Dignity

Being confident in your skin, being an artist who focuses on the subject of the human body, even being a sex worker - people say these things lack dignity. That's a lie. You can do these things, you can be these things, and still maintain your dignity. What people are talking about when they say that is not a function of who or what you are, but the way they treat you. It's not that you lack dignity. It's that other people are choosing not to treat you with dignity. And that's their personality flaw. Not yours. When they say you lack self-respect, what they're really saying is that they lack respect for others. Don't let them confuse you. You deserve to be treated with dignity, and given the respect I know you reserve for yourself.

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.

Platonic Eroticism

Last July, I wrote about what I've termed Platonic erotica - which basically involves approaching the erotic arts as art instead of pornography (a novel concept, I know). Society draws a hard line between all aspects of life that are non-sexual - and therefore appropriate matters for public discourse and display - and those that are sexual - which it cordons off and restricts access to with extreme prejudice. I've always been interested in the grey area between the two. We bend over backwards to deny the extent to which life is infused with sexuality, or else we end up condemning perfectly ordinary behaviors (like girls showing off their dance moves to internet strangers) because somebody somewhere might interpret them in a sexual way.

I was thinking about this while reading YouTube's rules on prohibited content - which make prodigious use of the phrase "meant to be sexually gratifying". Like, who cares if somebody gets their jollies from it so long as it's not actually depicting sex? Also, the extent to which they have to contort themselves into a backbend in order to make pointless exceptions for scientific use probably has them sitting on their own heads. I say pointless because intent doesn't matter - scientific manuals are no less explicit than pornography, and watching porn (no matter how unrealistic) will teach you more about sex than you'll ever learn in a science lab.

But a good piece of erotic art can accomplish the same thing, while doing it in a much more tasteful manner. The fact that we allow certain expressions and not others, over a completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction, destroys any argument that could be made about the unsuitability of the material in question to any given audience. All it does is pay nothing more substantial than lip service to an outdated (and unconstitutional) code of subjective moralism - one that glorifies deception, via the hollow facade of dispassionate academia.

Anyway, while I was reading those rules, I brainstormed a brief snippet explaining what I would call Platonic eroticism - which is allowing society to exhibit and admit to the presence of eroticism (implicit sexuality) in everyday public life. Because we don't need to prohibit a thing just because somebody somewhere might find it sexy.

---

"Platonic eroticism" is fun, flirty behavior not intended to be the precursor to sexual intimacy (i.e., foreplay), that is designed around the general appreciation of sexual themes and cues in a social atmosphere, and not so much a mutual attraction between specific people. Its purpose is to emphasize the light-hearted playfulness of human sexuality, without the emotional weight of physical intimacy, and to take this activity out of the bedroom, to be shared among larger audiences. It does not involve explicit sexual acts, and its goal is not the satisfaction of personal desires. But it does acknowledge - with celebration, not guilt or shame - that sexuality permeates much more of our lives than the private moments we share with our committed lovers behind closed doors.

---

At the end of the day, I don't necessarily want the world to be flooded with sexual media any more than most people would. It might bother me less than it would bother a lot of people, but that's still not my vision of utopia. Not least of which because we all have different tastes, and navigating to a random porn site doesn't necessarily mean you'll find something that appeals to you in the slightest.

I mean, I kind of do that on DeviantArt when I click on people's favorites pages; you never know what you're gonna find. If they're faving my pics (which is how I find them), the gallery is likely to include some kind of naughty material. Every once in a while, I'll find someone who has what I would describe as good taste, and that makes it all worthwhile. Most of the time it's just mundane smut of a more or less explicit variety (you'd be surprised what flies under the radar over there). Occasionally it'll be one of those collections guided by the compass of a rare fetish, that will make me grimace (no judgment - you do you). But even that doesn't scare me away from coming back and checking under the rock pretty much daily.

As I was saying, I don't want the world to be flooded with sexual media, I just want to be permitted to enjoy the sexy aspect of living - whether or not it's something that only exists in my head - without guilt and shame and censure. But the way we treat porn, especially on social media, means that even the slightest association with sexuality carries the world-shattering taint of eroticism. Instead of, you know, letting it be the cherry on top of life. I don't remember consenting to being bombarded with other people's sex-negative attitudes on a regular basis. Why do they always have to be out there spoiling everybody's fun?

