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.

It Ain't Me

Whether they're total fabrications spun from whole cloth, or legitimate issues with isolated segments of a vast and commercialized industry (I've heard both), 0% of the justified concerns lobbied against the sex trade apply to the work I do (as, some would say, "a purveyor of smut").

And yet, my livelihood and my freedom of expression is hamstrung by indiscriminate measures taken to curb the allegedly rampant excesses of the sex trade, because opponents care not to distinguish ethical sex work from abuse and exploitation.

Even if this were an unintended casualty of the war on sex, it would be unforgivable in a country that abhors injustice, and that has enacted failsafes to prevent miscarriages in the legal system to mistakenly harm the innocent.

But I profess that this is not merely a casualty - it is the primary goal of the religious zealots who head these awareness campaigns, to stain all sex work with the taint of immorality, and to recruit secular humanitarians with insidious lies about the evil crimes they claim that unscrupulous perverts are committing against innocent populations.

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."

Shit Nudists Say

I started this series over a year ago. I called it "things nudists say that make me groan" to be a little less offensive, but in hindsight, I should have just called it "shit nudists say" after all. Well, here's another entry:

"I don't understand why anyone would want to buy nudist images or videos of strangers."

This is shit not just because the people who say this obviously know why someone would do this - they're just implying that there's no good (as in virtuous) reason to do it, and that the people who do it for other reasons deserve to be judged and shamed.

I don't believe that people who find value (even monetary) in naked images or videos of strangers should be judged or shamed. Even if that value is erotic in nature. If you see an attractive stranger on the street, you're admiring the erotic appeal of their body. It doesn't matter whether or not they set out to be admired in that way.

I understand that nudism is a more sensitive context, but a) admiring somebody even for erotic purposes is perfectly harmless, and b) I might get flak for saying this, but if you're a nudist, part of your philosophy should be "I'm okay with perfect strangers seeing me naked". It shouldn't matter how they interpret what they see. It should only matter how they behave towards you.

[description: two nudists hit a volleyball back and forth on the grass]
Nudism and photography are a match made in paradise.

And if you're being featured, consensually (I assume - otherwise this is a separate issue), in some form of multimedia that is being shared with and/or viewed by diverse audiences (that is to say, not a private, hand-picked group - although even then you might be surprised by the thoughts going through some of the people's heads, if you only knew), then you have no recourse to complain that the wrong person looked at it for the wrong reason.

(But it frequently seems to be third parties expressing concern for the sake of others they do not know the desires or intentions of, and I despise that kind of "savior" mentality, where an imagined slight is manufactured on behalf of one who never asked for their choices and actions to be second guessed by puritannical holier-than-thous, who like nothing more than to tell people there are certain things you just can't consent to, because it offends somebody else's fragile sensibilities. That's the whole reason sex work is criminalized, and why pornography is under threat of heading in the same direction).

But besides all that, we've completely side-stepped the possibility that there could be nonsexual reasons for somebody to enjoy naked depictions of strangers. Is the human body not a work of art? Do nudists not preach that the human body is beautiful? So what's wrong with looking at it, then?

And then there is the more common argument from sympathetic nudists, who like to see other people practicing this minority lifestyle, to make them feel not so alone in the world. I feel like there's a lot of suspicion levied against this argument, as if it's considered a hollow excuse for more sinister desires. I don't think it's fair to jump to that conclusion, and assume that nobody watching nudist strangers is doing it for anything other than a sexual motive.

But, as I've argued, even if that were true, it's still not a big deal. And if you're putting yourself (your whole self) out on the internet, let's be real. It's gonna happen, and it's pretty pointless to complain about it. God forbid that nudist photo of you should make somebody enjoy their life a little bit more for a short period of time in a way you didn't intend. God is definitely going to roast you in hell for that unthoughtful act of charity.

Tune in next time (maybe) on Shit Nudists Say for "when we discard our clothes, we discard our social status."

Opposing Government Regulation of Porn Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Incident With Patreon

or, How Patreon Mishandled Me

Setting The Scene

I've tried to write this post many times. Each time, the wound was still too raw. But I want there to be an account of what Patreon did to me - told from my perspective - because the way they treated me was not only unethical, but unacceptable in a civilized society. I don't want to allow their behavior to be swept under the rug - as countless creators (including nude artists) still use the platform, feeding a behemoth that may tolerate them at their convenience, exploiting their labor for personal gain, but in truth cares no more for them, or the value of the art they produce, than a fly on its back.

One of the reasons this post is so hard to write is that I have to provide a proper context for my experience - without, obviously, writing a full autobiography. Otherwise, it could easily be dismissed as another whining account of a creator complaining about getting burned because they didn't follow the rules. You must understand that I have been producing nude and erotic art, and sharing it online, consistently and without hiatus since 2008. I have never once been banned from a website - until now - because I make a habit of reading the rules of every site I use, and respecting those rules even when I disagree with them (and I do have my disagreements). My behavior on Patreon was no exception.

