Tainted With Eroticism

Or enhanced by it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wholesome

It's hard to promote an activity or lifestyle - especially when you're promoting it as wholesome (which then tends to come off as suspiciously insincere) - when society doesn't allow you to do it in front of children. Like, consider this. Children aren't allowed to drink alcohol. But you're allowed to drink alcohol around children. You don't have to hide it. You don't have to pretend you don't do it, or pretend you don't like it. You can do it right in front of them! You can even make it an integral part of your family get-togethers. Children aren't allowed to smoke, either. But you're allowed to smoke around them - even though this is demonstrably harmful to their health. They can't drive, but it'd be ridiculous to suggest that you should never drive in their presence.

But just because - what? children aren't allowed to have sex? - not only is that a taboo subject of conversation in the presence of children (hampering any effort to educate and promote good health practices), but you can't even be naked in front of them, despite the fact that nudity isn't automatically related to sex. Everyone has a naked body of their own, that they can look at as much as they want to - exactly what are we hiding them from? Yet, if you like to lounge around naked at home, you're expected to scramble for clothes (while feeling like a fugitive) whenever there comes a knock on the door. Even at a backyard barbecue on a hot summer day, when everybody else is in the pool, you can't swim comfortably the way you like to. You have to pretend you're one of those loopy textiles who swims with their clothes on, no matter how much you hate wearing wet clothes, or how much you enjoy the feeling of drying out naturally in the fresh air and sunshine. And you'd better think twice before making a joke about skinny dipping, because if there are any kids within earshot, somebody might think you're being inappropriate!

It's (obviously) a harder pill to swallow being an experienced nudist. What makes it weird is that I've been naked in the company of children who were complete strangers. Because we're all nudists, there's an understanding between us, and it's fine. But I can't reveal this aspect of my life to some of my closest friends and family? Even though they might be curious - if they're still minors, and their parents are too jaded to ever conceive of a context in which social nudism could be a wholesome and nonsexual activity - you have to button your lip and sweep it under the rug, and go on feeling like an outcast with a shameful secret you can't divulge. Even though, in reality, it's something you're proud of.

I don't want to put innocents in peril, and it bothers me that we live in a world filled with dangerous people, so that we can't have nice things. But sometimes we expose children to things that can harm them - like secondhand smoke (we're getting better at this), or a culture of alcoholism (why is getting shit-faced drunk a teenage rite of passage?), not to mention the violence in our entertainment (Deadpool might be rated R, but nobody's being put on a registry for taking their kids to see it). All the while other things that are wholly positive and life-affirming take on a disparate tone of foreboding, just because society has deemed them "harmful to minors" - whether or not (as in the case of wholesome nudism) that is factually true.

It's the same with dancing and modeling and fashion - things that, left to their own devices, kids love to play with (you'd think that, judging from some of the repressive messaging out there, kids naturally want to play with dolls and fire trucks until the night before their 18th birthday - and that's just not reflective of reality). These things aren't vices. They can be empowering, and a source of self-confidence. A medium for expression, and just plain fun! It's not indecent to admire both the human body's form and function. But because some people would prefer to interpret it in a sinister way, it's imbued with a veil of seediness. Like an art nude being slapped with a censor bar, giving it the impression of illicit pornography. It poisons the well, because now you can't defend any of these things without sounding like a sicko...

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.

Closing the Season

Summer is winding down to a close, and while that won't stop me from continuing to enjoy the naked outdoors as much as the weather will permit (and even in spite of the weather every now and then), it does indicate an end to the recreational camping season, and with it, my experiences in social nudism - leaving me to hole up in hibernation (with the heat turned up) until the spring comes 'round again.

But as I return to textile society after a weekend of naked freedom (one last, big hurrah), I am left (as I often am) with many thoughts. The foremost among them being that co-mingling peacefully with hundreds of people, both nude and dressed, all behaving naturally, never fails to reinforce my belief that the taboo society places on nudity is much ado about nothing.

Is there an appeal to nudity? Of course! Otherwise, we nudists wouldn't go to such lengths to reject our textile-based social conditioning. But it's unhealthy to foster the idea that the sight of our unclothed bodies is inherently traumatizing, or that permitting people to dress or undress themselves freely is an indication of the collapse of civilization.

If you have a problem with nudity, then you have a problem. I want to live in a world populated by those sorts of people I know who are rational and mature enough to enjoy life nude - or at least permit others that freedom - reasonably and responsibly, and with no small measure of delight, as I do.

I am also left with the typical frustrations regarding the apparent contradiction between nudism's commitment to body acceptance and my aesthetic sense as an artist (and human being), as well as the lifestyle's thorny relationship with photography.

To be sure, the majority of the nudist demographic do not have cover model looks, but every so often you come across someone who does, and being able to see them more "fully" than you would in textile society can be quite inspiring, although I hardly feel that it's an appropriate context in which to attempt to recruit models (if I even had such a skill), inevitably leaving me with a potent sense of photographer's envy.