Tainted With Eroticism

Or enhanced by it?

The fact of the matter is, if I were to say, "I get turned on sometimes, envisioning myself as a woman," there are people who would turn that around and use it as a weapon against me. To shame me. To discredit me. To accuse me of horrendous things. So I won't say it. But I will say that womanhood - especially in our heavily sexualized culture - can be a very sensual experience. Some people might say that's a bad thing. I say, when has adding pleasure to the recipe ever been a mistake? Your so-called "morals" are as thin as paper, and just as easily discarded.

God gave us a gift. (I don't believe in God, but I'm using that as a rhetorical device - it's just a metaphor for nature, or chance; whatever made us the way we are). Which is the ability to feel pleasure through the manipulation of our sexual organs. Its purpose is to increase our happiness, as we wander this Earth doing what we were programmed to do - which is survive, and procreate. Unfortunately, in our imperfect fallibility, we have learned to use this tool as a weapon to inflict pain on others in selfish pursuit.

I don't think that means we should give up on it. That some would use it selfishly, to steal happiness for themselves at the cost of hurting others, doesn't mean the rest of us should discontinue using it correctly, to spread happiness throughout the world. The people who abuse it have nothing to do with me. They are not me. And I do not support their actions. So please do not lump me in with them because I still believe in the virtue of pleasure and eroticism, while all you are able to see in your fearful, myopic rage is the danger and risk of harm.

It all goes back to the doctrine of sexuality as corruption - which I don't believe in. Like Midas' touch, eroticism taints everything it comes into contact with, giving it sinister flair and charging it with malignant intention. If you find sensuality in the experience of being naked, you can't be a nudist - you're just an exhibitionist. If roughing it in the wilderness without clothes turns you on, then every hike will be interpreted as a sex act. If you have any inwardly directed feelings of arousal tied to your gender identity or expression, then you're not transgender - you're just a cross-dressing pervert! You can't share these experiences with family or friends, or enjoy them in public - ever! - because they're being defined as categorically sexual in nature, and that would be highly inappropriate.

Never mind the fact that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even though there are other occasions on which it might indeed be a penis. Nor am I allowed to suggest the theoretical possibility that we could all be smoking penises in public without incident and it would be just fine - because the world would not end, and we'd all learn that it's not that big a deal. (Oops, I just suggested it). Because if I did, it would tarnish the purity of my reputation, and seriously undermine that point I just made about cigars. They'd put my head in a guillotine and make sure I never have the freedom to spread my perverse delusions throughout society ever again.

I'm not saying there aren't bad people out there who would take advantage of a little leeway to wreak havoc in people's lives. Unfortunately - it's the reason we can't have nice things. But can't we at least have the imagination to suppose scenarios, that may or may not reflect reality all that closely, and then nourish ourselves on the pleasure those fantasies might bring, without instantly being labeled monsters? Imagine a world, for example, where minor sexual infractions - I'm talking non-contact offenses - were dealt with between people, instead of in court. And when people couldn't work it out themselves, it'd be brought to civil court, and not made into a criminal case.

Imagine a world where people co-habitating - or visiting others - could have a balanced discussion (with compromises on both sides) on what's appropriate re: dress codes, and sexual behavior. Where unexpectedly bumping into somebody naked would (maybe) be cause for surprise, but not necessarily castigation, let alone criminal sanction. Where somebody masturbating on a couch (assuming they're not bothering anyone, and have the courtesy to clean up after themselves) might just as soon be left alone as brought into a calm conversation about personal boundaries.

I know you're thinking that in most cases, this is how the world already works - but you're neglecting two important factors. One being that people tend to exercise self-repression, even in cases where they might be permitted some freedom if they had the courage to push those boundaries - but mostly they don't, because they are decent, empathetic people, and they've been taught by example (whether directly or indirectly) that you will be labeled a menace to society if you don't bend over backwards to stay out of other people's way.

The other factor is one I barely have the courage to mention, because it's poisoned with so much rhetoric. It's all well and good when two adults have a dispute over appropriate boundaries, but once you mix children into the living situation, it escalates very quickly. Nobody in their right mind would be fool enough to make the argument that we shield kids from the truth about human sexuality far more than is actually to their benefit (although if they did, they might remind you that repression - as opposed to open communication - is the veil behind which misbehavior often hides). But all rules that seem reasonable when applied to adults go out the window on the merest possibility that a child might step into the room. And how many places in this world can we go where that is not at least a possibility? Thus, we have rules that look good on paper, when reality reflects a far more repressed situation than anyone wants to admit.