I first learned about Patreon from a fellow artist on DeviantArt [NSFW]. What piqued my curiosity was the potential to monetize the labor I'd been passionately engaging in on a pro bono basis for over a decade. So I gave it a try. In the summer of 2019, I finally transitioned from being an experienced amateur self-portrait photographer to a professional artist. My Patreon account began to grow only very slowly, but it gave me a sense of purpose, and it reinforced my work ethic. I quickly began producing more and better content than ever before, with a much higher turnover between production and distribution than I had previously been used to.

From the very start, I acknowledged and observed Patreon's restrictions on pornographic imagery - as I had already been doing on DeviantArt for several years. I was careful to separate the work I produced, sharing (and referencing) only nonsexual, nudist-friendly media on the platform. The only run-in I had with Patreon's Orwellian-named "Trust & Safety" team (which polices content violations), was early on (in the fall of my first year) due to a misunderstanding. I had published censored versions of nude images in a series of public newsletters designed to advertise my work, not realizing (on account of it not being included in the Community Guidelines that I had previously combed over), that Patreon had a strict policy on even the implication of nudity in any publicly-accessible areas of the site. After clarification, the issue was rectified, and I never published another image (censored or otherwise) outside of the bounds of Patreon's safety filters.

Trust & Safety?

Although it may seem pedantic, for the sake of establishing my case against Patreon, I'd like to go into a little more depth about my first run-in with the Trust & Safety team (I have the email chain to back up all of these claims). This was in November of 2019, only four months after I started using the site. I was contacted by a member of the Trust & Safety team, informing me of a strike against my account. To start with, the initial email read like a form letter describing a host of general violations, only one of which I was guilty of committing. I had to request that the team member actually review my specific case in order to find out what it was that I had done wrong, as if I could fix anything without knowing that first.

To their credit, the team member was willing to work with me (this time). After reviewing my case, two problems were identified. However, one of these (regarding publicly-accessible links to Patron-only content) turned out to not be a problem at all; but this was only determined after I explained to the Trust & Safety team member (who then agreed with me) why it was not. The other problem was a result of the critical omission of any reference to "implied nudity" in the Community Guidelines. It was not clear from reading the guidelines, and I did not imagine that the kind of implied nudity you sometimes see on the covers of such mainstream magazines as Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and Women's Health (among others) would create any issues. The team member acknowledged my suggestion that the guidelines be updated to reflect this unposted rule.

My final complaint regards the solution that was proferred to me by the Trust & Safety team member, in order to remove the strike on my account. Their requirement was to mark any post containing the offending content Patron-only (so as to restrict public access) - even though this would render those posts (designed to be public advertisements) completely pointless - rather than considering the possibility of simply removing the offending content and preserving the rest of these posts. I suggested the latter approach, which the team member agreed would be satisfactory, and so that's what I did. Problem solved. My case was resolved. I continued with no further issues, until this year.

I understand that these people on the Trust & Safety team probably have a huge workload, and that they can't pore over every detail of every case they come across (although I think that's what justice requires), but I think I've pretty clearly demonstrated that, other than what I couldn't know - because it wasn't passed on from Patreon to its users - I understood the rules of the site even better than the person hired to enforce them. That doesn't inspire confidence, and it lays the groundwork for the Trust & Safety team's later mishandling of my account, which had much more devastating consequences.

A Screeching Halt

Meanwhile, I needed another outlet for the more erotic-oriented works that I was continuing to create. For that reason, I also started an OnlyFans [NSFW] account. I consider it my right to advertise both aspects of my art - "simply nude" and "erotic" - on a third party site which permits that content; such as Twitter [NSFW], which I have been using to build my brand and grow my fanbase. Fans have always had the choice, based on their tastes, to either subscribe to my nude art on Patreon, or my erotic art on OnlyFans. I never attempted to cross the two accounts, nor confuse users about what they would get from each one. OnlyFans never expressed to me any resentment that I produced a different kind of content for a different site, nor have they tried to police my behavior on a third party site. However, I cannot say the same for Patreon.

In March of this year (2022), after nearly three years of consistent productivity, providing hundreds of videos' and thousands of images' worth of content for Patreon (none of it ever cited by Patreon as being unacceptable or violating the Community Guidelines), out of the blue, I receive an email from a Trust & Safety team member on the way out of the office for a long weekend without correspondence, casually informing me that my account is in jeopardy. But it's not my conduct on Patreon that is the problem. It is content posted to my Twitter account (!) that has violated Patreon's guidelines. And the solution is to either remove any connection between the accounts (thus hamstringing my ability to advertise my work as an artist), or to "remove any violative content that's being shared on Twitter."

In other words, as a user of Patreon, the service was trying to police my behavior outside of Patreon, effectively trying to control the kind of art I was sharing on other platforms. This goes far beyond not permitting pornography on their platform (a rule that I always respected), and extends to not permitting known pornographers (with no consideration as to the delicate distinction between outright pornography and erotic art - we're not talking about explicit depictions of intercourse, mind you, but artistic portraits that merely do not shy away from "signs of arousal", as Patreon would describe it) to use their service, even within their guidelines. I instantly recognized this as an unreasonable demand, and prepared for the worst. Any hope of wanting to work with Patreon to resolve the issue was dashed by my resentment that they were willing to discriminate against me for my refusal, as an artist, to contribute to the further stigmatization of human sexuality.

