed in the context of hackers stealing people's nude selfies from "the cloud". It almost sounds like it wants to confront the "problem" from the right perspective, but gets bogged down with trying to replace warning people not to sext with understanding the social psychology that makes people want to sext (i.e., because they think everyone else is doing it). But it, like everyone else, comes from the wrong direction of believing that people engaging in sexting is a problem in the first place, and not simply a benign aspect of human behavior.

"One group says something like, 'Enough, children. Want to stop nude photos from getting hacked? Keep your clothes on in selfies and the problem will go away by itself.'"

Clearly, there is a problem with hacking going on here. But focusing on the sexting seems an awful lot like blaming the victim. Don't want your photos hacked? Stop taking them. Then there'll be nothing to hack. (Except, there will still be other things to hack, like your credit card numbers).

"Those on the other side of the debate insist we must not blame the victim and instead should demand better privacy protections for iCloud and other digital storage accounts."

This gets closer to the real issue - the hacking. Why the whole issue of sexting is even brought up I don't know.

"Why, then, do people keep taking naked digital pictures of themselves and store them in places that could be hacked?"

Um, because it's human nature? Because the threat of getting hacked isn't strong enough to quell mankind's most singularly powerful impulse - to relate sexually with other humans? What I can't understand is why so many people are so surprised that there's so much demand for seeing other people's naked pictures. If it weren't such a taboo to be seen naked by other people (who are not your intimate partners or relatives), there would be more naked pictures out there, and the demand wouldn't be quite so stretched as to resort to stealing naked pictures from the people who'd still prefer to keep them private.

But regardless, the bottom line is that, aside from a little embarrassment, if somebody steals your naked selfies, it's seriously not a big deal. Blackmail only works if you're ashamed of what you did. And people (read: employers) will have less grounds to discriminate against those whose naked pictures "get out" when all of us have naked pictures out there. So, from that perspective, these naked selfie "hacks" are kind of a good thing. They're just laying out on the table what we all try so hard to deny - that we have naked bodies under our clothes, and that we think sharing them with others can be exciting. It's time to fess up, people. Start being honest with yourself.

More Nude News

Just a couple this time, because I can't take too much moronic news at one time.

Why has sending naked photos become normal for young people?

"if a guy asks you to send a photo and you don’t, you get a little bit scared he might find someone else to talk to."

Omg, this is so stupid. And if you start talking to a guy and he tells you to have unprotected sex with him or else he'll find some other girl to talk to, would you do it? If it's not something you want to do, then find somebody who's actually worth your time, that won't pressure you to do things like this.

But it's not such a big deal, anyway. It's just a naked picture. And all that fear-mongering about how you'll be bullied and you'll never be able to get a job and you'll end up committing suicide out of depression because somebody passed a naked photo of you around school - that's stupid, too!

If you're the type of person who would be cowed into ending your life over a naked picture, then it's pretty damn simple. Don't take one. And if you do, stand up for yourself. After all, the more people who do, the less stigma this activity will have.

You think it's great that we live in a world where passing around naked pictures is an offense worthy of wrist-slashing (or prison time)? Hell no! I don't want to live in that world. So let's stop making such a big deal about it. It's normal behavior, and it's here to stay.

You can choose to engage in it or not - that is entirely your decision, and you shouldn't let people pressure you into changing your mind. But whether you do it or not, it's not the end of the world.

We talk about the "victims", but the real criminals are the people who would make you think any less of yourself because you were confident in your body and in your sexuality - enough to show it off.

Don't let those bullies win. You know how best you can do that? By taking a naked picture of yourself and sharing it, and then standing up for yourself and refusing to let people treat you badly for it. That's empowerment right there.

Revenge porn Bill upsets British nudists

This is absurd. They go on and on about how full-frontal nudity is not equivalent to pornography and that's entirely beside the point! If this bill really and truly bans all nudity regardless of whether or not it's pornographic, then that's a big deal. But it also has nothing to do with so-called "revenge porn", which is just as damaging if it's actual porn or just a nude image. This is about censorship, pure and simple, riding on the back of a noble-sounding pursuit ("let's stamp out revenge porn!"). Yet it's real purpose is not even remotely hidden, like they don't even care. This also lends evidence to the fact that the UK is not so enlightened about issues of sex and nudity as we Americans like to think (as bad as we are). I mean, seriously, how does this bill have anything at all to do with "revenge porn"? I don't get it!