I'll leave you with one last thought - about the importance of representation. It has been said - especially in the course of defending the freedom of speech - that speech is the beginning of all thought. Logically, it would seem that words communicate thoughts, and therefore thought must be the genesis of all speech. But while a creative mind may be capable of generating thoughts that have not (yet) been translated into words, in a broad and very real sense, average people have a hard time conceptualizing things they have no words to describe - nor any prior model or experience to draw from. This is the purpose of awareness. To utilize speech as a tool to direct thought into patterns that advocates consider under-represented.

Whatever the truth may be. Whatever doubt people may hold in their hearts. On a mass scale, a culture cannot conceive of a thing, at the very least, until an example of it is presented to them. Be it fictitious, in a book or a movie or a TV drama. Something people can point to and say, "that". "Oh, you mean that?" Something that other things can be compared to, and contrasted with. Whether it's a model to live up to, or to avoid at all costs. (Though preferably the former). I'm just a reclusive hermit too frightened to be in the public eye, but I wouldn't hate contributing to expanding people's imaginations in that direction - towards the conception of a sex-positivity that is virtuous without being exclusive - whether it's through my own lived experiences, or the art that I create. I want to be an example - I don't want to be made an example of.

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.

Beauty is Truth

It's an almost universal feeling among at least half of the population. It's our natural, biological programming. AND it's necessary to the continued survival of the species. It's literally our prime directive, and yet, somehow, we've drilled this idea into the core of our concept of civilization, that it's a sin for a man to look at a woman with lust in his heart.

Now, don't get me wrong, I fully support treating women with respect. There is a misogynistic culture in which men seem to revel in abusing - verbally, and worse - any woman that arouses his libidinal desires, accompanied by an undeserved sense of entitlement to their bodies. I think that if your compass causes you to feel pleasure in the fact of another's existence, then that alone, without promise of anything more, justifies the responsibility to treat her well. And, after all, isn't that a better strategy for befriending her, in the hope of being able to spend more time in her presence?

But treating women with respect also includes not shaming them for courting attention of a particular variety. Especially (but not exclusively) when they're not doing it consciously! Because this is how our species propagates, and it's interwoven into the very fabric of our society. The way women dress. The fundamental nature of dance. Things that they learn even from a young age, before they understand the underlying purpose of it. It's not some evil plan. It's just a fact of life.

And then we make men feel bad for feeling good when their biological instincts respond as they've been programmed to. Even when they exercise restraint, and practice good manners. An implication is posed, that there is some sinister intent at the heart of it all - at the heart of physical attraction, which drives flirtation and courtship behaviors. Civilization has taught us that these things exist to bond pairs together. But evolution knows the real truth: that all those precious babies are being made because men are designed to salivate over women's bodies. We should be grateful for it - not resentful of it. Because, without it, we wouldn't even be.

But we live in a culture where protecting the planet that cradles us, and shelters us from the lifeless void of space, is an unpopular stance. So I guess that's way too logical an expectation for our species. Life is already hard. Why do we make ourselves suffer more than is necessary? For the inscrutable glory of some imaginary character? Intelligence is a myth. We're just dumb, hairless apes. How did we ever make it this far? Oh, that's right - because desire is more powerful than shame. More powerful than any civilizing influence. And if the day ever comes when that is no longer true, then that will be the day that we go extinct. The forces of chastity would do well to take that lesson to heart.

Fallen Empire

Insofar as the fallen empire of the United States is a world leader in cultural influence (although they don't deserve to be), I'm anticipating some hard times ahead - particularly on the front of freedom of sexual expression. Rest assured, I WILL die on this hill. Nothing will ever stop me from spreading sexual pleasure to the masses, short of locking me up or putting a bullet in my head. But there is probably a lot of frustration coming down the pike, as the Christofascists - emboldened by the stupidity of the American public - clamor to put into place their vision of a sexless utopia. I just want to warn you, so you can be prepared. There is a storm coming. Now is the time for us to brace ourselves, so we are not beaten down by the forces of chastity that are polishing their rifles for the hunt right now, as the Antichrist readies himself to take the throne. We shall prevail, by hell or high water. Or we go extinct. There is no other option. Let us make our adversaries the ones who will go extinct, once and for all time.

