Sympathy for the Fetishist

As a bit of background, you may know that the only photo sharing site I use anymore (since Flickr burned me) is DeviantArt [NSFW]. I'm happy to say that all my new stuff, including videos and photo sets in great volume, go to JustForFans [NSFW] (previously OnlyFans [NSFW], which still hosts a lot of archived material not yet available anywhere else) - I say happy, because it means I can get something back (even if just a token) from all the hard work I put in to creating my art. That said, I'm still in the process of posting old highlights publicly on DeviantArt, because I crave a level of attention and feedback I don't get from my small (but highly appreciated!) band of subscribers. It's the boon and the curse of being an exhibitionist - that what's done behind closed doors isn't nearly so thrilling as that which is ventured out into the public square.

Which, conveniently, brings me to the subject of this post. Most of what I see on DeviantArt is mildly interesting at best, outright offputting at worst (I won't even get into the proliferation of AI content, which is a separate can of worms) - the site is a veritable bazaar of fetishism. Which is, generally speaking, a good thing in my opinion. These people need some kind of outlet. If I come across a favorites gallery of obese models, hairy assholes, or dismembered corpses (I'm not even kidding), I can just gag and close the window. It's not my business to police other people's tastes. I still browse, in spite of these circumstances, because I do have a general curiosity about the various things that turn people on, but also because it's all fodder for my creative imagination as an erotic artist. And, well, sometimes you do find stuff that strikes your fancy.

Like this one animated short [NSFW] I stumbled across in somebody else's favorites gallery just today. Artistically, it's very well constructed. It consists of [mostly] still frames, but they effectively convey its story - which is a person on an empty train car stripping naked and cuffing herself to the seat (with legs forcibly spread wide open), out of reach of her clothes or any means of unlocking herself from her self-inflicted bondage. Although not depicted, the implication at the end of the short is positively tantalizing - that, now being trapped in this precarious situation, this person will have no escape as the train begins to fill up with passengers. I have to admit, the entire scenario turns me on immensely - a fact that troubles me very much.

Why should it trouble me? I'm not a prude. I'm not ignorant of my own sexual interests, either. I wasn't surprised that it excited me. I was troubled because this is a situation that is entirely unrealistic. Never mind the fact that I wouldn't go this far even if the opportunity presented itself. I couldn't even enjoy it because the outcome - the part not depicted - as much as it triggers excited anticipation, in reality it would be what ruins the whole experience. I don't want to be shouted at. I don't want to be arrested. I don't want to be humiliated by family and friends, when it becomes public knowledge that this is how I get my jollies. And I certainly don't want to be raped - by complete strangers even! Why, then, does the scenario turn me on so much?

I mean, sure, there's nothing wrong with having fantasies. (I have a similar fantasy that involves hopping on a hotel elevator naked and crossing your fingers - sort of an exhibitionism roulette). But the part that really troubles me most is the awareness - not that I am "perverted", twisted from some arbitrary designation of "purity" - but that I cannot have pleasure and satisfaction via routine, easily accessible methods. If at all. Why do I have to be turned on by these outlandish and unattainable scenarios, in a way that simply isn't possible in a run-of-the-mill sexual encounter? Sure, I can enjoy the physical sensations of vanilla sex. I'm not numb. But they don't thrill me on that same level. They don't drive me to desire. I could take them or leave them, but this - not having it leaves me feeling unsatisfied. Like there's a unique piece of life I could be enjoying, that I'm missing out on.

People treat fetishists so horribly. They think fetishes arise as a natural consequence of moral turpitude, and are a reflection of the corruption at the heart of a person's soul. You should see the things I've read about exhibitionism within the nudist subculture alone (I practically guarantee you can't open r/nudism without seeing at least one post hurling abusive insults at exhibitionists). We don't want to harm people. We didn't even choose to have these desires! We're not evil. We're not antisocial. We just want to experience pleasure, like you probably get to. Some of us manage much better than others - that's absolutely true. But it's not like society isn't filled with conventional horndogs who treat women poorly. The best of us shouldn't be judged by how the worst of us (or even most of us) behave.

I don't know what caused me to become perverted, and I don't think I'm responsible for it. But it's certainly not a desire to upset anyone. Why does exhibitionism turn me on? Probably due to the law of opposites. I'm a reserved loner. I'm literally scared of people. Maybe being fully exposed in that way appeals to me because it's a true loss of control - all the usual rules, the laws and boundaries by which my entire life is governed, are thrown out the door and it's a total free fall. Mind you, I've never let myself go to that extent; it's just a fantasy that thrills me, and fills me with longing. If only I could get that same feeling of satisfaction from a conventional night in the bedroom with a loved one...

Don't you pity the pervert? Because I sure do.

Don't Tread On Me

There is still a lot of stigma attached to voyeurism and exhibitionism, even in what could arguably be called a sexually liberal culture (relatively speaking, anyway). And it is mostly due to the stereotypical assumption that voyeurism and exhibitionism (both) inherently involve a violation of consent - which is not true. Voyeurism isn't all hidden cameras, and exhibitionism isn't all public indecency. In fact, I would argue that something as popular and mainstream as the dissemination and consumption of pornography online (or elsewhere) depends upon the voyeuristic and exhibitionistic impulses within the majority of us. (But, of course, our critics who only want to slander us, won't give us the benefit of that point).

But even where the fantasies and desires of fetishists may sometimes wander over the border of ethics and into the land of questionable acts, as with other things, this doesn't mean the individual in question doesn't understand where the line is to be drawn, or that he doesn't have the ability to control himself. It's just that, even to admit that you can derive some pleasure from the thought of observing, or being exposed outside of the bounds of a private, committed relationship, earns you a badge of reprobation in most circles. I've felt this particularly distinctly among nudists. You'd think a community built upon the belief that covering up is the true indecency would be paradise to a person who enjoys admiring or showing off the human body. But instead, this sort of person is made to feel like a second class citizen, if not an outright criminal.

Just consider this. We are organic beings gifted with the sense of sight. We are capable of appreciating the aesthetic qualities of the things we see. We are also creatures who reproduce sexually, and are programmed to respond both physically and psychologically to the sight of the human body - especially ones we deem attractive. In an effort to civilize man, and tamp down rampant fornication (I can only assume this was the prehistoric justification), society has created a taboo on displaying one's body fully (especially the genitals, although in a lot of contexts it is not limited to only this area) in all but a very few specialized situations - always in private.

Arguments can be made - on both sides - about whether or not this is for better or worse. The argument I want to make is simply that, in a society that has put a taboo on something we are capable of and even programmed to enjoy, it is rational - nay, inevitable - for some people to develop an interest in contravening that taboo. It's not insane. It's not even necessarily antisocial. And we shouldn't stigmatize people for acknowledging the inherent potential for pleasure (erotic or otherwise) in seeing or being seen, separated from any consideration of whether everyone involved has had a pre-care session first.

Yes, consent is important - I'm not neglecting that. But it's important as a rational inquiry before choosing one's actions. It's not something that factors into the equation of the thoughts and feelings that go on inside a person's head. Tying them together just dooms the fetishist to an unlikable outcome (for all involved) - which is what the detractors want. They don't want a safe and sane outlet for these desires. They don't even want anyone to be able to conceive of such a thing. Because then they would have to live with it as an acceptable part of society, and learn to treat these people as human beings.

Stopped Clock

Speaking as somebody who has spent years working adjacent to the sex industry, mainstream cultural attitudes (and the laws they inform) towards sex and the human body are, quite simply put, fucked up.

I remember years ago trying to determine my own political affiliation, and searching for the "sex positive" party. Turns out, there isn't one. Conservatives are lying hypocrites - in some cases, they'll acknowledge the inconvenient truths about human sexuality, but they'll spoil it by adopting poisonous religious attitudes about virtue and purity. In essence, recognizing their nature as sinful, and punishing themselves (but more likely others) for it.

But even secular liberals often come up short, brainwashed by extremist gender politics into believing that sex is a foreign contaminant that must be artificially introduced to a system (news flash: we are sexual organisms to our very core), and handled like a loaded gun, lest it pop the bubble of a person's innocence (read: ignorance) without their express written consent. Consent that is granted by the government as a privilege, instead of wielded by citizens as a right.

To be fair, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Sex workers deserve rights (not that this is a mainstream view). And sexual violence is abhorrent (not aberrant, unfortunately - which means unusual - but certainly abhorrent - which means detestable). But it gives me no satisfaction to lend support and legitimacy at these times to an easily hijacked system of machinery that routinely disseminates misinformation and proudly reinforces deep-seated shame.

Just to give you two very prominent examples... Take the "trafficking" debate. Ever heard the phrase, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Now imagine how much the Devil has to gain by financing this expressway with an aggressive marketing campaign dedicated to eradicating evil. When you call taking people's freedom away (to make their own choices about their own bodies) "ending slavery", of course you're going to get a groundswell of support.

And then there's "sex crime". What better strategy could there be to undermine people's relationships to their own fundamentally sexual nature than to highlight the fact that people DO sometimes (unfortunately) commit crimes of a sexual nature against innocent victims? Sex is a tool; its value is determined by the hand that wields it. It can be used as a weapon to hurt and steal. Or it can be treated more like a toy, to give and share pleasure.

I'd like to see more of the latter. But in the meantime, I'm not going to let the presence of the former cast a pall over my life and spoil the joy our bodies are designed to experience.

Filthy Beauty

I know I've mentioned this before (somewhere), but I read an eye-opening book about two years ago (Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us by Jesse Bering), that spends some time exploring the suppression of the disgust reaction during sexual arousal - a point that's really stuck with me. It's the reason that, to pick out a simple example, some people actually like to put other people's genitals in their mouth (I'm intentionally phrasing it to focus on how weird it sounds if you're not thinking about it in a sexual way). I mean, it's one of those things that's, like, obvious, but putting it into a (more or less) scientific context really helps you to understand human nature (and our behaviors) much better. Anyway, I just had another epiphany related to this subject.

The fact that your disgust reaction is suppressed when you're sexually aroused - so that you'll tolerate, even desire, behaviors that involve intimacy with what can only be described as "gross anatomy", all so you'll be incentivized to increase your chances at procreation - suggests to me that the things you're programmed to find desirable are inherently disgusting (to a certain degree). After all, sticking a body part into another person's orifice and then excreting bodily fluid into it - well, it doesn't sound very romantic, does it? But attraction is the key to the gateway that penetrates the wall of repulsion and body horror.

Why should these things be inherently disgusting, if you're not holding the key? Possibly because it prevents us from fucking everyone all the time - but since evolution would probably not object to this pattern of behavior, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that intimacy necessarily leaves us vulnerable. Not just emotionally. Or to external threats. But physiologically, as well. How better to transmit disease than to essentially remove the physical barrier between two (or more) persons' internal anatomy? Just like how we find bodily waste, or the stench of death, repugnant - largely because avoiding these things protects us from dangerous microorganisms. But in the case of sex, the potential reward is worth the risk (the only thing more important than survival is avoiding extinction). But better to limit exposure to just those moments when it's necessary - i.e., when you spot a hot babe, with whom you might have a chance of making healthy babies.