This simply isn't a nudist issue - it's a free speech issue! Not that I have anything against nudists taking up that free speech issue. If anyone involved in this (but particularly the politicians) had any real concern over "revenge porn", then they'd focus on the revenge part, and not get hung up on the porn (or nudity, as the case may be). Honestly, how much evidence do people need before they'll finally realize that all this white knighting against human sexuality is nothing more than a front for puritan idealism? Yeah, the forces of chastity are amassing against us once again.

Nude News Roundup

I should probably do this more often - I've only done it once before. But I get a newsletter in my email from ClothesFree.com every so often which is a roundup of news articles appearing across the internet with news involving nudity that could be of interest to nudists (which the site ClothesFree.com caters to). I guess it's just kinda fun to chime in on these topics and take a chance to address my opinion/reaction to these articles.

San Francisco Police Chief Spells Out Bay To Breakers Rules: ‘Nudity’s Not Okay’

This is a short article, so I don't know all the context, but this is pretty infuriating. When Scott Wiener (of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) nuked the last standing public refuge for nudists in this country by ruining San Francisco's long-standing tradition of tolerance for public nudity (in certain areas), it was said that this would not affect special festivals, just everyday nudity. And here we have the police trying to crack down on public nudity in one of the most popular festivals in San Francisco where public nudity (see "Bare To Breakers") has been a tradition. I hope there's a mass protest and scores of naked people show up for the race. I would if I lived in San Francisco - I wish I did live there, so I could join the protest. The police chief's comment is pretty moronic (and confusing) though, because he refers to people who "might not have six packs" seemingly suggesting that they would frighten or traumatize "kids and families". Real paleolithic thinking there...

Stunning Nude Photo Series Will Make You Think Twice About The 'Ideal Body'

This is great, really. There should not be a single ideal, and people of different body types should be able to feel confident, and represented in the media. However, the article has a very obvious anti-skinny slant in its use of words like "skeletal" to describe mainstream models, and its references to "plastic surgery" and "eating disorders". I support acceptance of differing body types, but body acceptance entails acceptance of skinny bodies just as much as the more full-figured varieties. I'd like it if we could get rid of this idea that "fat acceptance" has to come at the cost of cutting down skinny people. No, that's not okay. The goal should not be to redirect the abuse in the opposite direction, but to stop the abuse altogether.

I Saw a Penis on Primetime UK Television. So What?

Lol, this kind of sounds like a line I remember Brian using on Family Guy. Not sure if it really counts as news. But then, I guess that's kind of the point. I think it's great that a TV program can show nudity honestly, without getting all in a huff about it. When the subject of nudity comes up, and you have to bend over backwards to avoid showing specific parts of the body, it just feels really fake and contrived. I can imagine the reaction that people living in this never-nude society for long enough would have if they visited a nudist resort - they'd be like, "oh my god, I've been looking at naked people on TV for years, but I never knew about those parts!"

Well, except for the fact that porn is so ubiquitous these days. I think it's unfortunate, though, that we associate honest nudity solely with pornography - and we really do. The solution is TV programs like this one, who are willing to show honest, unflinching nudity in a non-sexual context, wherever it comes up in the course of a show, and without shying away from it. Nudity is a natural part of life. Everybody gets naked to change their clothes sometimes. Everybody showers in the nude. (Well, barring an extremely neurotic minority). Let's get over it, already. Naked bodies are not some huge secret that nobody should be allowed to see!

"Advocates...believe nudity reflects a decline in standards...in society as a whole."

Typical conservative hogwash. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Oh my god, people actually get naked on TV! Oh noes!!!1 Except the irony is that there is very little actual nudity on TV in America.

"...sex drives every atom of western culture in the modern world."

This is a separate issue (and it's a shame we have to bring it up in a discussion of non-sexual nudity), but so what? Sex is pervasive. Sex is ubiquitous. Sex is kind of a big deal. And that's the way it's supposed to be. It's only centuries of religious fundamentalists and moral conservatives preaching about the purity of our divine souls and how we have to reject the pleasures of the flesh to gain a seat in an imaginary heaven that have made sex this bad thing. That sex is more visible than ever now is not an indication that our civilization is in decline, but rather that we're becoming evolved. Unfortunately, though, I would argue that our attitudes toward sexuality are diseased. We don't need less sex. We just need a healthier relationship with sex. One that wouldn't encroach on the ability to display a human being's unclothed body without causing people to get in a fit because the only thing they can think about is sex (and gawd, how horrible that is!).