Hard Shadow

[description: a shadow on the pavement depicts the outline of a nude man aroused]

Despite how it looks, it bears noting that you can't actually see my erect penis in this image - just a spot on the ground where it has prevented the sunlight from reaching. Which begs the question, is it the organ that's indecent, or is it the idea that the organ represents? In which case, the offense is in your head, not in the picture. And those ideas aren't immutable. They are a product of conditioning. Can you imagine how frustrating it is for those of us innocents who are stuck living in a world that insists that our beautiful bodies, and the life-affirming pleasures they can generate, are an abomination to be scorned and hidden away? Why must we suffer, for the evil that's in your hearts? Pray, tell me. Because that's not what freedom looks like to me.

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.

Modesty's Arrow

Outside of gravity's influence, we can move freely through space - in any direction we like. But time moves only forward, and never backward. In physics, this is referred to as "time's arrow". It's related to the concept of entropy, which you can think of - although scientists will tell you this is an oversimplification - as disorder. Closed systems (even the universe as a whole), if left to their own devices, have a tendency to fall into disarray.

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
- Percy Shelley

It's the reason why, unless you put deliberate energy into cleaning, a room will trend, over time, toward disorganization. To keep things in order, you must exercise - as Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody would say - constant vigilance. The orientation of time's arrow may be demonstrated by the fact that an egg dropped from a countertop will shatter into many pieces and scatter across the floor, but it will never gather itself back together and reform its original shape.

The explanation involves probability states and redistribution of the elements within a system. Consider the fact that if you were to mess up one shirt in a pile of folded laundry, it would stick out like a sore thumb; but throw another sock onto a disheveled pile of clothes and you'd hardly be able to tell the difference. It's all quite fascinating, but far beyond the scope of this discussion. I merely want to introduce the concept of time's arrow - and the unanswered question of why it should flow in one particular direction, but never the other - in order to draw an analogy to modesty (with relation to clothing), and its implied moral imperative.

"Decency is a pattern of behavior, not a style of dress."

It seems to me that the question of how much or how little to wear always carries with it some moral baggage, rather than simply being a matter of personal choice. The edict to "cover up" is always interpreted as a moral imperative, while any suggestion to "take it off" is viewed disdainfully as an indecent request. There may be localized exceptions - even whole communities (such as nudism) that create contexts in which this rule is flipped - but they are the exception that proves the rule. Over a broad consensus, the moral evaluation I have described tends to hold. It's what we teach our children, and it's what they mainly continue to believe throughout their lives.

My experience witnessing people telling others to "cover up" is that they always do it in a moralizing, preachy kind of way. It touches on the deep roots of sex negativity and gymnophobia (fear of the human body) and the underlying current of self-loathing that stains our culture. It's as if they're on a holy crusade to "clean up the streets" (does the world really need more Travis Bickles?), and fix other people's "sinful" behaviors, presumably in an effort - no doubt goaded on by faith handlers of various stripes - to guide them towards what they conceive to be a more saintly existence.

Although natural instinct pulls us in the opposite direction (and why shouldn't it?), you don't really see people going around telling others to "take it off" (or similar) - because most people know how such a suggestion would be received (skin exposure is viewed as indecent, and the desire to see more of it is therefore suspect), and have the social consciousness not to want to be perceived as a degenerate pervert. Unfortunately, the type of people who flout society's conventions and impulsively speak their mind anyway tend to be unscrupulous, instinct-driven animals (otherwise they would have put more stock in those conventions, regardless of whether they agree with them or not), and lo, the sordid reputation holds, because there's no polite way in this society to say "naked is more beautiful".

[description: a naked tourist stands in front of a raging waterfall]
A quick pose, before that Amish family glances up from their picnic.