Anyway, the epiphany I had after ruminating on this fact is that this is probably why anything to do with sex and eroticism is such a taboo, constantly courting controversy, and inviting censorship. What you might find beautiful in an erotic sense is intrinsically filthy, and will undoubtedly be seen as such by anyone who doesn't share your particular sexual tastes. It's not simply that people are being uptight, or have been brainwashed by a puritan religious upbringing (although I'm not discounting these things as contributing factors). It's an inherent byproduct of our biological programming! Which isn't necessarily reassuring (biology is a tough force to counteract), but understanding the problem correctly is always the first step toward finding an effective solution.

I mean, think about it. Human beings (and not just our species, but organic life in general) are icky, gooey, drippy, leaky, smelly bags of flesh and guts. If it weren't for the sheer importance of the role that sexual reproduction holds in our fundamental programming, I doubt we'd even tolerate ourselves for more than a second. This actually bugs me as an erotic artist, because it reveals that the subject of my passionate dedication is rather narrow-minded and ego-centric. I mean, there are standards of aestheticism that approach the objective (at least from our perspective). You can appreciate the beauty of a fine specimen of animal, for example - the lines and curves, the musculature, the colors and patterns - without it (necessarily) involving any kind of sexual evaluation whatsoever. But that driving force of desire that makes an erotic portrait so... potent? Just imagine, if there were another intelligent species on this planet (or any other), what they find erotically beautiful could be unremarkable to us. Or, worse yet, actively repulsive. And of course the reverse would have to hold true. If the virtue of my work can't even transcend my own species, how much value does it really hold, in the cosmic scheme?

On the other hand, it's not even as though all human beings can appreciate my art. My subject is so niche, it's not a majority - it's not even a multitude that appreciates it. Just a tiny minority. So I don't know why it should bother me that hypothetical beings that may or may not exist, and that we probably won't come into contact with any time remotely concurrent with the existence of my consciousness, can't appreciate my work. I guess I just want to believe that I'm doing something that has importance beyond the tiny blip that is the span of my life on the universal clock. But I should be content in the knowledge that, even if it's only a few people, there are others out there who appreciate what I do. And that not only do I find it enjoyable to do, but doing it brings pleasure and excitement to them as well. That's enough, right?

Right?

But I wish, as a society, we could stop criticizing each other for enjoying the things we like that other people find repulsive, especially to the point of not just withholding another's happiness, but ruining somebody's life because of what ultimately amounts to a matter of unbidden tastes. We literally want to put bullets in people's heads because they prefer the taste of salted caramel to cookies and cream.

Backfire

Nothing engenders within me less outrage than hearing about another celebrity sex scandal. I find it galling that we have the nerve to condemn people for sexual misbehavior in a culture where we throw ourselves to the wolves in terms of navigating our fundamental sexual programming.

It is only after we have provided an avenue for everyone to attain sexual satisfaction through ethical means, without restricting access to comprehensive education and the latest advances in medical technology - and without weaponizing crippling shame! - I say, it is only after we have done this that we can then talk about the "moral failure" of those wayward souls who resort to seeking orgasms outside of socially-approved channels. But not a moment sooner.

Honestly, when somebody has a sex scandal, it makes me want to empathize with them more. Because who among us hasn't been hamstrung by our puritan culture in the pursuit of pleasure? And why? Because we're supposed to feel bad about wanting to feel good? We deserve a more nuanced conversation than that.

Sex and Nudity in the Great Outdoors

or, Naturism vs. Ecosexuality*

[description: a nude figure sits on a park bench on a hill, with mountains looming on the horizon]

Like much in the life of an introverted loner tends to be, my photography is largely a solitary activity. It's partly what gives me the freedom to shoot my self-portraits nude. And, in addition to having a virtually limitlessly welcoming audience in the early days of sharing my art online, it's what has enabled me to shoot freely and without any unnatural boundaries between nudity and eroticism. I simply follow my instincts, and concern myself with categorizing my work after the fact. But it does make it difficult sometimes to differentiate the messages I want to send through my photography, between promoting nudism and sex-positivity - two philosophies that coexist peacefully in my head, but that the conscious construction of civilized society has separated by an artificial barrier.

In a more perfect world, there would be less of a taboo surrounding the subject of sex - particularly when and where and how and who people have it with. That doesn't, necessarily, mean we would all have sex openly and in front of each other. I respect the institution of privacy we've erected around the sex act. Very much like the privacy we give ourselves during the bodily act of waste removal. We could all hypothetically "do our business" in front of each other, and the universe wouldn't fall apart. But I don't particularly enjoy that scenario. If other people are less uptight about it than some - that's fine. It's their choice. And I think we should have more of that kind of approach toward the subject of sex. It's a bodily function. Even if we agree to maintain privacy, if somebody wants to step aside and "rub one out", it needn't have to be a secret, or something to be embarrassed about.

[description: a nude figure stands facing away from the camera, gazing out at a mountain overlook]

The real point of this discussion is a particular concern I've had for a while now. When I get out into nature, I'm always on the lookout for some privacy, so I can enjoy a little nude recreation. The vast majority of the time that this happens, I'm alone. Nudism is not very mainstream, you see, and if you're naked around other people, they'll assume a sexual motive (which only in very limited circumstances will be received positively). But since I'm alone, and I enjoy the physical sensations of being outdoors - in the heat and sunshine, without clothing, so that my skin can come into direct contact with the elements that surround me - on occasion I do get the urge to engage in a little, shall we say, self-stimulation. It feels good. It's healthy (allowing yourself sexual release is part of taking care of your body). I don't see any reason to feel ashamed of indulging in it. Yeah, it feels a little rebellious to do it outdoors in the open air, and not in a room with the door shut. But that's also part of what makes it so much fun. It's not that I want to be seen by nonconsenting parties. I'm not doing it around other people. But I still worry that doing it at all "taints" the otherwise wholesome quality of simply being naked in nature. And it makes me second guess the desire I frequently feel to share my naturist experiences with other people.

So, a couple of questions begin to form in my head. Is the sexual aspect an integral part of the naked experience? The answer to that one has to be no, because there isn't always a sexual aspect (it's not the reason I do it), and I'm perfectly content even when that doesn't happen (it's not like I feel like something is missing, or that the experience was a waste). The whole outing isn't charged with a sexual atmosphere - it's just certain, isolated moments that a feeling might wash over me (something that's less likely to happen in the presence of other people). And the second question is, do I actually want to share the sexual element with another person, or is it just the nude part that I wish I could have company for? Well, there's always a part of me that would enjoy sharing the sexual element with the "right" person - namely one that I specifically have an attraction to, and on the necessary provision that they're interested as well. But I feel like that's something separate.

When I daydream about starting a non-landed naturist club, or even just having other nudist friends to hang out with, it's the nude part I want to share, not any sexual element. Again, in a perfect world, if I were hanging out with nudist friends, and I felt the urge to take a moment to myself and "enjoy" the sensations of nature, it'd be nice if I could do that without feeling like I have to be super-secretive about it, and without the fear of judgment by my peers. (That said, it's fine even if I couldn't - that's not the goal of the experience, just an optional add-on). I recently had an epiphany - and that's why I'm laying out my feelings now - that it's not all that different than if you had to relieve yourself. You would go off into the bushes to take care of it with some measure of privacy. It's not anything to be ashamed of, and it's not something any mature person should hassle you for (apart from maybe some good-natured teasing). As an activity it's separate from the nudity - even if I have to hide the nudity too, because our culture doesn't get nudism. If I were with other nudists, and not alone, I would know better, and keep it to myself. It's no different than if a nudist couple were by themselves and decided to engage in a little intimacy. You can enjoy sex outdoors and still be a genuine and conscientious naturist, behaving yourself in the presence of others.

[description: a nude male lays on his back on a picnic bench, staring up at the sky]

*I just learned of this term (ecosexuality), and frankly, it sounds like a perfect fit for me - linking the sexual appeal of being in the midst of nature (such as masturbating while gazing up at the Milky Way - to pick an example from my own recent experience) with activities like skinny dipping and environmentally conscious activism. Maybe I've been ecosexual all this time? Well, I'm still attracted to humans, and I still want to share non-sexual nude experiences with platonic friends and acquaintances. But I can do and be both, right?

I really love the non-judgmental and broadly-encompassing aspects of the descriptions I'm reading. Like, yeah, there can be sex involved without dragging the whole thing into the gutter. And that sexuality can inform and interface with other parts of the philosophy that have little or nothing to do with sex. These are both elements of what I support about a sex-positive attitude - 1) viewing sex positively, and 2) breaking down the wall of exceptionalism that circles it and artificially isolates it from every other aspect of our lives.

It's refreshing to know that there are other people out there who aren't infected by the dark age mentality that is so widespread as to be taken for granted, as if it's the only valid perspective. What is isn't the only way it could be, and isn't necessarily the way it should be. That's what I hate most about conservatives - their inexplicable aversion to progress. They're stuck in the here and now, as if things are so great already that we don't need to improve anything (actually, they want to regress to some fantasy of better times in the past, but that's even worse). Have some imagination, people!

[description: a nude male crawls on all fours atop a picnic table]

Small

If I've learned one thing about sexual fetishism from browsing DeviantArt over the years (and I've learned several things about sexual fetishism from browsing DeviantArt over the years), it's that a subset of the population gets their rocks off from the humiliation inflicted (whether giving or receiving) on men with small dicks.

Rest assured, I'm not here to kink shame. I can understand the sexual potential of humiliation. I don't want to take that away from anyone. But outside of the isolated context of sexual fantasy and roleplay, I think it's pretty dumb (not just mean, but dumb) to judge a guy for the size of his penis.

In the first place, you don't know what it looks like when it gets hard. What you see isn't always what you get. Sometimes that unexpected growth can itself be very exciting. And I get it, a big dick can make for a very impressive visual. There's nothing wrong with feeling that way.

[description: photo comparison of the same man with a small dick and a huge erection]

But also, it's not like you get to choose your anatomy. So how can that determine your worth as a human being? And, contrary to what penis pump companies would like you to believe, your size doesn't reflect the organ's ability to function, or how much work you put it to. It's a factor that's entirely outside of your control.

What's more, satisfying a woman (or, let's be fair, a man) can be accomplished regardless of one's size, or even which tools are at one's disposal. So, if you get a glimpse of a guy's cock, and your instinct is to laugh because it looks tiny, you'd do well to keep these things in mind.

Trans Representation in Classic Rock

Preface: This is something of a cross-post (about cross-dressing, lol) from my music/movie review blog The Screaming Axe (which I am semi-retired from writing for), that I wanted to post here because it concerns one of the pre-eminent themes I like to write about here on this blog: namely, gender identity. Since I don't know to what extent readers of this blog are aware of my other interests, and this post follows a particular format not seen here before, I feel it demands some explanation before I proceed.

Although I'm a little bit less focused on it now than I have been in the past, music has been and remains a major part of my life and personality. As a brief history, I distanced myself from contemporary music when I was growing up. Instead, I discovered my parents' classic rock. Listening to bands like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd inspired me to learn to play the guitar, with some assistance from a musician I dated in high school. In college, I hosted my own radio show - an activity that I poured my heart and soul into. After college, a friend of mine gave me the seed of an idea that became Zharth's Music Log.