Stunning Nude Photos Explore The True Power Of Stereotypes And Labels

This is actually a very fascinating photo project. I wish I could do projects like this, that combine nude portraiture with some intriguing, thought-provoking, socially-conscious theme. I guess I do sometimes, with my own self-portraiture, but it'd be nice if I could find the opportunity to photograph other people nude.

But, to submit my own experience, I've been called a "slut" (lovingly), a "faggot" (not so lovingly), a "woman without breasts and with penis - small one" (by a person whose mind was even smaller), and a "guy/girl/thingy". I've also been called "beautiful" and "sexy" more times than I can count, and "smart" by people for as long as I can remember. My peers in school saw me as "quiet", and my asocial demeanor has sometimes led people to read me as "aloof". One of the things I get called a lot that delights me the most is "ladies" (usually when I'm out with my BFF), since it indicates that either a) I am passing, or b) the person speaking to me is open-minded enough to accept me as the gender I'm presenting as (either one works for me). I've also been called "butthead" a lot, mostly by my older brother, but the last time was probably about twenty years ago.

Woman naked for 50 years

Neat little human interest story. It's interesting to see how a very different culture reacts to someone who in this culture might have discovered they are a nudist. But without a "nudist community" to join, and other nudists to associate with, it's just this weird condition. On the other hand, social standards are so much different that she seems to have been able to get away with just simply not wearing clothes for such a long time, even about the village. Although, attitudes about her "condition" are not necessarily ideal, even in this culture. And for someone who hates wearing clothes, it's unfortunate that she still feels self-conscious around strangers.

But it's worthwhile to note that even she puts on clothes to climb trees (because they are scratchy), but then takes them off when she is done - which is to show that nudists are not pathological about never wearing clothes, and that clothes can be used as a tool to accomplish a job. But that for some people they're just not comfortable to wear for extended periods of time, and in most contexts, where they're really not that necessary. I can totally identify with the feeling of just not being comfortable in clothing sometimes, and I wish my community would accept me that way - at the very least in reasonable situations, like in the rain, or outdoors on super hot days, or at the pool...

We Tried It: NYC's Naked Yoga Class

This is actually a great little article about the experience of someone not accustomed to social nudity trying out a naked yoga class. And she discovers that the "elephant" in the room - the fact that everyone is naked - turns out to be smaller than a mouse, because it's really not that big of a deal. People who are used to this are not judgmental, and it's not a sexually charged atmosphere - it's just a regular yoga class where people get to practice in the nude.

Why avoiding sunshine could kill you [broken link]

Good advice, I guess, but it's presented rather sensationally. Not that news outlets don't do it that way as a rule, but I really don't think it's that healthy to exaggerate the facts in order to motivate somebody to do (or believe) something (especially when the facts are not actually all that well understood). And besides, while it's clear that sunshine is healthy (hello, we didn't evolve from cave trolls), this kind of advice might have the effect of under-representing the potential hazards of too much sun exposure (which is a concern I think that some nudists don't give proper weight to). Of course, it's pretty confusing when one research reports that too much skin exposure causes melanoma, and another indicates that staying out of the sun causes melanoma. What's a person to believe? At any rate, it makes sense that some sun exposure is probably healthy, and too much could plausibly be dangerous, so a smart plan would be to try to strike a balance and go for the middle-ground. Duh?

The naked and the living [broken link]

Another neat little story, about an artist working with nude life models. I found two things of particular interest in this short interview. One was how much people are socialized to react with outrage to the idea of doing anything related to nudity, but that when they really sit down to think about it, they realize they're actually interested.

"The response changed from incredulity to outrage to curiosity. ... The first person to agree was a writer in her 20s. At first, she was appalled with the suggestion and didn't even finish her coffee and left my apartment. But a few days later she called to say she was ready to pose."

Now if we could just get past the initial incredulity and outrage stage, and go straight to the curiosity. The other interesting tidbit is how the artist first got the idea to work with nude models while hanging out with friends in a clothing optional setting, but when he asked those friends to model for him, they got uncomfortable and refused.