I'd just like to ask, why should the moral value of modesty in dress necessarily have to flow in one direction and not the other? And why does it do so in practice? What religious mythology has been woven into the tapestry of our society, so firmly as to even influence secular culture, about the extent to which the devil reaches his hand into the "pleasures of the flesh"? And why should it have to be that way? We have the freedom to decide our own beliefs; I have the freedom to believe not only that the human body is not evil, but that it is divine, and that physical pleasure is a virtue and not a sin. I have the freedom to believe these things, but if I go around expressing these beliefs, I risk being cast as a villain, and eyed with suspicion.

One of the greatest scientific discoveries of the early twentieth century was Einstein's revelation that space and time are not absolute, but that our experience of them is relative, dependent on a frame of reference. From my perspective, these "modesty warriors" who go around spreading shame and judgment upon those who revel in the celebration of what little joy our mortal bodies can give us - to me, they are the ones who are evil. When there are two opposing vantage points, who gets the authority to decide which one is proper, and which is distorted? Should we simply adopt the one that is more common, or the one whose adherents are the most vocal? Remember, there was a time when most people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and not vice-versa; a great scientist named Copernicus was vilified by the church for proposing an alternate theory that we now know absolutely to be true.

Without reason, can speech ever truly be free? I would love to be able to feel comfortable expressing my beliefs about the human body. To talk about its beauty and the pleasure it can bring. To encourage those people who I think deserve to be seen, to show off more of their bodies and flaunt what they've got. People can agree or disagree with my opinions on these matters. That's fine. What I can't stand is the thought of becoming a pariah for stating them. Of being looked at and treated like nothing more than a pervert. (Yes, I'm a pervert - aren't we all? - but I'm so much more than that). Or, worse yet, being considered a sick predator, diseased in the mind, dangerous and unholy. All because I bow to the temple of naked beauty, unbound by any arbitrarily constructed social laws of propriety.

And so I remain silent, more often than not. But it has a dispiriting, isolating effect on my psychology. It's not healthy. I want freedom of speech. I'm not asking for freedom from other people's reactions to my speech. That's a strawman concocted by people who claim to support liberty, while hypocritically attacking free speech defenders they accuse of the equally ridiculous notion of only wanting to spew hatred without repercussion. I just don't want to live in a society where people are habitually - to the level of making it a predictable outcome - predisposed toward exaggeration, and maliciously misrepresenting people's views and statements (exacerbated by a cancel culture - which goes by another name: "cyber-bullying").

I don't want people not to have the freedom to come to their own conclusions about the things I say. I just want to live in a culture where I feel safe enough to say those things, with good intentions, knowing that people will evaluate them fairly and without misrepresentation, with patience and rationality - not knee-jerk emotionalism fueled by memes and propaganda designed to manipulate the masses - and with reasonable allowance for thinking outside the box and considering unconventional viewpoints before rejecting them outright. Just like I strive to do.

Do I have over-inflated standards for Homo sapiens, or what? But why should I be forced to settle for less? I want so much more than that. And we're just talking about talking! Heaven forbid, I should try to actually pursue the things that make me happy, and attempt to make my vision of a naked paradise (similar to a nudist resort, but more like an artists' retreat than a retirement community) a reality. I have no desire to hurt anyone physically or psychologically, or compel them to do anything against their will. But some ideas are so dangerous... I fear that, to quote the bard (not Shakespeare, I mean Bob Dylan), "if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." And that's just for the fantasies alone!

Beauty's Privilege

The truth is, not everyone has a body that demands to be shown off. And, unfortunately, the people who want to show off, and the people who ought to show off, aren't always the same people. In other words, you don't have to be attractive to enjoy exhibitionism, but there are also a lot of attractive people who don't enjoy exhibiting themselves. But none of this should be used as justification for preventing attractive people who want to show off from doing so. I know it raises ethical concerns regarding equal rights (and anyway, beauty is subjective) - who gets to show off and who has to cover up - but that's all stuff we can hash out while we're admiring the eye candy, and not before we allow ourselves to do so. If there is both beauty and ugliness in the world, then we should work to maximize the beauty we get to experience while minimizing the ugliness, instead of gouging out our eyes so we can see nothing at all.