Rather than scaring me straight, Patreon's objection to my involvement with pornography ironically left me with little recourse to continue on, professionally, as an artist (something I'm far more passionate about), as opposed to continuing to produce pornography for the more tolerant platform that has not rejected me - OnlyFans. Quite apart from encouraging people to pursue more socially-acceptable vocations, this is a pure example of how the shame and stigma of sex work actively discourages sex workers from leaving the very work for which they are condemned. Or, as in the case of my purpose as an artist, from attempting to raise the medium of sexual expression to a higher plane of sophistication.

Another difficulty in writing this post is expressing my emotional devastation without sounding melodramatic - the truth is, losing my Patreon account really hit me hard. If this had been any other site, I would have been disappointed, but I would have moved on. This was more like losing a job - a job that I really enjoyed, and one at which I thought I was performing well. Patreon didn't just rob me of a paycheck. They robbed me of a sense of purpose; of the feeling that what I'm doing is valuable - that it means something. Pulling the rug out from under me crippled my work ethic. I was legitimately depressed for months afterward. And for what? Not because of my behavior, but because of my sex-positive beliefs.

I may be a sensitive soul, but isn't that often the case among those with an artistic temperament? I'm not speaking metaphorically when I say that the impact of the way Patreon treated me brought me to my knees. I remember lying on the floor, my heart pounding through my chest. It exacerbated an arrythmia that sent me to the Emergency Room, where I had to have my heart shocked back into a normal rhythm - a procedure I am still paying for. And all the while my livelihood was being gutted, the Trust & Safety team coldly wished me "warm regards". I would have been less offended if they'd just been honest and told me they didn't give a fuck about me. Is it really worth it to treat other human beings this way? Is our phobia of human sexuality that important? And - perhaps the most poignant question of all - should we continue to patronize a platform that treats its own artists this way?

Tweets For Posterity (Volume 7)

I thought I was out, but they pulled me back in! (lol)

I've actually pivoted away from arguing with nudists on Twitter (mostly), but I went back to using the platform to promote my art (and writing), and lately I've been connecting with other artists in the nude genre, which is pretty cool. In the meantime, I've still been posting snippets of insight and what I would like to think is wisdom, so I want to continue to preserve that here on my blog.

Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

A penis pointing toward heaven is a beautiful affirmation of life. It should be a divine symbol, really. What have generations of boorish men done to besmirch this holy appendage, and why do I have to pay for their sins?

If it's true that a picture speaks a thousand words, then your thousand-word essay against the pornification of society can be summarily defeated by the publication of a single erotic image. And I can produce these images faster than you can write your essays.

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. Many of us handle those feelings just fine.

Selling nude photography isn't antithetical to #nudism. Some people are so inspired by the human body, that they want to make it their career. These people are MORE #nudist than the weekend campers, not less. If it's anti-nudist to charge for nudity, then explain nudist resorts.

I pity those who cannot look at a naked body and experience - without shame or denial or self-loathing - the natural Beauty and pure joy of Eros that bubbles at the core of human being. It's okay to be sexually stimulated by the human form.

I support nonsexual nudism, but I will block sex-negative accounts. Their erotophobic views are toxic, and their holders are frequently hypocrites. I enjoy nudity for its positive vibes, whether erotic or not. I'm not threatened by the prospect of physical pleasure.

Categorization is an exercise for the academic. An artist must follow his instincts. Whether it's nudism, pornography, or something in between, it makes no difference to me - as long as it reflects the transcendent splendor of the human body.

"Free-range nudism" carries the risk of public indecency, and spoiling textiles against nudity as much as normalizing it, but on the list of common vices, is a little naked mischief really such a horrible way to add spice and adventure to your life?

I get that taste is subjective, and I wouldn't say this about every erotic image I've produced, but there is a beauty to eroticism that I don't think is vulgar, and is worthy of broader admiration (if we didn't live in a sex-negative society). Whether or not it's to your personal taste, nudity and eroticism (both) can be depicted tastefully (whether implicitly or explicitly), and I simply feel that the world is a better place with these images available, than it would be with them kept hidden away. Don't like? Don't look. But don't prevent others from satisfying their curiosity.

I know a nature preserve where swimming and alcohol are explicitly forbidden. People swim there all the time, and it's littered with beer cans. If these people can be so shameless, then why should I be afraid to enjoy the preserve the way nature intends - au naturel?

When meeting others on the trail - in theory, one should act naturally. But one may not always feel safe revealing oneself, and others may consider such an encounter to be upsetting. Laws and cultures vary; the situation is not as straightforward as some would like to believe.

It's no wonder the term "gymnophobia" is more well-established than "gymnophilia" - we can't even agree whether it refers to platonic or erotic love. But what about "gymnophoria" - that giddy feeling of freedom and happiness you get from being unshackled from your clothes?