Of course, there are all sorts of individual and cultural variations involved, but as gung ho as nudists are about hanging out in the all together, there's a certain subset of them who get totally antsy when it comes to making any kind of visual documentation of that hanging out. I know some nudists have to worry about how their friends, family, and coworkers would react if they "found out" about their hobby, and some of them are ultra paranoid about "what if somebody thinks sexy thoughts about me?" But really, nudism shouldn't be a secret - how is it ever going to gain wider acceptance if individual nudists insist on remaining invisible? And who gives a flying fuck if somebody sees your body and gets turned on? Big deal. Especially if you're not even in the same room (or hell, even country) when it happens...

Michigan Town Moves 'Blue Human Condition' Sculpture After Backlash

This is ridiculous, but not uncommon. Still, some people need to get a grip on reality. Yeah, I can see how the sculpture could be interpreted as being "sexually suggestive", but I doubt that's its intention, and it's not like it's explicit or anything. Do we really need to police society to the extent that we can't have anything in public that might carry the risk that it could make somebody think a sexual thought? So what if that does happen? This would be a scary move, but given how much sexual suggestion permeates the media anyway, it just seems stupid instead. And watch how the detractors play the "children" card. God forbid somebody's child should see a representation of human sexuality. Doomsday scenario right there, right? Sheesh...

Sexting Ruins Lives?

No. Bullying ruins lives. Slut shaming ruins lives. Sexting makes people happy.

I just read this story [broken link] about a 14-year-old girl whose PG (PG-13 at the worst) "sexting" pics were hacked and then used to essentially turn her into an internet pin-up. My comments follow.

Are alluring self-pictures of underage girls found on social media sites a "particularly gross genre" of internet erotica, as gawker.com suggests? Well, the implication of stealing erotic pics from underage girls is gross in a sense, but the pictures themselves aren't a fraction as gross as MUCH of the perfectly legal and perfectly ethical hardcore pornography that can be found on the internet. Which is grosser: a pretty, smiling, teenage girl, or a dripping, gaping orifice? I'm not trying to downplay the issue of stealing photos here, just trying to establish the fact that alluring pictures of underage girls themselves are not intrinsically disgusting.

I'd like to also bring attention to a fact that is hard to ignore, but frequently brushed under the rug. It is not unnatural for men to be attracted to "13-year-old girls in bikinis", commonly referred to as "jailbait". In our modern "think of the children" alarmist mindset, where persons are increasingly viewed as being nonsexual until their 18th birthday (despite the worldwide average legal age of sexual consent being 16, and the worldwide average age of sexual maturity in girls being 12 [infographic]), this is at best an inconvenient truth. We have social customs that prohibit men from engaging particularly young girls in sexual activity, and there are arguments for and against this. But one thing that can't be argued is that men are going to be drawn to these girls, whether they can do anything about it or not. That's why they're called "jailbait". The "jail" comes from the fact that they'll be punished if they act on it, but the "bait" indicates that these girls are desirable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be baiting anyone. (Incidentally, this also indicates quite clearly that we are not talking about pedophilia here! My god, is it not obvious that pedophiles are not attracted to teenagers with large breasts?). It's easy in this climate to thumb your nose at the phenomenon of "jailbait", and look down on any men who buy into it, but it's a fact of our natural existence, and it's not going to go away.

As far as this one girl's pics becoming popular, you can't really fault anyone for that. Hacking into her profile is a very clear violation of her privacy, and very clearly a crime. There's no question about that. The question is, how much can you blame the people who liked her pics, and are responsible for turning her into a minor internet celebrity? How many of them knew her pics were hacked? How many of them knew the specific damage it was doing to her life?

None of this, of course, is an excuse for the way this girl was treated. It seems obvious to me that there's a sort of culture of open sharing of material on the internet, where people's copyrights and privacy are largely ignored, if not outright violated. This is, at best, troubling. But it doesn't necessarily have to be apocalyptic. To all of us who are used to the old mode of dealing with privacy and intellectual property rights, it's hard to adjust to something different. But if that mode changes, it's not necessarily going to be the end of the world. Admittedly, my ideas on both privacy and IP rights are rather alternative, so maybe I'm having an easier time adapting than others. Even for me, the bottom line is that a person's wishes (i.e., consent) should not be violated - hence I consider the hacking of this girl's profile a crime and an unethical act. However, if and when that occurs, it doesn't need to be as traumatic an experience as we make it. We can't turn back the clock at this point - which is what the girl tried to do by working with the FBI to futilely try to "scrub" those pics after it was too late (talk about a waste of resources). What we can do is damage control.