---

Whether a person should think about sex when they see someone in a skin-baring outfit is beside the point. (It's perfectly natural for them to do so, but that's beside the point - as I said). Even if a person sees someone and wants to have sex with them, that doesn't justify any kind of inappropriate or uninvited behavior - in other words, harassment - much less assault or rape. Telling men not to think about sex is pointless, but telling women to cover up so as not to tempt men - that's missing the point, too. The only thing that needs to happen - the ONLY thing - is that men need to learn to control themselves. And the best way to do that is to parade women's naked flesh around as much as possible, and simply weed out the men who can't handle it. And by weed out, I mean remove them from society. Throw them in jail, and forcibly eliminate them from the gene pool. That would result in a far more pleasant outcome than policing women's wardrobes, and leading a literally buttoned-up lifestyle.

Platonic Erotica

Sexuality is a broad spectrum, and human diversity is vast. My own brother identifies as asexual, and I'm still wrapping my head around all the different kinds of asexuality there are. I told him I sympathize with the feeling that the raw sex act is kind of unappealing in all its messiness, but that I do not identify with asexuality because I still unmistakably experience those strong feelings of physical attraction and desire.

It was a revelation to me, reading Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us by Jesse Bering somewhat recently, that our disgust reaction is typically subdued with regard to people we find attractive. It's not rational to want to, e.g., put your tongue between somebody's legs, or let them excrete bodily fluids onto or into you, but we're programmed to find even the suggestion of such acts appealing - provided they're performed (or imagined) with somebody who stirs in you a physical desire.

It's helped me to understand some of my own feelings. Most people know instantly when they're attracted to someone, but if you notice somebody suspiciously dropping their standards of what they would usually find unappealing, targeted toward a certain person, that could be an indication that they're attracted to that person. I think some people have a broader range of attraction than others - and that's why, for example, it seems like some guys will fuck anything with a hole - but I think it's perfectly normal to have a narrower range and not want to engage in such behaviors but with a much smaller subset of the population. In the case of certain kinds of asexuality, that subset could well be zero.

Anyway, my brother told me he was "aegosexual" (as in, a-ego-sexual), which I understand to mean that you can still experience sexual feelings, but without having any desire to participate in sex. For example, you can have fantasies about other people (or characters) having sex, without wanting to insert yourself into the act. As someone who's obsessed with their own reflection, I think it's kind of sad not to have that experience of feeling sexy in your own body (and as an exhibitionist, feeling that your body is desired by others). But I was thinking that maybe I have something of a similar approach to erotic art.

When I create a magnificent piece of art, I want to share it with people. It just so happens that the type of art I'm most passionate about is art that showcases the beauty of the human body. Sometimes that's erotic in nature, other times it's not. But I distinguish such art from pornography in that its purpose is not strictly or even primarily sexual (what goes on in the viewer's head is their own private business). In my mind, it's divested from any kind of intimate relationship. So, aside from the public censure of genital exposure (which usually limits me to coyly posed nudes), I should be able to share it with friends, family, and strangers alike.

The thing is, I feel the same way about an excellent piece of art whether it's a "simple" nude or an erotic portrait. Obviously, not every picture I take is something I would be comfortable sharing broadly, with family and friends, or any other people I would feel weird about having sexual thoughts or feelings about me. But a really good piece of erotic art? Not cheap smut, but a carefully crafted diamond of eroticism?

It doesn't matter that I'm fully exposed. It doesn't matter that I'm presenting myself to the camera. It doesn't matter that my penis is throbbingly erect. I still think I should be able to hang it over the fireplace and print it on Christmas cards distributed to my family during the holidays. Yes, it's blatantly sexual. But it's not an invitation. It's not flirtation. It's not foreplay. It isn't about engaging in a sexual relationship with me. It's about a general celebration of human sexuality. In a way that's more impersonal, despite how personal such a depiction might seem.

Not everybody can be depicted in such a way. But I'm not an average-looking person; I'm a model. And although beauty is subjective, on some kind of objective scale I must be more to the attractive end of the spectrum (at least in my best moments - which is what I try to capture in these pictures). Those views aren't designed for private intimacy. They're designed to be plastered on billboards, and I don't think it would be inappropriate to put them there. And if I had friends or family who engaged in the same artistic pursuit, I'd be more than happy to share an appreciation for the fruits of those labors, without any kind of expectation of sexual intimacy.