The world loves to see sex workers jump through an endless series of demeaning hoops, just to prove that yes, we have the capacity to consent and really really want to do this, because in most people's minds, it's the most horrible thing imaginable. Celebrating human sexuality and eroticism through artistic photography, in a process that boosts my confidence and self-esteem, while sharing positive vibes with strangers across the globe, bringing me satisfaction and a sense of charitable purpose is NOT a horrible thing.

I'm not frustrated that I live in a country where people are free to argue against vaccines and wearing masks. That's actually one of this country's strengths. I'm just frustrated that so many people are dumb enough to think these arguments represent sound judgment. Maybe we'd all be safer if we gave up our freedoms to account for those not responsible enough to exercise them. But wouldn't it be great if we were all responsible enough to deserve those freedoms? Still, your freedom to harbor dangerous germs ends at the air I have to breathe.

I miss interacting with people who share my opinions on nudism, but isolating myself from that constant barrage of sex-negativity has done wonders for my mental health. It's exhausting constantly evaluating the erotic content of nudity instead of just letting nudes be nudes.

I'm the first person to say that no movement or community should be above internal review and constructive criticism. It just pisses me off when people waste so much energy arguing with other people that are supposed to be on the same side. Whether it's nudists judging nudists for having a sex life, trans people calling trans rights activists TERFs for using the wrong vocabulary, or sex positive individuals legitimizing the claims of moral conservatives. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

We're force fed a particular narrative about sex work - that it's naive or disadvantaged women selling their bodies to predatory men as a last resort. Without denying that this can happen, the ubiquitousness of this stereotype is problematic at best (from a feminist, sex-positive standpoint), and does a disservice to the colorful variety of people who engage in a colorful variety of sex work for a colorful variety of reasons. It's not fair to tar them all with the same brush.

The disproportionate "sexualization" of female characters isn't necessarily an argument against sexualization. It can actually be an argument for MORE sexualization - of male characters. Which I support. One of the great things about fiction is that you can ignore the practical considerations of reality. Going for realism is one thing, but one of my favorite things about fantasy is the ability to put characters in ridiculously awesome (and sexy) outfits. It's a good thing. And if men are statistically more aroused by visual stimuli than women, leading to a higher visiblity of "sexualized" women in pop culture, I fail to see how recognizing that and indulging it is inherently problematic. If sexualized images of women cause uncivilized men to act inhumanely, the problem isn't sexualized images (that's victim blaming), or what civilized men do with them. The problem is the men who treat women poorly, just because their body parts are showing.

I don't know exactly what everybody means every time they use the term "objectification", but what I think it implies, and what I understand to be the problem, is people treating other people as sexual objects instead of human beings. But here's why I don't like the term. Contrary to dehumanizing stereotypes about men's sexuality, having sexual thoughts or feelings doesn't short-circuit your ability to recognize that what you're attracted to is a person and not an object. After all, most people ARE attracted to people, not objects. But complaints about objectification so frequently focus not on behavior, but appearances. It's not about what men are doing, but what women are wearing. That we blame the men for "putting" women in those outfits, and not the women themselves, doesn't change the fact that we're condemning women's freedom to look sexy for men, and men's freedom to enjoy it when they do, in lieu of teaching men to treat the women who turn them on with respect. Positive sexuality is NOT preventing women from wearing hot pants in public. What the term "objectification" seems to imply is that to have sexual thoughts or feelings about another person is intrinsically dehumanizing. This is the kind of sex-negative view you would expect to hear from radical man-hating "feminazis". Why, then, is it so popular? I believe you can wear a sexy outfit and still be a human being; that you can appreciate another person in a sexy outfit and still recognize their humanity; and that the problem is not women in sexy outfits, it's men thinking it's okay to disrespect women in those outfits.

We place a stigma on "pleasure" that "joy" and "happiness" don't have. It's rooted in religious superstition - that a focus on the flesh is a distraction from the spirit. But why is feeling good bad? In life, we must endure pain; we should be permitted to enjoy pleasure.

Shooting men nude vs. women is different - but not really. If you're creating beautiful art, and an erection occurs, it doesn't arbitrarily become not beautiful, or not art. Showing what men desire may be a cliché, but showing that desire is still taboo in the art world.

I'm obsessed with women's swimwear, jealous of how accepted it is, and frustrated by the assumptions people make when I attempt to wear something similar. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all men look ridiculous in skimpy swimsuits.

Sidestepping the question of why, I shoot nudes because it's a subject that intrigues me more than any other. Nothing fires my inspiration the way nudity does. Nude photography is fun, meaningful, and rewarding. I'm an artist because I like to shoot nudes, and not vice versa.

The "trafficking" scare is as brilliant as it is insidious. By equating sex work with people being kidnapped and raped, how could you possibly argue for it? Which is exactly the point. Make your opponent's position indefensible by any rhetorical means possible.

The bottom line is this: the human body astonishes me. Whether because it is a geometric marvel, or due to sexual conditioning (can't it be both?), is a question for the academic. But does it matter, when the presence of the latter doesn't diminish but enhances that astonishment?