And think of the damage that resulted from this fiasco. Namely, the attention this girl received, much of it negative. Let's take a look at a few examples and consider how we could have reduced the damage exacted on this girl's life by a little change in attitude, rather than telling her "that's what you get".

The girl allegedly told one website that she "felt like crap knowing [her] life was going down the drain." My question is, why was her life going down the drain? Because some perverts saw pics of her on the internet that were supposed to be private? I've showed alluring pics of myself to perverts on the internet, and my life hasn't been ruined. Granted, I meant for it to happen, and I was prepared to deal with the consequences. But why do we act in such a way that if this happens, people's lives get ruined? Why do we shame people as sluts if we see provocative photos of them, whether they were given freely or stolen? Like as if we don't get nasty in the bedroom sometimes, ourselves. Why do we treat people poorly if they're viewed as being sexually desirable, or having anything to do with their sexuality (like sending racy pics to their boyfriends, let alone posting them on the internet for strangers, which some other girls like to do)? And why do we assume that if somebody sees us in our underwear (let alone naked, or engaging in a sex act), that our lives are ruined? Why is our reputation dependent on our modesty, and our worth as human beings dependent on our sexual purity? Especially considering that we are first and foremost sexual organisms! I'd like to see a lot more sexual confidence in this world. Be proud of your sexuality and don't you dare let anyone else shame you for being that way.

"And Angie's pictures became fixtures on amateur porn sites—the first time she learned of her new fame was when her friend informed her that she was starring in a porn ad."

Obviously, if you're of the majority opinion that porn is bad or dirty, you're going to be self-conscious about people finding out about your involvement in porn - and that's even if that involvement is intentional. Imagine if somebody stole your pic and used it on some porn site against your will! Nevertheless, if you had the point of view that porn isn't all that bad, then it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal. And if the rest of us had that attitude, too, then there'd be much fewer of us ready to shame anyone who turns up on such a site. The problem here is that although porn is popular - that's why these images ended up there - we shame ourselves for liking it. We get ourselves stuck in this vicious cycle of being drawn to porn and then hating ourselves for it, lashing out against others who show any sign of lacking self-control (let alone taking pride in it). You know what the solution is? Honesty. Embracing the sexual side of your nature without shame. Learning that porn is not something to be ashamed of, but something to be proud of!

[description: photo of a nude teen standing erect]
(I was 18 in this picture)

I, for example, would be honored to turn up on a porn site. However, one thing that would concern me is if people were making money off of my image, without my consent. Therein is the next legal and ethical issue. There's nothing wrong with an alluring picture turning up on a porn site - that's called nature, honey. But I would be concerned about my picture being used in an ad - probably designed to draw in traffic, with the end goal of making some kind of profit - without any sort of monetary compensation, let alone, you know, being asked first, which is just plain nice. But again, it's not the sexual nature of the material that's the problem here - it's the abuse of consent, the use of one person's materials in ways that that person has not authorized. Don't pretend like sex has anything to do with making this into a problem.

"Unsurprisingly, she received rape threats and attracted stalkers."

Actually, this is a surprise to me. Stalkers I could understand, because there are just people like that out there. That's why it's important to use good sense when interacting online, and not to reveal more personal information about yourself than you have to. Of course, in this case, the hacker stole the pics from the girl, and attached her real name to them without her involvement. That's unfortunate. However, I also believe that in a more sexually tolerant society, where people didn't have to hide in the dark to air their sexual desires, we'd be more protected from abuses and stalkers, because we'd be better able to look out for each other, if we didn't feel so compelled to hide our sexual sides, and learned to distinguish the difference between abusive sexuality and normal sexuality - right now, so many of us can't tell the difference, and the line between them becomes blurred - both for the victim and the perpetrator.