For my music log, I picked a new theme every week for a whole year, and then posted a song daily according to that theme. You can read the archives here. Since I retired the series after that first year, I have gone back to add new themes every now and then, as the muses dictate. Because it was originally a weekly series, there are always 7 songs per theme - one for each day of the week (with the occasional extra thrown in). I'm currently working on a new collection of about a dozen themes or so, as yet mostly un-published. This is one of them.

And now you should be caught up enough to know what's going on.

Gender Confusion

While hunting down songs about taboo relationships (another theme I'm working on), I stumbled across an alternate theme - songs addressing cross-dressers, transvestites, transgender and transsexual individuals. In short, themes of gender confusion and non-conformity.

Granted, British/American society in the '60s and '70s isn't the greatest place to look for sensitive portrayals of transgender identities (and their rock music is certainly no exception). So these songs might be a little problematic.

Likely controversial at the time of their release (namely, for describing what was then considered a form of sexual deviance), they tend to be controversial for a very different reason today (treating trans identities - which were not well understood at the time - as a stereotype, and often the punchline to a mean-spirited joke).

Nevertheless, it's a theme that I can relate to as a gender-nonconforming individual. And who better to address it in a way that won't feel exploitative? While I do not claim to speak for any kind of a larger community, as a lesson in what NOT to do, you might just learn a thing or two about responsible representation.

The Who - I'm A Boy [released as a single, 1966]

On the surface, this song seems to be contributing to gendered stereotypes, as well as the problematic trope of the boy who is forced by his parent(s) to live as a girl - often used inaccurately in horror movies to "explain" a serial killer's behaviors. As if making a boy wear a dress is so traumatic that it justifies murder. (On the contrary, you'd be surprised how many men have fantasies about just such a thing). Or, more likely, that a boy wanting to wear a dress is so unthinkable to the average person that it's hardly a stretch to imagine that such a "diseased" mind could also harbor homicidal mania...

By way of explanation, this song was intended to be part of a mini-rock opera about a futuristic society in which parents can choose the sex of their children. An error occurs and instead of four girls, one mother gets three girls and a boy. Yet she remains in stubborn denial, to the consternation of her fourth-born child. However, if you flip it around, and consider the song as being sung from the point of view of an AFAB trans-man expressing their masculine gender identity in the face of unsupportive parent(s), it becomes a powerful FtM anthem.

"I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but my ma won't admit it.
I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but if I say I am, I get it."

Pink Floyd - Arnold Layne [released as a single, 1967]

Notable for being Pink Floyd's very first single, this short psychedelic tune - said to be inspired by true events! - describes the activities of a panty snatcher. It is a not-very-favorable depiction of a true sexual deviant, that plays off of the negative stereotype of the "transvestic fetishist" (the APA did a massive disservice to the trans community with that diagnosis). He ends up in prison by the end of the song, while being repeatedly admonished by the song's narrator.

As such, I hesitated to include it on this list. But it's one of the few songs from this era that broaches the subject of cross-dressing (albeit briefly) more or less seriously (the fact that pickings are this slim just highlights the need for more and better representation), and the band were quite defensive of its themes when it was banned from radio play. Unfortunately, in a repressive society, sometimes the only manner in which non-conformers know how to express their feelings - and the only vocabulary the public has to describe them - is that of criminal deviance. We owe them better.

"On the wall hung a tall mirror. Distorted view -
see-through, baby blue. He dug it."

The Kinks - Lola [Lola Versus Powerman, 1970]

This is, perhaps, one of the most popular and well-known songs about a trans-woman of all time. It tells the story of a man who falls in love with a woman he meets in a club, all the while dropping hints about the woman's uncharacteristically masculine attributes. Although she is properly gendered throughout the song, the climactic revelation is that she's a "man". However, the narrator seems to accept her for who she is, when he could have easily rejected her on those grounds.

Some call it a gay anthem, but this seems to neglect the complexities of gender identity. To be fair, these issues are quite complicated, to the point that even people who are questioning their own identity experience considerable confusion. And, ultimately, while sexual orientation and gender identity are separate and distinct qualities, they do sometimes - not infrequently, in fact - overlap within the queer community. Overall, while some parts of this song could be viewed as outing a "cross-dresser" to humorous effect, I think it's surprisingly supportive for its time. As we'll see in the next song, we could do worse.

"Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls.
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world."

Led Zeppelin - Royal Orleans [Presence, 1976]

Hailing from Led Zeppelin's oft-overlooked post-prime album from 1976 - Presence - this song features Jimmy Page's "wall of guitars" sound with a funky, stop-and-start rhythm. You could be forgiven for not hearing the lyrics well enough to know it's about a one night stand with a New Orleans drag queen (allegedly based on a real encounter by one of the band members). The tone is more playful than judgmental - in a male hazing sort of way - but as The Kinks have already shown us in 1970, we can do better than that.

Now let's talk about the problematic concept of "traps". (And I apologize for the excessive use of scare quotes, but we are dealing with superficial appearances and misunderstood identities here). A "trap" is a "man" "masquerading" as a "woman" with the perceived goal of "tricking" men into sleeping with "her", culminating in the "horrifying" revelation that the "woman" he has fallen for (or crawled into bed with) is "really" another "man". In reality, this is nearly unheard of. It's just insecure straight dudes displacing their transphobia onto their victims, in an attempt to reconcile their own unbidden feelings which contradict a sexually hetero-conservative ideology.

In truth, transwomen aren't interested in tricking anybody. Not only because it's deceitful, but because doing so would put them in an extremely vulnerable position. They only want to be recognized as the gender they identify as. And it's not exactly fair or appropriate to expect them to broadcast their anatomical situation in casual conversation (not to mention the fact that doing so would, again, put them in a vulnerable position). It's okay if you're not interested in having relations (or a relationship) with a non-binary partner. It's not for everyone. And that doesn't make you transphobic. It's how you handle those feelings, and the way you treat minorities, that determines the content of your character.

Like, do you really need to write a song about your fear of waking up next to a "tranny"? Is it really such a common and distressing phenomenon among straight culture that you have to say your piece on it? When that's pretty much the only kind of song about transpersons anyone ever hears? Or is it just a disproportionate response to an irrational (and insensitive) fear? And should you maybe think twice before polluting the airwaves with this harmful misrepresentation of reality? Just a few things to think about.

"New Orleans queens sure know how to schmooze it.
Maybe for some that seems alright.
When I step out, strut down with my sugar,
she'd best not talk like Barry White."

Lou Reed - Walk on the Wild Side [Transformer, 1972]

My predominant memory of this song is listening to it on the way to high school. When my brother was old enough to drive us, he would pick a certain song, and that would be the song he'd play in the car every morning. For a while it was Crossroads by Cream. Then it was Rick Wakeman's Excerpts From The Six Wives of Henry VIII (from the Yessongs live album). I never quite figured out why he picked this one, except that it sounds ultra cool - check out that mellow bass line. And for a teenager, listening to a song about the lives of sex workers feels thrilling and rebellious. I don't think he was hinting at something he didn't tell us, but who knows, right?

Anyway, leave it to Lou Reed (coming off of the anti-success of avant-garde experimental band The Velvet Underground) not only to write a song about sex workers, but one that seems to humanize them. Each verse of the song describes a different person; the first one is about Holly, a hitch-hiker who plucks her eyebrows and shaves her legs to become a "she". And other than the lyrical reveal, she's given proper pronouns for a change! You could criticize this song for exploiting the shock value (and titillating nature) of sex work, but I think it's a pretty non-judgmental portrayal. And it avoids being completely explicit like The Rolling Stones' straight-faced yet tongue-in-cheek (among other things) Cocksucker Blues.

Now, the fact that this is one of the very few representations of transgender identities in the music of this era, and that it's in a highly sexualized context, is concerning. But I think it's fairly reflective of the social climate, and I don't fault it for that. Moving forward, however, I think it's important to emphasize that cross-dressing and other activities related to the transgender experience are not strictly motivated by sexual desire (the stereotype of the "transvestic fetishist", who only dresses up as a woman to satisfy a sexual fantasy) - while also acknowledging that the legitimate presence of sexual feelings doesn't discount the rest of a transgender person's experiences.

Moreover, while it's laudable that there are people out there who are open-minded about the prospect of "hooking up" with a trans-person, in some cases this can cross over the line into objectifying the trans-person's nonconventional identity. It's okay, too, if gender non-conformity is your fetish. You just have to remember always to treat other people with respect and dignity, and as fully-fledged human beings - not simply the fetish object you desire.

"Holly came from Miami, FLA.
Hitch-hiked her way across the USA.
Plucked her eyebrows on the way.
Shaved her legs and then he was a she."

Aerosmith - Dude (Looks Like A Lady) [Permanent Vacation, 1987]

Having catapaulted its way into public consciousness via effective placement in the very movie it inspired - Mrs. Doubtfire, in which Robin Williams famously cross-dresses as a menopausal housekeeper - this, along with The Kinks' Lola, is probably one of the most well-known songs about the phenomenon of "men" dressing like women. Yet, despite its energetic rhythm and infectious chorus (it's a banger), I find it embarrassing to listen to in front of other people.

Why? At the risk of sounding humorless, perhaps it's because it doesn't take the subject very seriously, and I don't appreciate being treated as a joke. In the best case scenario, it's an arguably misogynistic dig against the feminized appearance of hair metal/glam rockers from the '80s (albeit coming from a band guilty of that very thing). For committed transwomen (who would likely recoil at being called a "dude", and would probably be offended by having their identity reduced to "cross-dressing", as opposed to simply dressing in accordance with the gender they identify as), the title alone could evoke traumatic memories of being "clocked", and the harassment or sometimes even violence that usually follows such encounters.

I think it comes down to proportional representation. It's not a terribly cruel or judgmental song (as a counterpoint, consider how A Boy Named Sue, written by Shel Silverstein and famously sung by Johnny Cash, champions a life of testosterone-fueled violence to compensate for something so superficial as a boy being given a girl's name). But when minority representation is so rare, every example carries disproportionate weight, and a not insignificant responsibility to represent that minority fairly, despite being unlikely to accurately portray the individual circumstances of any given member. So when I hear this song, a part of me cringes and thinks, "is this what people think of when they encounter a transperson? Is this how they see me?"

Of course, it can be used as an opportunity to raise the issue and answer people's questions - imperfect representation is better than no representation at all. But poor representation can do more harm than good, and the effects of limited representation emphasizes just how important it is to have more and varied portrayals. Also, it'd be cool to hear a song that humanizes the transgender experience, written and performed by a transperson, and not just another cis-person sharing a few guilty chuckles with a mostly cis-audience, making fun of something they don't really understand. The fact that some of these artists are almost certainly bisexual or trans-curious themselves (otherwise these songs probably would be more judgmental), and that this is the only manner in which they can address those feelings and experiences in a way that is at least remotely socially acceptable, makes it even sadder.

"Love put me wise to her love in disguise.
She had the body of a Venus; Lord, imagine my surprise."