My biggest resentment over the Patreon fiasco isn't having differing opinions of what's fair and just. It's that nobody talked to me like a human being. Even when the other party doesn't agree, people have a psychological need to feel like their side of the story is being heard. But what's worse than insincerity is the hollow illusion of sincerity. I honestly would've been less insulted if I'd been contacted by Compliance Bot, and simply told to fall in line or face deletion, without hope of appeal (because there is no appeal - that's just an illusion). But instead, they give their compliance bots names like "Ariel", put them on a team called "Trust & Safety", and teach them to speak in platitudes, wishing you "all the best" as they rip your guts out. This is exactly what George Orwell warned us against, people.

I'm struggling to remain relevant as the internet continues to evolve. But photography is about freezing moments in time, which I feel is contrary to social media's emphasis on endless streams of content. Fine art is created to be studied, not consumed.

Hypocrisy is another look I don't like for nudism, which should stand for truth and transparency. Yet nudists will argue left and right that nudity is 100% natural, then turn around and act like sex was invented by the devil. So unappealingly old testament. I'm also baffled by how narrow people's open-mindedness can be. You're in a small minority of people who have penetrated the taboo surrounding nudity, and yet you lack the imagination to see how a more positive attitude towards sex could improve society?

You can sexualize an outfit. You can sexualize an object. You can sexualize an action, or a comment. Because these things are all up to interpretation. But you cannot sexualize a person, because humans are already fundamentally sexual beings. And that's all natural, baby.

If your only context for sex-positivity is "letting perverts get away with creepy behavior", then you're engaging in confirmation bias, and you need to confront your hang-ups about sex. Sexual anarchy isn't the only alternative to shame and repression.

The idea that women's bodies are objectively more appealing than men's is toxic garbage (especially coming from a straight male). And I used to believe it, too. The male gaze just places more pressure on women to look good. But this is an obstacle that can be overcome.

I was thinking about what sex-positive nudist advocacy should look like, and the truth is, it isn't any different from regular nudist advocacy. You don't need to add any kind of sexual element. You just have to refrain from making those statements that are blatantly sex-negative.

I don't think tastefully erotic images should be treated as porn. They're artistic, and beautiful. If something is so broken in your mind that these images disturb you, then you should seek therapy before I'm ever censored or ostracized for sharing them. #therapynotcensorship

Kinsey discovered about 75 years ago that sexuality is on a spectrum. Fight me if you want, but I think everyone is at least 1% bisexual. It's okay to have strong preferences (I have them, too), but sexuality is fluid, stimulation is stimulation, and labels can be cloistering.

I get that exhibitionism can be confusing. Standing naked in doors and windows excites me, yet I don't actually want to disturb or alarm anyone. I just wish people would talk to exhibitionists before forming opinions about them, and not judge us all by the behaviors of some.

I feel tremendous pressure to conform to gender stereotypes (whether male or female) when using a public restroom, and as a gender fluid individual, this causes me great distress. Where are the queer-friendly facilities for unconventionals who just need to do their business?

I pity those who are incapable of seeing sexual expression as anything other than exploitation, like looking at the sun and seeing only the destructive power of its fire, and not the light and warmth that gives life to this planet. But I pity them only to a point, because their repressive views are stifling, and commit harm under the hypocritical banner of concern. Like snuffing out the sun, and dooming all life to wither and die, while calling yourself a savior.

"Sexualization" is a complaint that arises from a discrepancy of intent versus interpretation. The implication is that one can help what one finds sexy, when the real issue is a matter of decorum: how one reacts to such thoughts given what is appropriate in that context.

I like to apply an intellectual approach to the academically overlooked subject of human sexuality, and I feel like that puts me in a unique position to provide poignant insights, yet I often feel like I get treated as the dork who brings a text book to an orgy.

What I bring to the art I create is an acknowledgement and celebration of the psychological impact of the human form, aesthetically and erotically. I endeavor to manufacture, in isolation, instants of beauty like we sometimes encounter in life, but are not nearly common enough.

I feel like wider acceptance of queer identities is at least partly due to more exposure to real queer people, as opposed to the fear-driven stereotypes we'd previously been fed. Turns out queer people are really cool, if you take the time to actually get to know them.

As a nudist, another thing I like to do is capture images of everyday activities, performed in the nude. Opinions vary on the validity of photographing a lifestyle that decries voyeurism, but I'm not here to judge. I just like to create images that I personally find interesting.

Taking a peek at r/nudism, my stance on exhibitionism as it relates to nudism is simply this. I want there to be a middle ground between condemning public sex on a nude beach, and treating wearing swim briefs on textile beaches as detrimental to the nudist cause. I just think nudists can be so frustratingly uptight, puritanical, judgmental, and dogmatic sometimes. You can be a nudist and still enjoy the human experience of physical attraction, without it being an excuse to engage in sexually explicit behaviors in public!

As an artist locked into a lifelong battle with censorship, I'm not just frustrated, but actually offended that "free speech" ever became a rallying cry for conservatives. Free speech is for standing up and asserting radically progressive notions that threaten the dominant power structure, like "my body, my choice", "black lives matter", "love is love", "transwomen are women", and "sex work is work".