Now as for rape threats, on the other hand, I'm not so sure. As an erotic model, I've had lots of exposure to the nature of exchanging sexual comments on the internet. People say stuff. They don't always mean it. Sometimes it's just dirty talk. People do things in fantasies that are much different than what they do in reality. I honestly believe that everyone (but especially people who are particularly sexually attractive) should take a mandatory course in how people express their sexualities. It would make us all a lot more experienced at dealing with sexual compliments and what many people misinterpret as "threats", as well as help us learn to deal with those threats better. If you're gonna be on the internet at all, you have to learn that some people are going to act like jerks. You need to learn how to ignore them, not whine about it.

"This April, a few blogs got the idea that it was Angie's 18th birthday and celebrated in the creepiest way possible"

Uh, actually, the given examples aren't especially creepy, with consideration to what I said above about ages of consent and sexual maturity, beyond the whole "making unsolicited sexual comments towards a person". Which is, itself, an issue of politeness, but I will reiterate, one should learn to expect rudeness on the internet - most of the time, it's not even as pointed or personal as it is when occurring in real life. There is a detachment involved, and though people use that as a reason to be more careful when interacting on the internet (not bad advice), it can also be used to distance one's self from the inevitable trash talk that people are GOING to engage in online. And I would also reiterate the part above about sexual compliments. Just because it's impolite, doesn't make it unusually creepy.

"Today, Angie continues to be haunted by the countless numbers of pictures, often passed around in huge .zip files of a hundred or more."

Why does this even bother her? I'm sure people pass around pictures of me everyday. They don't haunt me. I'm happy that I'm making other people happy. Of course, the crucial difference is that I got into this scene with intention, I wasn't forced into it with a victim mentality. But you're only as much a victim as you allow yourself to be. It's not like a bell goes off every time a picture passes hands, as a constant reminder of the continuing torture you're being put through. There's a period where you're not exposed to the internet, and a period where you are. Once you are, that's it. You still gotta deal with different people in your life finding out about it, but that's something you steel yourself for and then move on. The rest of the strangers - they don't make a difference.

"Rumors that she was a porn star forced her to drop out of high school,"

That's terrible, the fact that she had to drop out of high school for that. I don't blame her for it, but this is an indictment of the kids and/or adults in her school, not of her behavior (e.g., taking the pics in the first place). This is what bullying does to people. It ruins lives. Not the pictures. Pictures don't ruin lives. It's how we react to them. If a thousand perverts get their rocks off, the world is a happier place. It's when you start harassing a person for being viewed as a porn star (or what have you) that YOU are committing a crime and being a nuisance and ruining a person's life. If you shame this girl for having these pics, or for what happened to these pics beyond her control, YOU are contributing to the problem. I support this girl fully, and in spite of the angle of my arguments, I'm very sorry that this has happened to her. But the solution is not to focus on people's sexual appetites, but the shame that accompanies those appetites. It's not the appetite but the shame that destroys people. So stop being ashamed of your sexuality!

Public Nudity in the News

According to a recent news article, there is currently some debate over the status of public nudity in San Francisco - specifically in the neighborhood known as the Castro. They are discussing drafting a new law requiring nudists to put a towel down on seats before sitting down, and to put some clothes on before entering restaurants. While the issue stirs up the usual intolerant attitudes about public nudity, it's kind of exciting to hear that the city actually recognizes a person's right to be nude in public - even if it does so reluctantly, and potentially only in this specific location.

But about those intolerant attitudes...

"They are unabashed in their brazenness, setting off a robust debate about how far San Francisco's legendary penchant for tolerance should be stretched."

I hate this sort of thinking. The idea that public nudity stretches the boundaries of reasonable tolerance. Oh lordy, lordy, of all things, we cannot allow naked people to roam our streets! There are much harder things to tolerate. Drugs, prostitution, hate groups picketing in the streets. In what twisted world view is public nudity a cardinal sin? The only thing offensive about naked people in public is that we're conditioned to view the naked body as disgusting (except when it's sexy). But the naked body is natural, and our aversion to it is what is sick. Luckily, there's a cure: exposure.

"the city's elected leaders have largely stayed out of the debate over public nudity, not wanting to run counter to San Francisco's storied reputation as an anything-goes culture where individual rights and freedom of expression are embraced."