The Runaways - I Wanna Be Where The Boys Are [Live in Japan, 1977]

We're gonna end with something a little bit more positive (at least in my interpretation). The Runaways were a remarkable band, not just because they were the stepping stone that launched Joan Jett's musical career, but because they were a band of teenage girls who got out there and rocked every bit as hard as grown men were doing. And nothing encapsulates that philosophy better than this song, from their Live in Japan concert album.

Now, I don't know much about Joan Jett's personal life, and I don't know how she identifies officially, in terms of either her sexual orientation or gender identity, but I think it's safe to say that she's at least a little bit queer. And it bears stating that you don't have to be transgender to get something out of tearing down the gender binary. Whether you're just a tomboy, or if it goes deeper than that, this song is an anthem for anyone who's ever felt the injustice of being left out or cornered by gendered stereotypes. And though it runs in the wrong direction for me personally, few statements could sum up my lot in life as succinctly as, "I wanna be where the girls are."

"I wanna be where the boys are.
I wanna fight how the boys fight.
I wanna love how the boys love."

Honorable Mention:
David Bowie - Rebel Rebel [Diamond Dogs, 1974]

As a gender non-conformer, you might think I'd be more interested in glam rock, but that's not necessarily the case. (I developed my taste in music before I discovered my gender identity). Although there is definitely a lot of overlap between cross-dressing and androgyny, I view the two as distinct phenomena, even if the line between them is often blurry. I just think there's a difference between adopting the cues of the opposite sex you were born as, and just throwing out all the rules completely and making up something new. To put it another way, if I'm androgynous, it's because I'm starting from one sex and aiming for the other, not because I hold androgyny as my goal.

Not that I don't think that's awesome, too - I absolutely support the freedom of individuals to dress however the fuck they want (or even not at all). And no matter where in the trans spectrum you lie, there's a degree to which you are rebelling against societal norms. But if I don't view David Bowie in general, and this song in particular, as a role model for my own personal self-affirmation, it's probably because my role models tend to be ultra-feminine women (whether cis or trans). But it was worth mentioning, especially considering the questionable "advocacy" offered by some of the songs on this list.

"You've got your mother in a whirl.
She's not sure if you're a boy or a girl."

Condemning Male Sexuality

I feel that, in our society, men are frequently discriminated against due to the fear that they may be sexual predators. It's unfortunate, the extent to which this stereotype may be warranted (thanks to the behavior of a subset of the population); but it is similarly unfortunate when innocent individuals have to endure this discrimination.

Although my experience isn't gender-normative, and I might pass as female in some instances (I would hope), even being gendered as a non-normative male means I am often subject to a lot of the stereotypes we have in our culture about men. Maybe even more so, falling under the transgender umbrella, as I worry about those simple-minded individuals who think men "dress up" in (as opposed to simply wearing?) women's clothing primarily for perverted sexual reasons.

[description: a man in pigtails poses in pink panties and knee-high socks]
As if no woman has ever sexted from the fitting room...

I hate to contribute to sexist stereotypes - and it may ultimately prove to be largely due to socialization - but it does seem to me that, generally, men and women behave a little bit differently about sex. Consider the cliché that men think about sex more often, and have more varied sexual appetites, than women on average. But the way I see it, what's unfortunate about how men are treated isn't simply the fact that they're more likely to be assumed to have a sexual motive (e.g., when presenting as female, or hiking nude in the woods), but that, even if the man does have some level of a sexual motive (in whole or in part), it's negatively assumed to take on an antisocial - or, worse, predatory - aspect (exacerbated by the insidious notion that a man aroused becomes an uncivilized animal who can think of nothing beyond attaining satisfaction), instead of it being positively interpreted as him simply experiencing the world from a more erotic perspective, in a way that does not intrinsically make him a menace to society. I do occasionally find a thrill in sexualizing things (especially situations and activities) that maybe aren't normally considered erotic - because adding a sexual context gives you one more aspect through which to enjoy it (and why should we be uptight and suffer a prudish outlook on life?).

It is as if the very fact of a man's sexuality (how dare it exhibit itself outside the bounds of an intimate bedroom encounter!) colors the experience in some negative way. That every sexual thought, feeling, or behavior "unwrapped" by the cover of intimacy (but sometimes even then, too) is inherently threatening (must all of society cater to the fragile psyche of the sexual abuse victim?). That the only acceptable way for a man to handle his dick (even metaphorically speaking) is never to take it out, except within the confines of the secularized version of the marital bed (i.e., a private, committed relationship). Well, I say this attitude is neither humane, nor practical. And it is, to me, the very basis of sex-negativity. Unfortunately, it's also a sensibility I encounter frequently among nudist discussion groups, as well as within feminism - both causes I support, but communities that have too easy a tendency to be antagonistic toward sexuality in general, and the male sex drive in particular.

Once again, I am saddened by the extent to which these feelings may be justified by the behavior of unscrupulous individuals. But I am also saddened not only by the fact that we condemn innocents based on stereotypes and generalizations, but that we condemn the very concept of eroticism, and strip it of its potential to be a healthy and positive force in our lives, on a more widespread level. Because the more we understand and accept our fundamental sexual nature, and develop satisfactory methods of catering to it on a regular basis, the less antisocial dysfunction will be incubated in lieu of a more proper release.

[description: a naked man ejaculates outdoors]

Q: Why do you call yourself an exhibitionist?

A: On a personal level, a large part of my sex-positive platform hinges on an insistence on re-envisioning what constitutes exhibitionism. So you might ask, if my experience of exhibitionism doesn't match the stereotype, then why do I call myself an exhibitionist? Well, other than the fact that this is a great opportunity to highlight and combat the way we tend to stereotype and "other" people we don't understand - especially when sex is involved - as with everyone else, sexual identity tends to be something you discover, more so than something you deliberately construct.

I didn't set out to champion the cause of exhibitionism when I entered the world of nude photography. Truth be told, I spent a lot of my life self-conscious about my body, and a lot of time in those early days as a nude model being mortified of sharing my images, out of a fear of negative judgment. I did it because I had a passion for the art form, and an admiration for the human body. If I'd had the opportunity, I would have shot images of beautiful naked women. But due to a social handicap, I was forced to limit myself to self-portraiture.

I've told this story before, but my whole journey as an artist grew out of looking back on sexting pics I shot (of myself) for my girlfriend in high school. I liked the pics, I enjoyed the process of taking them, and I had the distinct impression that it was unfair that only one person in the world (besides myself) should ever get a chance to see them. That's why I started sharing them, and that's how I got started taking more. What happened from there is that I developed an appreciative audience. I continued to enjoy the process, and there were people out there who liked the results. Over the years, I gained confidence and experience, and I groomed myself to be an even more eye-catching model, until nude self-portraiture became a fundamental part of my life and identity.

Because I was lucky enough to be "reared" as an artist in a permissive environment, and because my self-portraiture has always been an independent activity, there were never any artificial boundaries erected between nudity and eroticism, and nothing stopped me from exploring both through my photography - except my own embarrassment at first, which was gradually eroded as, again, I acquired an appreciative, even enthusiastic, audience for such works. If at any point I was uncomfortable with sexually explicit media, I would have stopped producing it. Instead, I found it to be an enjoyable activity. And I also found sharing it with an appreciative audience to be empowering, but not just that - it was also exciting.

I'm pretty sure getting excited by expressing your sexuality (especially visually) in front of random strangers on the internet counts as exhibitionism. Not everybody gets off on that. It just so happens that I do.* As do so many others. It's liberating, living in a sexually repressive culture, to be able to express yourself sexually and be appreciated (not shamed) for it. Moreover, as somebody with a social handicap and no strong interest to have intimate relationships with lots of people, this is a way that I can be sexually adventurous with very little (indeed, practically nonexistent) danger to myself or others. It has nothing to do with "accosting" people on the street, and everything to do with indulging in consensual kink with other voyeurs, as well as exploring, conceptually - through art - the excitement that can come from being naked or encountering nudity (whether or not that involves any sexual behavior whatsoever) in places and situations that it's not normally expected in a gymnophobic culture.

*I didn't immediately put two and two together, but in retrospect, one of my earliest and strongest memories of my own sexual awakening involves frolicking nude in front of a camera.

And I think there are a lot of people out there like me, if the popularity of websites like OnlyFans are any indication. I want to support them and defend them, and be a voice for them. And for myself. And show the world that we are not a dirty stereotype that can be brushed aside, reduced to a DSM diagnosis, and treated as mere "perverts" rather than human beings with an ethical conscience, deserving of dignity and respect and the same rights and liberties everybody else gets.

[description: a nude figure holds a garden gate open while another nude figure stands in front of it]
The Illusion of Danger

This photo illustrates one of my points about exhibitionism and sexual fetishism in general. It is a clone shot depicting one nude figure opening the gate for another nude figure, who is standing - as revealed by the viewpoint in the second part of the diptych - in view of the street. As an exhibitionist, the idea of standing in front of that open gate excites me. I don't know why it excites me. I didn't choose for it to excite me. That's just how it makes me feel. And that's why I constructed that illusion in this photomanipulation.

I never actually stood naked in front of that open gate. The gate was closed when I stood in front of it, and when I held it open, I was always behind it, out of view of the street. But when I stitch the two images together, it looks like I'm standing there naked in view of the street. That's part of the "artifice" in art. And I'm explaining the trick because it demonstrates my point - namely, that you can find something sexually thrilling and still understand the logistical and ethical issues it raises, and maintain self-control even in the face of those feelings.

Being an exhibitionist isn't illegal or unethical or immoral, and neither does having those feelings predetermine a stereotypical pattern of antisocial behavior. You might even find perfectly acceptable outlets for those desires - like when I share images like this one with consenting (even enthusiastic!) voyeurs online.

DeviantArt or Deviant Porn?

It may just be a passing phase, but I've been growing a little bored of Twitter lately. I actually started working through my buildup of (literally) hundreds of notifications on DeviantArt, and it's fun spending some time back on that site again (although browsing all those pictures on a widescreen monitor can be a strain on the eyes). I follow some talented nude artists on Twitter, but it's a very different experience.

Courting "engagement" is so tedious. I've grown accustomed to the sort of response my work has received on sites like Flickr and DeviantArt. On Twitter, it's often like speaking to an empty auditorium. I miss the days of the old photo sharing sites, before it was all about "gaming the algorithm". Things were a lot more straightforward; your profile was understood to be the place where you showed off your work, and you had a separate section for other people's stuff that you liked. Nowadays, everything gets jumbled together on your feed, and the pace of updates is so rapid you can't possibly keep up, and the things you post lose relevance after 24 hours, if they were lucky enough to be seen by anyone in the first place.

Anyway, one thing that strikes me about DeviantArt is just how much fetishism there is. Some of it is legitimately weird, but honestly, I find that it inspires my erotic imagination in a way that I realize I haven't felt for a while. Fine art can just be so dry sometimes, you know? And so pretentious. Whatever you might say about the forward-thinking NFT community, it feels really cultish. Well, I thought it would be fun to list some of the most popular fetishes I've been encountering on DeviantArt, just because documenting people's sexual interests seems fascinating to me. Must be Kinsey's influence. So this is what I've been seeing a lot of as I browse through people's lists of favorites, with some light commentary:

*kidnapping - A little bondage is fine if you ask me, but a fixation on this sort of thing is a little bit concerning.