Nudism can be very dogmatic, and I think we should normalize it being okay to have beliefs that go against the grain, without it putting your nudist cred in jeopardy. Nudists are individuals, not a hive mind, but sometimes they sound like fanatics chanting in unison. Ex: this notion that everybody is beautiful and skin is an outfit that always fits. Not to be rude, but I don't actually believe that. It's a utopian ideal, and I recognize its rhetorical purpose, but I don't like clinging to desperate illusions. Did I mention I'm an atheist?

I'm a purist who thinks mermaids should always be topless, and fairies and elves should be naked. Typical human projection, to assume other species would have the same hangups about our bodies we do, when in reality, we're the only species on the planet that wears clothes.

It's a confusing experience, being called an exhibitionist by nudists, then browsing public sex and literal pornography pictures that are labeled as "nudism" and finding that I agree with the nudists' opinion that this is outrageous. But that's why we need a middle ground. For the record, I support these kinds of pictures, but I would never label them as "nudist". THAT's the part that I find offensive. But I also recognize a sort of fantasy being depicted - an alternate reality where nudism is hot naked people having sex in front of each other. It's kind of like how pornography sexualizes delivery persons, except I acknowledge that nudism has more to lose from this misrepresentation. I THINK IT'S OKAY TO CRITICIZE THIS USAGE of the label "nudism", but that doesn't justify a widespread regime of shame and judgment.

The truth is, I like pornography. But my heart's not in it. My heart's in producing art. I just want to be able to make art without arbitrary limits on eroticism. But society is telling me, if you want to create erotic art, then we're not gonna let you be an artist. You have to do pornography. Because of the stigma. So maybe spreading my legs is just what I have to do to fund my art. But don't pretend that it's not the prudes who are actively driving people INTO sex work with their shame and judgment.

It's horrifying, sometimes, watching old movie stereotypes of queer people. Humans are amazingly bad at contextualizing what they don't understand. Like, a guy dressed up as a woman? He must literally be a homicidal maniac who wasn't even loved by his own mother...

To be fair, it's rarely appropriate to ask a woman to take her clothes off. But it takes a special kind of creep to consider how a woman is dressed (or not), and demand that she "put some clothes on". I will never understand or respect that mentality.

I, too, like looking at naked women more than men. But in my journey as an artist, I've learned to appreciate the male form, too. I like when artists talk about nude art in a way that doesn't distinguish sex, especially when they're conscious of not being reduced to porn. Like, I get that our attractions often give form to the beauty we perceive in the human body. "We artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros appointing himself as our guide." It's just that, one sex does not have an objectively more artistic form than the other. I also get that modeling is one of the few fields dominated by women. I have no desire to take that away. But as someone who was not born a woman, I do feel marginalized. All I want is to be acknowledged in a way that doesn't make me feel like my anatomy is a handicap. Like, "men are beautiful, too, but women are just perfect, luminous beings" isn't helping, y'all.

I have an issue with the term "desexualize" especially when used in the context of nudity. I think it confuses more than it clarifies. I agree that NOT "all nudity is sexual", but I do not believe that all "sexualized" nudity is bad. If you were to create a Venn diagram, there would be an intersection between the circles for nudity and sexuality. They are two separate concepts that can exist independently. But sometimes they overlap, and that's okay. It's a good thing, even.

I've been an artist for well over a decade, and I've never gotten over the feeling of emptiness you get after releasing a piece of art to the world. If you're lucky, you get a handful of likes and comments, which is always great. But then what? It just fades into obscurity? I'm not saying the creation of the art work isn't gratifying in and of itself. That's why I'm still doing this all these years later, even though it doesn't pay the bills. But I feel like art deserves a life beyond that initial share, and I don't know how to give it that. It feels narcissistic to say, "I want people to talk about my art." But my art is my voice. It's a form of self-expression. I WANT it to start conversations. You don't share yourself on social media without wanting attention, even if sometimes you're scared of getting it.

"Every Body Is Beautiful" - this is one of those cult-like things nudists often say. Maybe some of them even believe it. But it's okay to think some bodies are more beautiful than others, as long as you treat people with respect REGARDLESS of what they look like. THAT is what nudism is about.

I know I have the excuse of creating art, but let's be honest. Playing in the woods is fun. Climbing trees, splashing in streams. And doing it naked is just that much MORE fun. Am I wrong? And also, have you tried it?

The problem I have with most porn isn't that it's sexually explicit. I don't mind seeing genitalia or witnessing sex acts. The problem is that it's so inartfully expressed. I've seen snapshots of people's dinner plates that make the food look gross because of presentation. I don't care if you have a dildo sticking out of your ass. If you're a person artists would want to take pictures of anyway, and you light that scene and frame that composition, you're good. It's not the subject that's unappealing, it's how it's being presented.