But I've been ruminating about a comment [NSFW] I read recently on a nudist blog, citing that "one of the primary purposes for clothing is to hide our physically inadequate bodies as we age," and that one of the effects of requiring clothes is to reduce "the inherent advantage in being young and fit." This being the case (and it makes a certain amount of sense to me), it would seem that by removing their clothes, nudists - even as they are trying to forget the importance of looks (if ever there were a reason to discourage young people from joining in...) - should be all the more attuned to this reality: the fact (blatantly obvious to me) that these young bodies with taut, unblemished skin are, at least in a superficial sense, more physically attractive than the sagging bodies with wrinkled skin.

It's not a nice thing to say, I guess, but it's true is it not? Not that old people (or even older people) can't be beautiful, too, or kind and knowledgeable and interesting in their own way. But if we're going to admire physical beauty (and I argue that this is a valuable thing, although I often find it very difficult to do in modern society), can we not acknowledge this fact? It's a trope and a cliché that "youth is beauty" (although not everybody young is attractive, just as there are attractive old people), to the point that nowadays it's kind of non-PC to say so. We do idolize the physical qualities of youth (the mental qualities may be another issue), but then we demonize the people who openly admit to it.

Especially when the thorny subject of sex arises - and although there is nothing intrinsically sexual about nudity, it's very hard to separate the two subjects in the public consciousness. So when we begin to talk about youth and naked beauty - the aesthetic perfection of the human body in its youthful prime, before age has ravaged it - what should be a self-evident truth about nature becomes a controversial statement: that young people's naked bodies are attractive, and ought to be noticed and documented and admired. Say this, and you risk being labeled a pervert and a scoundrel.

But as an artist, all I want to do is capture the transcendent beauty I encounter in life so that I may be reassured that it has not gone unappreciated, though in its original form it will not last forever - much as a sunset, though recurrent, is transient and ever-changing - and so that I may share it with others, without being labeled a demon. What happens, then, when something I find beautiful is described by others as ugly? Does my subjective opinion count for anything? Should I be permitted the opportunity to at least present my position, regardless of whether or not others agree with it? And is there no value in depicting things that some people find ugly anyway?

Teaching Girls To Sext

[description: naked bathroom selfie with hands covering naughty bits]

I came across another article on sexting, and it struck me as approaching the issue very much from an abstinence-only sort of perspective. Like, "sexting is risky: don't do it." And this is from an otherwise liberal publication, all about female empowerment. Am I wrong in sensing an ideological contradiction here? Feminists say, "teach men not to rape", not "teach women how not to be raped" (e.g., don't wear this, don't say that, don't go there after dark). Why, then, is it "teach girls not to sext"? Shouldn't it be "teach boys (and girls) not to slut-shame"? We should be holding bullies accountable for their harassment - not teaching their victims to refrain from expressing themselves, in order to avoid the attention.

And why is confidence always considered telling boys no, but never having pride in one's appearance and wanting to show it off? ("Just say no" is an anti-consent platform). Sexual repression is not a requisite for the empowerment of women. Why is every girl who sexts a helpless victim (as opposed to an independent agent), and every boy who asks for sexts a deceptive manipulator (as opposed to, say, a doting admirer of the female form)? Is there no context in which the sharing of these sorts of pictures could be considered a positive and healthy expression of eroticism (as I've said before, one that carries zero risk of unplanned pregnancy or transmission of diseases)? When confidences are broken (as they often are) why aren't boys held responsible for their disrespectful behavior toward girls who do them the kindness of indulging their desires and fantasies? I swear I'll never understand the Madonna-whore mentality of boys liking to see girls naked, but then hurting the girls who show them their naked bodies. Isn't it the responsibility of a progressive platform (and just a decent, moral agent besides) to punish the mob throwing rocks - not join in the stoning of their victim? Didn't Christ himself say as much?

Yet why do even girls and their "protectors" contribute to this shaming culture, as if they're being paid off by some conservative lobby who wants less nude images circling around, instead of more respect shown towards each other and their bodies? It's like they see people misbehaving around a sexual trigger, and use it as evidence to support their theory that sex is corrupt and must be avoided, instead of trying to fix the problem and teach young people how to approach sex more maturely (I mean, how are we supposed to expect them to pick this up if we don't teach them?). If you can't encounter a nude woman on the street and not assault her, then #sorrynotsorry, but you need to be culled from the human race, so the rest of us can get on with things. And if you can't treat a girl who sexts with respect, then you seriously need to take a class in human decency, before it's too late and your behavior escalates from teasing a girl until she kills herself, to going out and killing "the little whore" yourself - like a 21st century Jack the Ripper.

[description: naked bathroom selfie with everything exposed]

There's nothing wrong with appreciating the erotic appeal of a nude photo. And there's nothing wrong with letting other people see your naked body. It doesn't diminish your value as a human being. You should know the risks, but it's worth talking about the benefits, too - the reasons people do these things in the first place. Not because they're dumb and impulsive (most adults' proposed "solution" to the problem of sexting is indistinguishable from the immature bullying victims receive from their peers - sometimes leading to suicide), but because it's the driving force in life, that has the power to bring us pleasure.