*feet - I can appreciate some of this material, but fetishists always seem to take it too far.

*vore - No thank you, lol.

*genderswap captions (sometimes involving age regression) - I think the sissification angle is problematic (feminization isn't humiliating to me), but there's a lot of creativity on display here, and some of it is legitimately stimulating.

*kids - No comment, since you can't say anything on this topic that isn't either compelled speech or suicide by words, and neither of those two options sounds very appealing to me.

*giants/minis - To each their own, but I think this is just weird...

*cartoons/rule 34 fanart - I'm all for people using their imaginations to sexualize pop culture icons. Also, with regards to the complaint of "ruining one's childhood", part of growing up is realizing how much sexuality permeates nearly everything we do in life. Get over it.

*dickgirls - You might be surprised to hear this coming from me, considering my gender-bending tendencies, but I find the juxtaposition of a penis on a fully female body off-putting. ::shrugs::

*forced nudity/exhibitionism (including clothed/nude mixed groups) - As a nudist, I obviously don't relate to the humiliation aspect, but otherwise this kind of content is right up my alley.

*sleeping bodies and simulated corpses - I'm trying very hard not to judge people for their sexual inclinations, but this is another one that concerns me a bit.

*femdom - You know I think girl power rocks, but some of these fantasies take it to a humorously unrealistic extreme. Like, men being kept as pets and subservient sex slaves to women. Or women treating men's balls - literally - as punching bags. Just as an example.

*spanking - I think I enjoy the threat more than the execution. The anticipation of submission and exposure (and sometimes the abuse of authority) thrills me more than the pain or the bruising.

*small dick energy - Like, guys who get off on being teased about their size. I'm concerned that this sort of thing could contribute to insecurity, but for those who enjoy it, I'm happy that they can turn what could be considered a deficiency into something that brings them pleasure.

I'm actually surprised I don't see more furry/bestial content (I know it's on there), but you can find just about anything if you dig deep enough (even, surprisingly, sexually explicit material that I thought was prohibited by the rules). All of this is, of course, in addition to lots of gay material (which is great - I might prefer girls, but I like to see equal representation) and the usual heaps of naked or scantily clad women that straight men like to ogle (which is also great).

Dendrophilia

[description: series of self-portraits posing naked with various trees]

The pandemic-induced lockdowns of 2020 must have incubated within me a sense of wanderlust, since for the past two years, my favorite hobby has been going out into the woods to get naked and take pictures.

Just over the course of this past year, and initially without consciously meaning to, I gradually came to the realization that I'd been taking lots of pictures on or near or interacting with trees. So, I decided to lean into it. I started going out specifically looking for interesting trees to pose with.

As a lover of nature in general and trees in particular, these images hold a special significance for me. They also reflect my interest in naturism - enjoying the sensations of being out in nature without clothing - while also demonstrating the beauty I find, as an artist, both in nature and the human body.

I've named this series "dendrophilia" (love of trees), which is a term I learned many years ago, after being captivated by a short but memorable scene in a David Hamilton film depicting a young girl's romantic encounter with a tree.

Whether to interpret this love as erotic or platonic is up to the viewer - I consider both interpretations to be valid. Speaking as the artist, I am not sexually attracted to trees, but neither am I disturbed by the idea. In truth, I do find that being naked in nature can be a sensual - sometimes even erotic - experience, and I am not ashamed to admit that.

I simply do not view sexual attraction as a destructive or degrading influence. I respect that which I admire, sexually or otherwise, and am invested in its wellbeing. Certainly, it is no more shameful to experience physical pleasure outdoors, than it is to engage in such mainstream activities as hunting animals, felling trees, and polluting the environment.

#30 Days of Pride (A Retrospective)

This year, in response to the troubling news I've been hearing out of the south, I decided to spend the month of June celebrating trans pride, and expressing my own gender non-conforming identity, by posting my thoughts and opinions on subjects related to gender daily on Twitter, accompanied by self-portrait images I've taken over the years. For the sake of posterity (once again), and because it's probably easier to read them together as a blog post than separate, scattered tweets, I'm copying them here.

#30daysofpride

As much as I love being naked, I also have a passion for fashion. It's a way for me to express my feminine identity, and demonstrate that cross-dressing is a fashion statement, not a punchline. That's why every day this June, I'll be sharing my transgender pride.

Cross-dressing is a fashion statement, not a punchline. I hate that our culture teaches budding transgender individuals that the best "a man in women's clothes" can look is either hilarious or repulsive. It's time to flip the script.

I've had women tell me I look better wearing the clothes they've given me than they did! I may not have curves in the same places, but we all fit clothes differently. There's nothing stopping either sex from dressing feminine and looking good - unironically.

In truth, I have mixed feelings about the term "cross-dressing", because it makes it sound like a costume I'm putting on, or something I only do on the weekends, or in the bedroom. This is my day-to-day wardrobe. These aren't women's clothes, they're MY clothes.

On the other hand, I don't fit the conventional stereotype of being "born in the wrong body". But transgender is an umbrella. Not only are we all on different parts of our journey, some of us are on different journeys altogether. We can still support one another.

Honestly, I started growing my hair out as a teenager due to laziness. I kept it long because I was into the music scene from the '60s and '70s and it jibed with the fashion from that era. Later, it became an asset when I started experimenting with gender.

I struggle with the terms gay and straight because in my mind, sex and gender are perpendicular axes that are conflated merely because they happen to align in a majority of cases. I enjoy heterosex, but "straight male" doesn't begin to convey my unconventionality.

I call these my ruby slippers. I love getting a new pair of shoes, but I think the obsession is more about the role of coordination and variation in women's fashion. When I dressed like a guy, all I ever wore was jeans and tennis shoes and a different t-shirt.

From certain angles, I look feminine even naked. From the start, I've always tried to imitate female models in my photography. Over the years, I've had lots of NUDE self-portraits invited to galleries that exclusively feature women. It tickles me pink every time.

For gender-conforming individuals (whether cis or trans), the bathroom debate is moot. It's the unconventional non-binary and genderfluid folk who are most affected. I don't enjoy having an identity crisis every time I need to use a public restroom.

I like dressing up. I have two closets, and one of them is filled with formal dresses. But I never have an excuse to wear them. I wore a tuxedo to my senior prom, but I wish I could go back and do it again. I would wear the most dazzling dress.

The first piece of women's clothing I ever wore was my girlfriend's panties in high school (yes, I asked first). Women's clothing IS sexualized - and it's sexy. But that doesn't mean you can reduce a cross-dresser's interest in fashion to a sexual fetish.

I don't know why people conflate gender presentation with sexual orientation, unless it's just holdover gay stereotypes. I've adopted a feminine persona not to attract men (although it does), but because I like girls SO much, I want to BE one.

Bikinis are my favorite clothes. I envy girls' ability to wear them, and the double standard against guys who wear skimpy swimsuits. Bikinis can look good on me, but for swimming, the top never stays in place, and the bottom leaves nothing to the imagination.

I hesitated the first time I shaved my legs, because I thought they would still be too masculine. But I was wrong. I've never regretted it, and I've never gone back in twelve years. There are small things you can do that go a long way in communicating gender.

I don't relate to the term "androgynous". In my head, it means an inscrutable blend of characteristics, or a juxtaposition of extremes. I can't avoid having some masculine features, but my compass is strongly oriented towards the feminine.

My perspective may be a little skewed, but my definition of "femininity" doesn't depend on anatomy. Long, curly hair and pink, frilly panties looks girly to me. It doesn't matter that I don't have breasts, or that there's a bulge in my panties. Sex =/= gender.

Ballet, cheer, gymnastics - these are stereotypically feminine activities. But while men do perform them, their costumes and roles are different. Were I to participate, I wouldn't want to be a "ballerino", I'd want to wear a pink tutu and be one of the girls!

I don't want to abolish gender, I just want to make it optional. Associating girls with pink sparkles is fine, so long as you're not forced to be a "girl" (or barred from it) based on your anatomy. It's about choice. Gender is in your brain, not your genitals.

I think "gender reveal" parties are stupid and transphobic. It's impossible to tell whether a baby is a boy or a girl until they've grown up enough to decide for themselves. I'm not talking about their anatomical sex, I'm talking about their GENDER.

Sundresses and flip flops, short shorts and crop tops, bikinis and photo ops. Summer is my favorite season for fashion. In my opinion, the best clothes are the ones that show off the body (the skimpier the better!), not the ones that cover it up.

Pronouns don't define me. They're just a tool. I mainly use masculine ones, because it's what I grew up with; it's what's most familiar. And I don't want to be accused of "appropriating". But it really depends on how I'm presenting on any given day.

"Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?" Can't tell you how many times a guy has expressed interest in me, knowing that I have male anatomy, while identifying himself as straight. I think some people are just more attracted to gender than sex.

Some men are so terrified of their own anatomy, they think the "trans agenda" is designed to trick them into dating a girl with a penis. It's not. You can acknowledge the reality of anatomical sex without that automatically making you "gender critical".

I believe that transwomen are women. But there are different kinds of women, and a person who grows up with a penis isn't going to have the same life experiences as a person who grows up with a vagina. That doesn't make them "less", it just makes them different.

Not wanting to have sex with a woman who has a penis doesn't make you transphobic - it's using your insecurities to deny and harm trans people that makes you transphobic. People deserve dignity and liberty independent of whether you would have sex with them.

I can't get past the double standard by which you'll see women dress in men's clothes and it's become so common and accepted that it's not even called "cross-dressing". But the instant a man puts on a skirt or heels, he's like an alien from another planet.

People complain about the "sexualization" of women's Halloween costumes. Sexy costumes aren't the problem - a lot of people like them. The issue is the expectation tied to gender. But there's nothing stopping women from shopping in the men's department.

Sometimes it feels like the truest girls anymore are the trans-girls. I see so many GGs disavowing feminine stereotypes. Which, more power to them, but I LIKE the female gender. TGs are better at slaying femininity because they know what boys like.

Sometimes I wonder how much of progress is bright minds uncovering the staggering complexity of life, obstructed by the frustration/resentment of the rest of the population too dumb to wrap their minds around why their oversimplified approximations are inadequate.

De-Pathologizing Sex

My conception of sex-positivity rejects the automatic pathologization of alternative sexualities. A problematic sexual behavior (e.g., stereotypical exhibitionism) is therefore not just another example of the fundamentally destructive power of sexuality, but is rather viewed as a maladaptive manifestation (i.e. a true "perversion") of an otherwise neutral desire. Instead of demonizing that desire, and dooming those who possess it without choosing to a lifetime of stigma and self-loathing, we isolate its root, and then search for the influences - whether social, psychological, or otherwise - that lead to its problematic manifestation. In a truly healthy society, the desire to exhibit oneself sexually (for example) would not be considered abnormal, as appropriate outlets for its expression would be made available without stigma, and individuals would be able to indulge those desires without engaging in harm, violation of consent, or threatening the general social order. It is not the seed's fault when a bad crop results from neglect.