All of these are things I've been saying for years. But now I'm thinking, maybe it could be related in some way to this asexuality stuff. The sexuality is present, conceptually, but divested from the subject of the photograph (me). It's like a Platonic form of eroticism - not in the sense of crossing a sexual boundary with your Platonic friends, but in being able to enjoy the erotic delights without reacting in a way that is explicitly sexual. Like appreciating the appeal of a sex scene in a movie enjoyed with friends, without treating it like a porno to be masturbated to. Or, you know, just talking or joking around about sex without creating an expectant atmosphere of sexual tension (like I know a lot of friend groups are capable of doing).

---

On a related subject, I've noticed for a long time now that my appreciation of eroticism - especially in an artistic context - both in myself and others, manifests in a way that is sometimes absolutely sexual, but often isn't. I browse naked pictures of beautiful people almost daily, and most of the time there isn't even a physical response. That's not why I do it. Mostly. But I still enjoy it. It still stimulates me on a psychological level. After all, not every part of attraction is purely sexual. When a man spots a beautiful woman and stumbles over his words, it's not (necessarily) because there's a bulge in his pants. I just think you can also appreciate the physical attributes on a level that's almost Platonic, too.

Maybe this is part of what I've been trying to explain as the difference between sexuality and eroticism. It's like when nudists say the human body is beautiful. Is there a sexual component involved? Of course there is! But there's more to it than that. And you can admire the same aesthetics that promote desire, also in a way that's not explicitly sexual. Most people can appreciate somebody who's attractive on some kind of generally objective level, regardless of whether or not they'd invite them into bed, given the opportunity. As a sex-positive activist, I don't think we should discount the potential sexual element, as nudists fervently do. But at the same time I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion. There is eroticism without explicit sexuality.

It's the difference between talking about sexual acts, and talking about sexual attitudes. Which is where I think a lot of nudists misunderstand me. Are we not able to appreciate erotic media and stimuli in ways that are, for lack of a better description, non-sexual? I get it. It's complicated. The language doesn't do justice to the complexities inherent in these concepts. The human brain is so complex. How is it that humans are frequently too dumb to understand the capacity of their own brains? We're trapped inside our closed minds, unable to imagine anything we weren't taught when the world was simplified for the benefit of children. And it's frankly repugnant, the way humans reject any attempt at increasing the resolution in our understanding of our own nature. They'd rather shut their eyes, and clamp their hands over their ears. We have so much more potential, and yet people just waste it. But it's not those people I cry for, it's the rest of us who are subjugated by the inability of the ignorant masses to imagine anything beyond their own tiny worldview. That's why I hate democracy. It's a tyranny of idiocy.

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."

Sex Will Prevail

Civilized society tries to hide this fact - and it does a pretty remarkable job considering the sheer force it's up against - but human beings and living organisms in general are pervasively sexual, by design. It's our prime directive. And it's stupidly simple, but covering up our bodies actually does provide some measure of distraction from the thing our bodies are meant to do above all else. Nudists therefore have - and will ALWAYS have - a problem normalizing nudity, without it being taken over by simple-minded flesh bags who just want to fuck. (Especially online, where it's harder to control the flow of media and police people's behaviors and intentions). And it's going to be counterintuitively worse, the more restrictive of sexual expression our society is. (And, in spite of our immutable instincts, society is pretty damned restrictive right now). This is natural law, and predictable human behavior.

We can go a lot of different directions from this point, but we're not going to get anywhere without acknowledging that this is where we start. Furthermore, any social movement that seeks to metaphorically (one hopes that is all) castrate mankind's sexuality is going to run up against considerable obstacle - as it should. I'm not sure there is any reward that is worth sacrificing sex on a community-wide level. If nothing else, the very evolutionary process of natural selection will ensure its extinction within a single generation. Feel free to disregard this advice at your own peril.

Like, I can't get over the cosmic joke that is the shame and stigma we place around what is simply nature's way of making us feel good so we'll be incentivized to propagate the species, which is the one thing ensuring our continued existence beyond the temporary survival of any single organism's lifespan. Yeah, it's really important; so I understand the meaning and significance and ritual we attach to it, but why so much judgment and loathing (of both the self and others)? And what's with the absolute contradiction whereby religion deifies procreation ("be fruitful and multiply" crossed with the utter abolition of contraceptive methods and practices) while simultaneously demonizing the recreation that accompanies it? It's fundamentally Puritanical. Why is suffering divine and pleasure evil? Why must we hate what we undeniably are?