I think a well-rounded individual should seek to expand their range of experiences for a more balanced perspective on life. Being trans gives you unique insights into the ways we socialize gender, by seeing from both sides of the aisle. A lot of things we take for granted as oppressed minorities can be generalized to human nature, and sometimes even applied to what those minorities deem the oppressors. Women are undoubtedly disadvantaged in our society, but men are victims of sexism, too. Conservatives complain that their views are being censored, and it's easy to want to call that out as bullshit, but the truth is, shadow banning is a weapon social media platforms wield without reservation. I'm subject to it as a progressive artist. Going from nudism to the art community, I find it interesting the paradigm shift between demographics of people who are comfortable nude. In nudism, it's the men who always want to get naked and share pictures, and complain that their wives and girlfriends won't join them. But in the art world, you see almost nothing but naked women. To the point that artists sometimes lament the imbalance, and encourage more men, who are statistically more likely to be behind the camera, to get more comfortable being in front of it. I came to art via an uncommon path. I always wanted to shoot women, but I never had any to shoot. So here I am, more visibly in the role of model than photographer (although I do both). And I see the difference. Women get the attention. The likes, the shares, the comments. If you really want to see more men getting comfortable in front of the camera, then you need to start giving attention to the ones who already are. But I don't hold any delusions that naked men will ever be as popular as naked women are. At least, not as long as men hold most of the power in society. Because men may like to get naked, but they'd rather look at naked women. I don't know if women are as interested in seeing naked men, but if they are, it wouldn't be hard for them to find volunteers. And yeah, I know, gay men are a demographic interested in looking at naked men, too. I'm not discounting them, but even if we include the openly bisexual population, they're still a minority and will never balance whatever demand the straight majority has.

Human beings are a social species. They have a tendency to adopt the beliefs of their tribe in order to promote a sense of belonging. As an asocial loner, I have been insulated from this impulse, and that has given me the gift of independent thought.

The world would not fall apart if tomorrow we decided to stop arbitrarily and superstitiously crushing people's spirits for daring to pursue the business of giving people orgasms. And if religion is in any way responsible for this sordid state of affairs, then God should be dragged from the Heavens to stand trial for this atrocity of inhumanity.

Mainstream politics is becoming more radicalized these days. The left is promoting radical tolerance, while the right is promoting radical hate. I'd prefer to stay nonpartisan, but one of these is not like the other. By the way, the difference between ACAB and religious bigotry is conservatives engaging in racially-motivated homocide without consequence versus conservatives denying health care to people who need it. There's a common enemy in both of those circumstances.

I never miss an opportunity to get naked in nature. And no matter how many times I try, I can never adequately describe how it feels. You just have to do it! Wish there wasn't so much stigma surrounding the human body. Putting my clothes back on is always the worst part.

Lizard brain: sees naked body, thinks it's time for sex. Monkey brain: sees naked body, realizes it's just a person in their natural state, and that it's no more time for sex than if you came across somebody clothed. I get the confusion, but let's try not to be lizard brains, ok?

Even as experienced a nudist as I am, the first time back to social nudism after a pandemic-driven hiatus, it struck me how weird it was to be in a place where people are randomly naked. Yet, as always, in very little time, it felt like the most natural thing in the world. We need to accept that, despite the irony of how natural it is, nudism presents a significant barrier of entry to a textile-minded public. If only more people were open to trying it, in order to get over that hump. Nudism is an activity that sounds crazy, but feels natural.

Thoughts While Freehiking

Preface: I typed these thoughts out on my phone while hiking nude through the woods, because apparently getting out into nature frees not only my body, but my mind as well.

The Council of Conscientious Exhibitionists

I think it would be a fun game to pick a trail and hike it nude, just to see whether you can make it to the end without encountering anybody. But though this game relies on nudity being taboo (otherwise there would be no stakes), I don't like the feeling that I might be committing a crime, or that I might bother some unsuspecting innocent. Isn't there a way to capitalize on the excitement of the taboo without being a threat to society?

What the exhibitionist understands, and the prudist pointedly ignores, is that there is often an excitement to being naked - a thrill above and beyond the simple comfort of nudity that nudists celebrate. It depends on the taboo. Which is why hiking nude on trails in nudist campgrounds may feel good, but it lacks some of the excitement of true freehiking.

But what the simple-minded lizard brains of so many can't seem to understand (and this includes many exhibitionists as well as the nudists who criticize them), is that you can appreciate that taboo thrill, and still want to avoid upsetting anyone.

Or that you can exploit the taboo on nudity for personal pleasure, while still lamenting that it prevents you from enjoying nudity on a wider scale. This is how you can be a nudist and an exhibitionist simultaneously - both in practice, and in principle.

I just wish there were a council of "conscientious exhibitionists" that could brainstorm ways to enjoy the thrill of exploiting the nudity taboo, without upsetting anyone. And to show the world that there are exhibitionists who care about innocent bystanders and the general social order.

I submit my application to join this council, but I can't do it all by myself. There needs to be a conversation - a melding of ideas.

Caught - Between Nudism and Exhibitionism

When I go out into the woods, I just want to spend time naked in nature. I say that the taboo on nudity makes it more exciting, but the reality is that I do NOT want to be seen by anyone any more than they would want to see me. That alleged "thrill" of getting caught just isn't part of the intended experience for me.