On Streaking - Taboo and Consent

Every time New Year's Eve rolls around, I inevitably think about streaking. As an exhibitionist, it's an activity that seems appealing to me, but it's not something I get a lot of opportunities to do. And it's not just about being naked, or even being naked in front of other people - because I've done a lot of that. So I was thinking about what makes streaking in particular so exciting, and how it touches on the issues of taboo and consent.

One of the things that I would say defines the activity of streaking is the violation of a taboo - going somewhere you're not expected to be naked, (usually) in front of an unsuspecting crowd. You could run around a nudist camp without incident, but that wouldn't really be streaking, would it? It's missing the violation of the taboo on nudity - a taboo that nudists don't have.

But what about consent? It irritates me when people assume that exhibitionists don't care about consent. I get where that comes from, but there is a world of exhibitionism beyond public flashing, and it's frankly insulting for someone to assume that having a particular kind of sexual interest trumps all other concerns, turning you into a mindless pervert who will attempt to get his rocks off at any cost (essentially objectifying fetishism).

I'm an exhibitionist, but I don't expose myself to random strangers. The thought that I could be bothering somebody is enough to completely turn me off of the idea. I do find the juxtaposition of nudity in locations and situations where it's not usually encountered to be enticing. But I restrict myself to remote areas and nudist company, out of deference to the feelings of others, as well as my own safety. This is hardly the picture of a horny beast who will do anything for sexual gratification.

And yet, streaking seems exciting to me. But in my head, people aren't horrified by the sudden and unexpected appearance of a naked streaker - they're delighted! As I would be, if I unexpectedly encountered a naked person in my day to day life (especially if they had the body of a model). In principle, I'm an exhibitionist because I enjoy giving the "gift" of nudity to people who appreciate it. This has nothing to do with forcing it on people who don't want it.

But there is something in the violation of the taboo that makes streaking particularly enticing. The problem is, in order to obtain consent, you have to ruin the surprise. And if people are expecting it, it doesn't really feel like streaking. You could handpick an audience who has expressed comfort with nudity, but this is a lot like streaking in front of nudists. Ideally, you would have an audience of people who appreciate it, without knowing that beforehand. Unfortunately, it's the pre-confirmation of acceptance that eliminates the taboo appeal.

How bad, really, is streaking without consent, though? It's not actually a sex act. And as far as public exposure goes, you're not singling individuals out. You're not hanging around long enough to compound people's discomfort. There needn't be any physical contact involved. You're pretty much on the move, and you're gone in a flash (even if it's mainly to evade authorities). I don't see how it's substantially different, from an ethical consideration, from a World Naked Bike Ride.

So, is streaking wrong? I feel like it's pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things, but I want to know if I'm just rationalizing my desires here. Is it wrong to even find the fantasy appealing? I was downtown a couple of years ago when the ball dropped. I was naked underneath my heavy winter jacket and boots, and I flashed my partner at midnight, right there in the middle of the crowd. I positioned myself with consideration to the fact that everybody was watching the stage, so that my partner was the only one who saw me (knowing that she would appreciate the sight).

It was fun, but I can't help thinking that it would have been even more fun to be weaving through that crowd in my birthday suit, from one end to the other, hearing the excitement of the people as they gradually figured out what was going on. Is there harm in that? Or is this something that's better left to fantasy? It's not something I would do without assurance that things would turn out okay for everyone involved, but I can't help thinking in my head that it sounds exciting. Surely that doesn't make me a bad person.

Freedom of Arousal

Scene: I'm lounging around the house in the evening. Of course, I'm nude. I decide to check the trail cam that we put up to see the animals that visit our back yard. I bring in the memory card and transfer the videos to the computer, then go back out to replace the memory card.

I'm three steps across the porch before I notice there are two wild rabbits not ten feet in front of me, and I stop dead in my tracks. I'm surprised that they haven't darted away. So I stand still and watch them for a while, and they continue to graze in the grass, not overly concerned by my presence. I even manage to take a few steps closer.

Since they seem pretty comfortable, I figure I can go in and grab my camera, hopefully without scaring them away. So I do, and I start snapping photos of these rabbits up close and personal.

At this point, the idea pops into my head that I can record a video of me watching and photographing these rabbits - both to document this rare occurrence, and because, as a content creator, I am always thinking about what kind of new and interesting content I can create (that involves me being naked on camera).

So I go back in and grab my phone (which I use to record videos) and a tripod, come back out, set it up, and begin recording. I'm thrilled by the opportunity to get this close to these wild rabbits; I'm tickled by the notion of photographing wildlife while in the natural state of being nude; and above all, as an exhibitionist, being naked on camera triggers certain synapses in my brain. So I start to develop a semi-erection.

I'm conscious of this fact. I don't want it to happen - it's turning this innocent and beautiful naturist moment into something slightly lurid. I'm not into bestiality. I don't find anything sexual about wildlife photography. But I am naked on camera. I can avoid doing anything to encourage further arousal, but I can't stop the tumescence completely.

So, I guess it is what it is. It's not a big deal. It's not even rigid. I'm not brandishing it or playing with it. I just happen to have an enthusiastic appreciation for the sensual experience of being nude in nature. I don't want to be judged for it. And I don't want to believe that that alone, all by itself, makes me a bad nudist.

People should be judged by their behaviors, not the state of their genitals. You cannot control what causes arousal. It's common, even natural, to be turned on by nudity (even a primitive culture without clothes can have an erotic appreciation for the human body; after all, animals frequently use visual cues for mating).

Being able to appreciate the non-sexual value of nudity - which is the goal of nudism - is not exclusive of that. You can be turned on by nudity sometimes, and not other times. And even when you are turned on by nudity, you can still understand when sexual behavior is not appropriate, and restrain yourself from engaging in it. A man cannot control his erections. But that does not mean he is controlled by them.

You can hold a man accountable for his behaviors without condemning the feelings he can't control. Sexual misconduct is not caused by an involuntary physiological response, it is caused by the voluntary decisions that some people make. Don't blame sex for causing some people to act out - blame the people who act out for choosing to act out. The rest of us can handle our sexual feelings just fine. Don't condemn us for simply having them.

Understanding Exhibitionism (in a Consent Culture)

Perhaps I am too critical of those who misunderstand exhibitionism, because I am still trying to understand it myself. Though to be fair, the least I expect is patience, and to be given the benefit of the doubt, while most people would rather just plug their ears and go on judging people by their ignorant stereotypes. I know this much: standing naked in the garage with the side door open may turn me on, but I don't actually want my elderly neighbor across the street, or the visitor she's talking to on her porch, to see me like this. I really don't. That would be as traumatizing to me as I can only presume* it would be to them.

I might have some fantasy in my head of a world where public displays of sex are accepted and everybody is attractive (because I don't know about you, but being a voyeur doesn't mean I want to see just ANYONE "getting nasty" - and maybe that's the whole point of keeping these things private?). But I know that's a fantasy and not the way the world is. And I don't want anyone to "catch" me except those who I know are looking for it (which is why I do it in online environments that are vetted for consenting viewers (although I don't believe that tasteful depictions of nudity and even sexual acts ought to be considered inappropriate for public view, that's the world we currently live in)) but also won't be likely to harass me - whether it's in the form of negative or positive attention (which is why I do it anonymously online and not with people I know and interact with regularly in person - so I don't have to be a "sex idol" 24/7).

An Aside

*I may be projecting by even considering the possibility that anyone would NOT be traumatized by the sight of their neighbor engaged in sex play**, but the fact is, if our roles were reversed in this instance, I would not mind. (I can only dream of living next to an attractive exhibitionist when I grow old - it would truly brighten my life). And so it's really not fair to eliminate the possibility, however rare it may be.

Furthermore, I know that, in consent culture, asking is preferable to making assumptions, but would you really have me initiate a conversation about sexual fetishism with my [elderly, I remind you] neighbor? Even if I weren't a social recluse (who doesn't keep a running conversation with my neighbors), that would still seem inappropriate.

Anyway, the question is moot, because even if they would be interested, I myself probably wouldn't be comfortable with that. The ideal approach would be total indifference, so I could just do my thing without interference (one way or another). Although, even that would present issues, as (ironic though it is for an exhibitionist) I become very self-conscious in situations in which I know that at any time somebody could be watching me. (I suppose it's not a coincidence that this makes staying out of sight, as well as performing on camera instead of in front of people, much more appealing to me).

**On second thought, what has this world come to that this is not at least a natural consideration? Of course it is understood that there are people who would love to see their neighbors naked, but the difference is that nowadays they are considered dangerous and not simply mischievous. But can we not separate the willingness to circumvent the law and privacy (antisocial criminal behaviors) from the appreciation of erotic stimuli? Why are voyeurs so summarily dismissed without considering the existence of exhibitionists (and vice versa)?

Back on Track

Getting back to the subject at hand, there is the fact that, psychologically, when I encounter a liminal space (such as a window or a door or a gateway) - a space where I can be in proximity to public view but still safely out of sight - even (or perhaps especially, provided I know I am not in immediate danger of being spotted) when there are people blissfully unaware on the other side...I say, occasionally (which is to say, certainly not every time), when I am in the right frame of mind and I encounter such a space, the thought or the act of being naked and/or naughty in that space can really turn me on. It's not that I WANT it to. It just does. And it feels great. And as long as nobody else gets involved - or even knows that it has happened - then is there any harm?

I don't actually want to step out and surprise anybody (I'm not saying I wouldn't necessarily enjoy the experience of performing in front of an adoring audience, but that's hardly the sort of situation one commonly encounters in everyday life). But there is a thrill in the taboo - the naughtiness of juxtaposing sexual and non-sexual life. Coming as close to that boundary as is safe without going so far as to actually get caught* (it's safer than autoerotic asphyxiation, after all).

Getting Caught

*Now, I know, there are voyeurs and exhibitionists that think getting caught is part of the appeal. And it can certainly be a thrilling experience (in a similar way that staring death in the face can be "thrilling"). I think I can understand that. In a world where the person catching you is, at worst, a little shocked and dismayed but not otherwise harmed, and at best, appreciative of the unexpected view - then yeah, that can be exciting, in a way that it wouldn't be in a world where this sort of thing were commonplace. But in a world where people complain about the trauma of being "nonconsensually exposed" to nudity and/or sex, and make anyone resposonible for that sort of thing out to be a dangerous predator**, it loses a lot of its appeal.

**I'm not gonna lie, the fact that people suffer instead of appreciate this kind of light-hearted sexual mischief disappoints and confuses me. I know there are people out there who misbehave and hurt others in the process, and that's tragic. They hurt conscientious perverts as well as the victims they target, but it's much harder for the perverts to disassociate themselves because the predators are using the same tools as they do, albeit for more nefarious purposes. But why do we give abusers the power to ruin sex for everyone? As Lola from Big Mouth so eloquently put it, "touching boobs and rubbing fronts doesn't make you feel shitty; mean jerks make you feel shitty. If there weren't any mean jerks, it would be fine."