This is just an extension of those beliefs. I'm bothered by the idea that embracing individual rights and freedoms is tied to this notion that "anything-goes". People seem inclined to believe that if we give people one freedom (that they deserve), then they will go off and take every liberty they want. If we let people roam the streets naked, they're not going to initiate public orgies. And if we celebrate people's freedom to roam the streets naked, we don't have to also celebrate their right to initiate public orgies (a right they haven't been given, whether you think they deserve it or not).

This sort of "anything-goes" language is just a form of scare-mongering that conservative-minded folk use to scare us out of giving people any more freedoms than they already have - not just the freedoms that would be detrimental to civilized society (which they cite to prop up their argument), but also the freedoms they deserve, that would contribute to a more civilized society. Make no mistake, this is exactly the same kind of thinking that conceptualizes gay pride as a threat to the social order, and evidence of the decline of modern civilization.

"'I'm all for live and let live, but this has gotten out of hand,' said Jonathan Mills, who lives in the Castro and has complained to police about the naked guys. 'This is not hip or cool or an asset to San Francisco. These people make other people avoid our neighborhood at a time when it is struggling.'"

Actually, nudism is totally hip and cool - or, it could be, if it weren't for its image being represented by old, lumpy people.

What's more, if you actually advertised the city's tolerance for public nudity, you would get tons of tourists. Imagine the boost to your neighborhood's economy! But you resist this simple solution because either a) you think the shape God created us in is ugly, or b) you have unfounded fears about people having sex in public or something similar. I get that you don't want people having sex on the streets (although I don't understand why that's a problem), but what about that leads you to the conclusion that people shouldn't be naked on the streets either? Are you really equating nudity with sexual activity? I hear about that a lot, but I didn't think anyone was ignorant enough to actually make that mistake.

"Karla Zeitz, who lives in the neighborhood with her children, ages 4 and 5, said she usually avoids the areas where the naked guys congregate. Still, she moved into the Castro knowing it was not Kansas. 'Frankly I'm more disturbed by the meth heads, the drugs and the panhandling than I am by seeing a couple of naked guys,' she said."

Finally, some sense. A couple naked guys (and I wish it weren't restricted only to guys) in the streets is not a serious problem.

But if there is any good in this article, it's that having a law requiring nudists to put a towel down before they sit down, and to dress before entering restaurants, implies pretty directly that it is not against the law to be nude outside, as long as you put a towel down before you sit down (which is pretty standard nudist practice, in my experience).

I'm wondering if there's any affordable property up for sale in that neighborhood. ;-)

Interestingly, the poll attached to the news article, which asks your opinion of what should be done about public nudity in San Francisco, doesn't offer the option, "legalize it explicitly". The most positive choice is to "keep tacitly allowing it". I don't want it to be allowed tacitly. I want it to be allowed EXPLICITLY!

In other news, a body painting artist working in Times Square is advised by police to cover up his topless model. This story caught my attention because, to my understanding, women are allowed to go topless in public in New York City. But apparently, the reason the model was asked to cover up is because she was creating a commotion, and the authorities wanted to nip it in the bud before it "got out of hand".

I wonder, how exactly would it have gotten out of hand? Were they expecting some kind of orgy to break out? Or were they afraid people in the crowd would get into fights for some reason? I don't understand. Unless it's simply a matter of crowding - you know, causing a traffic hazard or something.

But we hide nudity under our clothes, and in seedy strip clubs behind velvet curtains; if you put a nude right out there on the street, of course people are going to be intrigued and want to look. My question is this: if there were more nudes in public, would it be a problem? Would people be as shocked if they'd seen half a dozen nudes on their walk already? Would they stop and crowd around if they knew they would encounter a dozen more nudes if only they would keep on their way?

It bugs me that if a woman takes her top off in public, we, as respectable citizens, can't "handle" it properly. What's more, it's pretty offensive to suggest that a woman's topfreedom can be rescinded if enough men take a prurient (or any) interest in her breasts. I guess men and women aren't equal after all. But I think the solution is not covering the nudity up. The solution is exposing more of it. It's the only way to get over the titillation factor of nudity, on account of it being rare and exciting.

P.S. I just came across a blog written by a guy who lives in the Castro district, who is regularly nude in public. It is fascinating to hear about his experiences, and the kind of reactions he gets from people - some positive, many negative. I suggest you start here [NSFW], where he describes how the neighborhood has changed over the years, and has succumbed to mainstream conformism. But be sure to check out the rest of the blog, too.