Yet I do find being nude in novel locations and situations (where nudity is not commonly seen and expected - i.e., outside of nudist "safe zones") to be exciting. And as an artist, I enjoy photographing those experiences - in direct contradiction to nudism's general ban on cameras. So I'm caught between nudism and exhibitionism.

Designated Freehiking Trails

I wonder how it would feel if there were a designated trail for "freehiking" in my favorite park. Because that's what I want - to hike nude, and not get in trouble. But would it be less fun without the taboo, if I knew there was an explicit allowance for it?

(Although explicitly allowing nudity on one trail would have the effect of implicitly banning it elsewhere, leading to a "ghettoification" of freehiking in that park, in opposition to the usual, open-ended, "use your own discretion, and if you get caught, as long as you're not being a nuisance, you'll probably be fine" - don't ask, don't tell sort of policy.)

I wish I could try it. I just wonder if the ideal situation for me isn't "you could get caught, but you don't", because that's inherently a gamble, and I don't normally like gambling. Which is why this stuff is bothering me to the point that I'm sitting here typing my thoughts out on my phone when I could be hiking nude some more, as I haven't yet encountered anyone since leaving the parking lot.

When Sex Enters The Equation

I guess there's also the fact that the thrill is sometimes sexual. Sometimes. But if it's only sexual part of the time, and I'm capable of restricting the sexual part to appropriate situations (when I'm out in the woods alone, it doesn't really make a difference whether it's sexual or not, and alone is just the most common way I get to enjoy being naked in nature), then is there a problem?

But also, let's be honest, having an OnlyFans [NSFW] account encourages this behavior. I would be less inclined to indulge the inclination to masturbate in the woods if I wasn't thinking, "I can film this and make some easy money." Now, I support sex work, because we should be free agents to make our own choices. But if I still had Patreon, I could make money on non-pornographic media. And their injunction against porn would serve to discourage the production of that other content.

However - and here's where the irony kicks in - the fact that they dumped me because I produced pornographic content elsewhere - discriminating against me based on stigma - actually makes it harder for me to transition to non-sex work. Their rule (which I'm sure is purely self-serving, and not designed to make a moral statement - albeit calculated to minimize the damage incurred from powerful forces of chastity in our society) goes too far and actually backfires, at least from the moral perspective. I'm stuck doing sex work when what I'd prefer to be doing is making art.

And if it's true that I can make quicker, easier money selling porn than I ever did selling art, that's not my fault; and it's not the fault of any hosting site or their rules, either. That's just human nature. But if human nature ensures that sex will sell, and we live in a capitalist economy, then why is there so much stigma against sex work? Instead of trying to change human nature, maybe we should figure out how to incorporate it into our lives a little better.

Are OnlyFans Models Being Deprived of Fresh Air?

OnlyFans Bans Public Sex

It's sad that sex workers (and erotic content creators in particular) have to live like beaten dogs, humbly accepting every petty restriction placed on them by society and the platforms through which they try against the odds to earn a living. But that's the way things are. So when OnlyFans decides (I was going to say "announces", but they haven't announced anything, it sounds like they've just secretly amended the rules and started punishing the new rulebreakers without warning) to ban "public sex" my reaction is, "well, that makes sense". Public sex is, technically, illegal, and these sites usually forbid illegal content (or they wouldn't be around for long), not out of any sort of moral judgment, but just to cover their asses.

(A separate question, though, is why banks get to determine society's decorum. I mean, it's because money is power, but who's got the money, and do they really deserve it, based on how they're wielding that power? If money is power, and power corrupts, then is it inevitable that a society can only ever be run via corruption? Or is this just more evidence that socialism is superior to capitalism?).

But the part that really concerns me is the fear, enhanced by some reports I've been reading, that OnlyFans is starting to outlaw any and all erotic media shot outdoors - because that's easier than determining what's public and what's private (like how it's easier to ban the sight of genitalia than to determine whether somebody is doing something with it that ought to be considered "indecent"). So, the language of the rule itself is difficult to criticize - banning anything that "was recorded in or is being broadcast from a public place where members of the public are reasonably likely to see the activities being illustrated." But how it's enforced is of more concern. Will I no longer be able to shoot erotic material in my own backyard, because there's a chance that my neighbors could see me? What about a remote hiking trail - who can say how remote it really is, how many regular hikers that trail gets, and what potential cityscape view could be seen if the camera were to be rotated 180 degrees?

Once again, sex workers are being marginalized and pushed into the corners, swept under the rug, and locked up inside our own homes where there's no chance that we'll "bother" anybody. How long will it be before I can no longer even stand naked in front of a window, because we live in a society that's terrified of its own fundamentally sexual nature? I guess I'll find out soon enough, since I shoot a lot of outdoor content, and I'm not about to stop without a direct confirmation that it's not allowed (because it's an artist's duty to push the boundaries and not succumb to a chilling effect which is essentially a muzzle on free speech).

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)