Being Seen

For some people, there is an intrinsic appeal in being seen while engaged in sexual behavior. Certainly not everyone would agree, but this is the basis for exhibitionism. Sex is such a secret, compartmentalized aspect of our lives. To be completely open about it can be a liberating feeling. So "getting caught" is just a form of letting go and allowing oneself to be totally uninhibited. Ideally, one would be seen by somebody who enjoys the view, but as hard as it is to find such an audience in a sexually-repressed culture* (the internet helps, but it's more visceral when it happens in person), one often has little recourse other than the occasional, not-so-unintentioned "oops" moment.

If this sort of exhibitionist mentality (i.e., "if people occasionally get caught having sex, it's no big deal") encroaches on the decorum of polite society, that's not an indictment of the exhibitionist impulse, or proof that exhibitionism is motivated by sinister intentions (e.g., "exhibitionists get off on disgusting other people"). It just means that we're neglecting exhibitionists, in the sense of not giving them sufficient opportunities to satisfy themselves in ways that don't disrupt society. It's not that society owes it to them, but it's in their interest to collaborate, rather than antagonize.

Besides, exhibitionists would be perfectly capable of applying their own imagination to the problem - it's not that we have to come up with a solution for them. We just have to give them the freedom to think of one, and the space to implement it - without cornering them and judging them, and burdening them with the shame of their feelings. Imagine what kind of a safe and consensual outlet virtual reality could provide to exhibitionists, yet we waste our energy condemning the application of entertainment technologies to addressing the human animal's natural and healthy sexual urges. A person that visits a "sex club" (or even just watches porn at home) should be considered a responsible citizen attending to his physiological needs, and not a filthy deviant. Sexual indulgence (within healthy limits) shouldn't be considered a "vice" alongside things like gambling, drug abuse, and violence.

*Do we live in a sexually-repressed culture? I think this is a hard question to answer, because in many ways we do, while in other ways we don't. It all depends on what segment of society you're canvassing, and what types of behaviors you're talking about. Pornography is a huge industry, yet sex work is still criminalized. Erotic stimuli pervades society (critics deem this "pornification"), yet innocent nudity is deemed inappropriate for public view. Casual sex and hetero-non-normative couplings are more tolerated than ever, yet we still cling to the medically-dubious diagnosis of "sex addiction". Consent culture promises to reduce the negative experiences that hinder many people's ability to achieve sexual satisfaction, and yet #metoo is training a whole generation to mistrust the value of their sexual feelings.

Conclusion

I'm not asking for permission to have sex in public. I suspect that wouldn't work out as well in reality as it might seem in fantasy. I'm just asking for exhibitionism to receive the respect of not being assumed to be an inherently predatory ("nonconsensual") class of desire - which places it in the category of unsupported kinks and fetishes even among otherwise sexually liberated and tolerant communities. I'm all for constructing a concept of "ethical exhibitionism". I just don't want to feel like an outcast even among sex-positive progressives, because nature dialed up for me desires from one bin instead of another. It reminds me a lot of the arbitrariness of determining that some people must wear skirts and others must wear pants, just because of the anatomy they were born with (and didn't get to choose).

I don't judge people for what turns them on, I judge them only for what they do with those feelings. But when we push marginalized communities into the corner, and withhold support for them in lieu of shame and judgment, that's on us, too. We're afraid of encouraging "deviant" desires, but the fact is, people will have those feelings whether they're encouraged to or not. The best thing we can do is keep an open dialogue about how one can manage those feelings in healthy ways, so they don't begin to manifest in unhealthy ways. People need to feel that society is on their side (which is not the same thing as giving them carte blanche), otherwise they will grow resentful and become more likely to turn to antisocial outlets.

Nude Year Thoughts

When I think about ringing in the New Year nude, there's a difference between being in a room with a group of nudists and, say, streaking through a crowd of textiles. The latter is usually (and not inaccurately) labeled exhibitionism. But there's such a stigma associated with that term. I think the exhibitionist version seems more fun. When nudity is the norm, it loses a lot of its novelty. Which is great when you just want the comfort of being nude, but is there no value in the novelty of nudity as it contrasts with textilism?

The misconception I want to address is that this exhibitionist value is an essentially immoral and antisocial one. Just because I think the juxtaposition of a nude streaker in a clothed crowd seems appealing doesn't mean that I derive pleasure from bothering people, or that their "consent" (to be exposed to naked people) is beneath my concern, or less important than my happiness (on the contrary: I suppress these desires, thereby making myself suffer, on the mere chance that it might prevent the suffering of others).

I wrote about this recently, but when I imagine the scenario - e.g., of a streaker running through a crowd - I think about how happy that sight would make me. But I guess that's the difference of perspective. I assume that most people imagine the shock and horror they would experience, and therefore see the streaker's actions as selfish and reckless, where I see them as selfless and joyful.

Yet, there still remains the critical difference between somebody who thinks streaking sounds exciting, and somebody who actually does it. If you can find something intriguing, but refrain from doing it out of concern for the potentially varied perspectives of others, then I consider that evidence of an evolved maturity and humanity. It is not fair, then, to criticize people who, for example, consider themselves "exhibitionists", because of the feelings they acknowledge having, judging them for the behaviors they maybe fantasize about, instead of the behaviors they actually engage in.

Tweets For Posterity (Volume 5)

Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

On the one hand, I know of people who post images of naked strangers to celebrate nudism. And on the other, there are nudists criticizing people with particular posting habits (like if the naked people are too attractive), but I don't know where exactly the two intersect. So I can only ever speculate whether a given image would pass inspection (thereby reinforcing my own personal bias). If, for example, a photographer hires an attractive model to pose naked for a non-sexually explicit photo, can that photo represent nudism? (I think yes). Understanding that intent is only ever a guessing game, and not to pass judgment on anyone, I think it would be fascinating for a panel of nudists to interpret specific images that are shared online in terms of the extent to which they promote the true spirit of nudism.

Activists and advocates of political correctness need to understand that any label will sound like a slur coming out of your enemy's mouth, but that doesn't mean it's a slur when your advocates use it. I know language is important, and it evolves (though not all of us are quick enough to keep up), but that's precisely the reason we should take care not to police it to the extent that we scare people out of speaking up, thereby silencing the voices that need amplification the most.

When you take "yes" out of a person or a population's vocabulary, whether by stigmatization or outright restriction, you're making it harder for people to figure out which "no's" really mean "no". Consent can't be respected unless there's a free choice involved.

Nudists can be so judgmental. Sometimes I feel like it would be cathartic to revoke my membership and declare war on the lifestyle, but the truth is, I love nudism, and it wouldn't stop me from practicing it. It's just a subset of its adherents that can be insufferable sometimes.

Nudists have both the right and the responsibility to police usage of their beaches, resorts, clubs, and discussion forums. But they should refrain from judging the sexual behaviors and motivations of the wider public, especially on the porn-friendly internet.

Nudity is not porn. But by that token, a lot of porn is not porn, either. Frankly, I think we should eliminate "pornography" from our vocabulary, because it means too many different things and carries too much baggage. Its use doesn't facilitate communication, it obstructs it.

People come to nudism from many different paths. If somebody follows a nude model because he's attracted to her, and in the process learns about nudism, then that's a net gain for nudism. There's no reason "sex sells" can't also be applied to nudism. I mean, I get it. The predominant approach is safety over liberty. Shaming healthy feelings is collateral damage in preventing deviants from slipping through the cracks. I just have different priorities - freedom, personal responsibility, and not punishing the innocent.

So many people seek happiness from the world around them, when our bodies were designed with an inborn valve to release pleasure. 100% natural. 100% healthy. It's madness not to make use of it. And cruelty to shame others for doing so.

There's a certain ableism entrenched in anti-porn/sex work positions. Yes, these resources are sometimes used as substitutes to fill the void of relationships missing from a person's life. Not always due to personal choice or personality flaw, but also for clinical reasons. But do these people not deserve sexual satisfaction, or to have the resources to tend to their sexual health, just because they're lonely, or unskilled at attracting a mate? Nor is it the crutch's fault if a man leans on it too long, at the expense of his own rehabilitation.

Libido is a storm - a force of nature that can be devastating left unchecked. But its energy can also be harnessed for good. We live in a society that cultivates destructive sexual energies. I want to change the culture to transform those energies into a more nurturing variety. The purpose of sex isn't to "smash" or "destroy" someone, to degrade and humiliate them. It's to attain bodily pleasure. To give and receive, not inflict. It's not an extreme sport. It doesn't rely on vigorous penetration. It's the physical manifestation of desire and admiration.

Whenever there's a sex scandal, we shame people's sexual behaviors, thinking this will prevent another scandal from happening in the future. What we don't realize is that it's this shame that is causing these scandals in the first place. People are more likely to misbehave sexually when they don't have an appropriate outlet for their sexual desires. And making a scandal out of healthy behaviors - like taking sexy pics with your phone - makes the problem seem worse than it is.

Here's what I don't get. Whether you're a celebrity or a normal person, if you have reason to suspect that a lot of people would enjoy seeing pictures of you naked and/or engaged in sexual activities, then what exactly is wrong with giving the people what they want? It doesn't make you somehow noble or virtuous to withhold that from them. Yet we condemn anyone who dares to serve this human need - even when they're not themselves responsible! (e.g., getting hacked) But we have control over that as a population, and it needs to stop. I just don't understand that mentality. I know that people want to see me naked; that they enjoy it. I would feel like a psychopath to withhold that from them. It brings me joy and satisfaction to know that I can give them something of myself to make them feel good. And I'm not saying demand is the sole arbiter; willingness should always be the prime consideration. But when we place a moral price on the satisfaction of this desire, we're scaring people away who might otherwise be willing, thereby artificially reducing the supply. And make no mistake - this is deliberate. But without proper supply, frustration mounts, and people act out. Sexual repression is the number one cause of antisocial sexual behaviors. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is nothing immoral about sexual pleasure.

Some sites, like Instagram and Facebook, don't have a good reputation for tolerating nudity. Now, I understand - and even support - the desire to go to these sites to make a stand. What I don't understand is the shock and horror when the inevitable predictably happens. I've been sharing my nude/erotic photography online for over a decade. I've had a few snafus, as we all do, because this is not an exact science, but I've never lost an account. The first thing you have to do is make sure you understand the rules better than the staff does. It's just like if you're out hiking in the woods - you should know the law better than the local authorities do. And sometimes, you'll still get harassed. Other times, it'll be a matter of differing interpretation. But at least know what you're getting yourself into.

I sell fantasy, not opportunity. I'm not a slut. I just play one on the internet.

Do not judge the sexual intentions of the gentle and empathetic by the actions of the predatory and aggressive. Too much of our sexuality is stunted because so many misbehave. But I don't take this to be an inevitability, I take it to be an opportunity for improvement.

I think people often don't have free choice. Because choices aren't made in vacuums. And when a culture systematically obliterates the legitimacy of one option in favor of another, then it's not really a free choice. It's compelled speech. And most people don't even realize it.

As an alternative to "shirts and skins" I propose "nudes and prudes". One team gets naked, and the other stays dressed.