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]

No Excess Baggage

Sex has so much baggage. And while we place some of that baggage onto sex artificially, there will always be a certain amount that legitimately comes with the territory. Sex is messy. Sex tugs at people's heartstrings. Sex can carry health risks. And in certain couplings, sex carries the risk of pregnancy. Which is a big deal.

I'm open-minded, but I don't want to have or be surrounded by people having indiscriminate sex all the time. That's why I support people being able to be naked together absent a sexual context - i.e., nudism. But sometimes nudism takes it too far in de-emphasizing sexuality, to a point where it no longer even matters what people look like, and it's almost considered a sin to admire another person's body.

I want to spend time admiring people's bodies. Attractive people. As little dressed as possible. I feel like this is so hard to find - looking, for the sake of looking, without the expectation of a sexual coupling (and the frustrations, on both sides, when that turns out not to be a mutual goal). I mean, sure, we do it all the time, but we have to hide our intentions, and you can never get enough of an eyeful without either committing to a sexual relationship, or coming off as a total creep.

That's why I like art - the exhibition of aesthetic beauty, for viewing without further commitment - and why I support, as nudism does, a culture where nudity isn't treated as an invitation to sex. I just don't want to lose the part where we get to experience delight at the sight of the human body. Because it gives me so much pleasure in life, and it's a harmless joy (paradoxically feared by so many people) that I never feel I can get quite enough of.

To summarize, in a textile culture, you don't get to see people naked unless you're in a sexual relationship. In a nudist environment, you can see people naked but you're not allowed to enjoy the view. I'm just looking for the middle ground, where we can appreciate naked beauty - even for its erotic appeal - yet without comitting to a sexual relationship.

Unnatural

Human nature makes a lot more sense when you consider that man is just another animal driven by instinct. Civilization is, largely, a positive influence, but exposure to it tends to foster the illusion that it is the norm rather than the exception.

So, I was talking to a person who enjoys the conjunction of nudism and swinging (a taboo subject among conventional nudists), and I was struggling to formulate a response that is respectful of nudism, yet neither hollowly dogmatic nor judgmental of an open and unrestrained approach to sexuality (which I support - in principle; it's much harder to put into practice). How do you tell someone who likes walking around naked in front of strangers and openly having sex, that walking around naked is perfectly natural, but openly having sex is not? I mean, isn't that pretty much our prime directive?

And I came to a conclusion. What if nudism isn't natural, after all? I mean, the kind of nudism that's just as buttoned up (maybe more so) as textiles are on the subject of sex. Sure, it's perfectly natural to walk around naked without draping man-made fabrics over our bodies to preserve a completely arbitrary sense of dignity. But what if it's also perfectly natural for people to constantly be having loads of sex, out in the open, with multiple partners? Speaking in an evolutionary sense, our sex drives are a powerful instinct. There may be risks inherent to indiscriminate sexual activity, but you can't argue that nature favors the "spray and pray" method. It's civilization that seeks to dampen this wanton sexual behavior.

Now, I believe in the merits of civilization. And I think we should be more discriminate in who and how we fuck. I'm ruled by the complex intelligence of my brain, not solely by my baser instincts. But the fact remains, it may be no more natural to pretend that we shouldn't be fucking around all the time than it is to pretend there's any good reason to wear clothes. This would explain an awful lot of the difficulty nudism has trying to convince the world that naked people hanging out doesn't automatically carry a sexual connotation, and why it seems (to non-nudists and sexual progressives alike) so hypocritical on its face for nudists to go to the trouble of shattering the nudity taboo but then come to the decision to still preserve our taboos around sex.

Let me state this clearly. I believe in the non-sexual version of nudism. I support it, and I actually prefer it to the alternative (which is a nude-friendly swingers' lifestyle - and why wouldn't swingers be nude-friendly?). But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's natural or even obvious. And let's stop getting endlessly frustrated with the multitudes of people who get it wrong. That's like figuring out calculus and letting every person who never got past algebra drive you up the wall. Accept that this misunderstanding is, by necessity, going to be widespread, and then work on trying to correct people with more patience and empathy, instead of writing off everyone who ever gets it wrong as an idiot or an enemy. Most people alive don't get as much sex as the force of natural evolution (and their appetite) intends. So let's give them a break.

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.