If there is demand in the world for seeing naked people (and there is), then what's wrong with people that are comfortable being seen naked indulging it? I call that synergy. I feel like nudists are held to a certain standard indicative of professional organizations - "when you wear the uniform, you reflect the ideals of the organization." But not everything a nudist does when he's naked has to reflect the non-sexuality of nudism; the fact that nudism is non-sexual doesn't mean that nudists have to eschew anything that "sexualizes" nudity. If it's true that a nudist is a nudist through and through, even when he's clothed and not practicing nudism, then he's a nudist even while he's having sex. And nudists don't have to live every moment in the public eye like they're unendingly engaged in wholesome nudism.

This is a fundamental truth I've learned from experience, though it remains well suppressed. The worst treatment you experience in life will be at the hands of prudes. Yet it's the perverts we're warned about. (I know pervs - they're good people). The world is backwards.

I like to open people's minds to new possibilities outside their limited exposure to the mainstream. But dealing with close-minded people is exhausting, and hazardous to one's health. I can't force anyone's eyes open, but oh, the sights I can show those who are willing to look...

When someone talks about self-respect - as in, others lacking it - it's usually a cover for their inability to show basic human respect to others. It's just easier to blame the victim, and convince yourself they don't deserve respect, than face up to your own infirmity.

What if the hazards of sex work are not intrinsic to the work, but are manufactured by an intolerant society in order to prove a point? Then, any attempt to mitigate those hazards would be obstructed in favor of an abolitionist approach. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I've been at war for too long. And I never wanted to be a soldier. But society isn't content to just let people have their sexy fun, without everyone offering their own opinions and judgment on what is right and proper, in an unprotected orgy of shame and loathing. If you ask me, that's the only true perversion. And the only sex crime is a violation of consent (including consent to access information), the only victim being one whose consent has been violated - not the moral character of law or society or an uninvolved third party. So if a woman consents to pose nude for a magazine cover (especially if she is compensated for it), you can just fuck right off with your moralistic notion of "objectification". I've never heard of a pervert campaigning against your freedom to form a bridge club.

You don't have to like exhibitionists. You don't even have to accept them into the fold. But people don't even try to understand them. That's what gets to me. They just write exhibitionists off as antisocial perverts with no conscience. But guess what? We're human, like you. We understand personal boundaries, and social conventions. We can't be boiled down to an ignorant stereotype. And we have feelings, too. Try talking to us sometimes, and asking us questions; instead of just assuming our motives and shutting us out of the conversation. Nor are exhibitionists a monolithic entity, reducible to a DSM diagnosis (like transvestites and homosexuals). We're diverse individuals. Do you let what others do define who you are as a nudist? Then nothing anyone else has done defines who I am as an exhibitionist.

I know how it sounds, but I'm not advocating for skeevy creeps to be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm advocating for decent people to be able to accept their sexual feelings without shame, and for sexual creativity not to be relegated to the realm of "vice". It's nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about human sexuality. And I realize that's a lot to ask, but it wouldn't be right to demand anything less. I've never been happy with the way things are. I want them to be better. And I think they can.

Porn isn't always about gaping orifices. Sometimes it's about beautiful bodies. And you can't argue that beautiful bodies constitute porn, and then treat them like you would gaping orifices. Sometimes porn is tasteful, artistic, even nudist-positive.

Our culture segregates everything to do with sex from the rest of our lives. But every stripper, every cam girl, every escort, every pornographer...is also a human being. With friends, family, kids, parents, hobbies, pastimes, sometimes even day jobs. I'm not saying the sexual element has to be integrated into dinner party conversation, but we shouldn't punish people for having this other side. Strippers can become teachers - embracing the erotic element of living as a sexual organism isn't a character flaw, or a vice. I don't support the illusion that these are distinct worlds that must never collide. A person can be two things simultaneously without their work or play sexualizing everything they do or say. There's no reason a known pornographer can't lend public support to nudism. True objectification is telling these people that, in the course of maintaining their erotic personality, they must never hint at any interests, or display evidence of having a life outside of the erotic services they are rendering.

There's an increased anxiety when I go out dressed as a woman. And it's not fear of sexual attention from men. I've experienced that. Sometimes it's annoying (for the love of God, don't honk at pedestrians please); most of the times it's just mildly flattering. No, it's the fear of not passing - not being seen as a woman, but being seen as an impostor. I'm sure men do horrible things to women. But what do they do to "men" that inadvertently "trick" them into experiencing what is retroactively revealed to be "gay thoughts"? It's not just men, though. The women's restroom is far from a safe space. God forbid I should be identified as a pervert and assigned sordid intentions. I'm sorry, but restrooms aren't the least bit sexy to me. I just want to do my business in peace and get out of there.

Re: "All bodies are beautiful." I don't want anyone to think that I'm defending judgment and insensitivity; I'm not. But honesty is important, too. Nudists prop up an unattainable fantasy whereby visual evaluation goes out the window, and it's inhuman. Nobody can live up to it. I support body acceptance. People have different opinions, and acceptance can be found in their mix - that there is not one monolithic idea of beauty. But that's different than expecting an individual to see every body exactly the same. And still, seeing bodies differently doesn't justify treating them differently. Your visual appraisal of another person's body means little to nothing - THAT's the naturist lesson. Not that you aren't allowed to have preferences in the first place. I know the very concept that some people's bodies could be viewed as "less than" others is heartbreaking. But we can't just ditch something because we don't like it. Maybe if we could change human nature first, but I'm not sure we even should. Democracy does not mean everybody is perfectly equal. It means we strive for equity - equal opportunity - and that everyone has the same fundamental rights. Exceptionalism is a phenomenon in life that makes experiences better for people when they're rare. Relative value judgments exist because the extraordinary becomes exceptional in contrast to the ordinary. Not that I would be opposed to an experiment in which the extraordinary becomes ordinary. But even then, judging what's extraordinary involves excluding the ordinary. It'd be great if you were so wired as to see everybody you meet as extraordinary, but that's just not reality.* Maybe "true" naturists lack a certain fundamental capacity to evaluate others' appearance. Maybe that's an adaptive improvement. But expecting everyone to be able to meet that standard (in order to be a nudist) is unrealistic. What of the rest of us? You're asking us to attain brain states we don't have, essentially reaching some kind of level of transformative enlightenment. I will say it again. The lesson is learning to put your judgments in context, and treat people fairly in spite of them - this is the miracle of kindness. It requires maturity, instead of self-deception and adherence to an unattainable social requirement.

*In other words, pretending the ordinary is extraordinary is not the same as changing the ordinary into the extraordinary - that is, saying beer bellies are hot versus giving everyone a six pack (abs, I mean).

The "nudism vs. naturism" debate is elitist at its core. Yes, there are different kinds of nudists, and some take it more seriously than others, but there are more than two kinds, and their differences are not designated by the terms "nudist" and "naturist". It would be easy to look at the two terms and jump to conclusions: that "nudism" is superficially about getting naked, while "naturism" connotes a deeper philosophy. But this does a disservice to the multitudes who use the terms interchangeably, as colloquial variations. Nudists are in no way "less than" naturists. A "nudist" may be principled and enjoy nature, while a "naturist" may be a recreational day tripper. But are these even really two different things? The beliefs of "nudists" and the activities of "naturists" largely overlap. Indeed, there is no functional difference between the two; the idea that there is is a myth. Even at their most distinct, they are still just two facets of the same thing: nude recreation, and its ideology. And to accuse a "nudist" of lacking ideology is elitist ignorance.

If I can be accused of being a nudist and NOT being a nudist by two different people for the SAME reason - insufficient ideological devotion/purity - because the second person believes nudism is what the first person believes naturism is, then we have a terminology problem.

I sympathize with and support the notion that nudism is not about looking (although this message is better transmitted by those who are not what some might call "lookers"), but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that looking is ANTI-nudist. It's not.

I thought nudists were supposed to accept people as they are. All they ever seem to do is judge me by impossible, superhuman standards. I've never advocated for the mixing of sex with nudism, only the freedom to be a nudist and still have a public sex life. Being a nudist doesn't require a shame-fueled, guilt-ridden, sex-negative mindset. I've been treated by nudists as an idiot and a nuisance and an impostor because I celebrate the erotic appeal of the human body. I've never been treated that poorly by a pervert. I've never once had a pervert view my stream and tell me, "you support nudism? You're not a TRUE pervert!" If even perverts know that not everything a person does is sexual, then why can't nudists understand that not everything a nudist does is part of the lifestyle? Nudists, take heed: you are actively contributing to body shame. Lying to yourself and pretending everyone is a supermodel, while every impure thought in your head generates self-loathing, is not the route to well-being. Let's make nudism truly a judgment-free zone.

I don't share erotic self-portraits out of some unrepressed urge to impose my sexuality on others. I do it because I admire the art form, and I've had the privilege through years of sharing my work to connect with others that appreciate what I do. So if you don't like them, just move along. You're not my audience, and I have no use for your judgment.

There's a certain comfort with the human body that comes from being a nudist. It may not be immediate, and it may never be complete, but if you're going to spend time naked, especially with other people, you're gonna learn not to let certain things bother you. Most people don't want to see their friends naked. They don't want to know how they groom their pubic hair. They don't want to hear the reasons why we sit on towels. They don't want to talk about what happens when men get erections and women get periods. If you're a nudist, you're going to encounter these things (in discussion if not in person). And I can't help feeling that you can't BE a nudist without gaining a certain level of comfort with that other activity our bodies were designed for - sex. What people can't seem to wrap their minds around is that this can be true, and it can also still be true that nudism is non-sexual. That sex acts can still be verboten, but that the topic may come up and we can all be a little bit more mature about it. We're never going to make nudism look perfectly kosher to an established textile. It's always going to be about the human body unfiltered, and people who are uncomfortable with that are going to take issue with it. Disavowing the primacy of our sex drive won't change that.

I see nudists committing the same mistakes and fallacies about sex that they criticize people for making about nudity. "Sex-positive" is an attitude, not an act. It's not code for "public sex is a-ok". "Sex-positive nudism" is NOT just another term for "swinging". I don't want people to have sex in nudist spaces. I don't want people to openly display porn in nudist spaces. I don't appreciate it, either, when people assume that nudity is only ever about sex, and then treat it the same way they treat porn. But I also don't appreciate it when nudists assume anything sex-Y or sex-UAL - or erotic, if you will - is explicit sex, and treat it as such. Or presuppose that an oppositional stance to expressions of human sexuality is a requirement for being a nudist. That's what I mean by "sex-positive". I'm not against porn. I don't resent the *implicit* daily eroticism of living. And I don't appreciate nudists thinking they can shit on me because I choose not to hide the fact that I am simultaneously a nudist and a sexual organism. Because that's NOT the same thing as saying I think I should be allowed to have sex whenever and wherever I want. I'm not advocating for sex at Bare Buns Resort any more than in McDonald's. I'm just sick of nudists not treating me with respect because I also make erotic art.

The only requirement for being a nudist is engaging in nudity for any nonsexual reason outside of the context in which a textile would normally be nude (e.g., taking a shower). Everything beyond that is joining a cult.

(Volume 6)