As both a nudist and an erotic model myself, I want to live in a world - a happier, less sexually-repressed world, where people are held accountable for their treatment of others - where people can do these things and still be respected as human beings, not one where they are shamed in order to stamp out this behavior and fulfill a sexually conservative agenda. If you feel the same way, the best thing you can do in protest is show a naked image of yourself to the world, and give the middle finger to anyone who talks down about you for it.

[description: naked bathroom selfie with two middle fingers]

Tell them, "I am a human being. I have agency. I choose to share my naked body with the world because I am proud of it, and I have the confidence to show it off. And if you don't like it, well you can just fuck off, because you don't get to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body." And all of us who engage in these behaviors need to rally together and support one another. Spread love, not hate.

Filtering

I'd been sitting on this theme for a long time, but I wanted to shoot it last (yes, this is the last planned shot in the Why Nudism? series - I managed to complete it within a year!) because it stands out in the sense that, while every other shot highlights a reason to practice nudism, this one emphasizes the importance of a nudist to be able to overcome the hangups that prevent textiles from practicing nudism.

[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars over chest and hips]

I knew I wanted it to be a play on the black censor bar cliché; the only question was where to shoot it. I picked this spot because it provides a nice, clean background (plus, I think nudity has slightly more oomph when it's outdoors), but it turned out to be a great complement to the theme of the shot, because the lines behind me kind of look like the backdrop to a police lineup, even down to me holding a black board in front of me! A little nod, perhaps, to all the legal issues that are involved when it comes to nudity.

Anyway, I was thinking about the subject of censorship in preparation for this shoot, and I came across an article [broken link] arguing that censorship is good for photography. Basically, because it maintains the "shock value" of controversial images. I don't necessarily agree that the need for censorship is good for photography (i.e., that art wouldn't flourish in a more liberated culture) - although I cannot deny that there is some satisfaction in violating taboos - but I'm inclined to agree that artists should not be so quick to decry the censoring of photography (e.g., adding black bars to a nude photograph), at least insofar as it enables controversial (albeit modified) images to reach wider audiences, who then still have the option of accessing the original work. Certainly, though frustrating it may sometimes be, I feel like I have only grown as an artist by catering to the slightly less liberated audience of deviantART (provided I still have other outlets for my more risqué works).

But that, really, is a pretty narrow context for censorship, and what I would argue constitutes something closer to a form of filtering, than the active suppression of speech that the term "censorship" is usually linked to. Censorship, in its truest form, is somebody (whether it's the government or not) dictating what you're allowed to see/read/consume. It may involve actual destruction of information - as in the iconic example of book-burning - or, more commonly, a destructive modification to the source material (e.g., applying the black marker). Even the simple act of a gatekeeper preventing certain materials from reaching an audience can be considered censorship. The common theme in all of these cases is that somebody else is making a decision for you about what kind of information you're allowed to be exposed to, whether or not you have knowingly and willingly granted them this authority.

Filtering, by contrast - while sometimes having the superficial appearance of censorship - distinguishes itself from that practice by preserving the individual's choice. It recognizes that some subjects are contentious and potentially offensive, and that a significant portion of the population may prefer not to be exposed to them without warning. It makes no moral or ethical judgments about the effects certain kinds of information may have on people. It merely lets the individual decide for themself what they're comfortable with. For this to be possible, there must always be some kind of click-through enabling the viewer to consciously choose, if they so desire, to view the original, uncensored work.

[description: a nude figure stands holding black bars to the side, exposing what was behind them]

I feel a bit like I'm taking the devil's advocate position here, as I am not a fan of trigger warnings and "safe spaces" - and I still think the marginalization of sexual speech does the subject a severe disfavor - but as I've said in the past, I'm willing to make reasonable compromises, and though I consider myself to be somewhat radical in terms of some of my beliefs, I still believe that the moderate position is usually the sanest and most advisable one. So as an alternative to "hard-line" censorship, I'm willing to live with a filtering system (as I did, mostly happily, during my flickr years) as an acceptable compromise, if not the ideal situation (which would be a more tolerant and open-minded culture).

Now, when I say that there must be a click-through to the uncensored work, I will allow that this may involve cooperation between separate sites/companies. A website needn't permit the hosting of information it deems objectionable, as long as there exists an alternative host, and the filtering site does not actively obstruct access to it. A site that prohibits linking to the original, on the other hand (as deviantART not only prohibits the hosting of "pornographic" content, but also the posting of links to sites that include pornographic content), is engaging in active censorship. The crucial difference is the preservation of choice. You may place the controversial materials behind a curtain, but not a locked door. Because you still have the freedom to pull back the curtain if you wish.

Unfortunately, what makes sexuality (and also nudity, insofar as our culture links it with sexuality) different from other forms of speech - such as crude language and violence - is the fact that there are laws with potentially severe penalties for anyone responsible for allowing minors to access such content. Choice has been removed from the equation, and the government has unilaterally (and in opposition to science and reality) deemed such speech a public menace. You may be criticized by your peers for letting your preteen watch an R-rated movie, but nobody's going to jail or losing custody of their children over it. For those of us, however, who recognize that the human body is not synonymous with sexual activity, and, to go even further, that knowledge of the carnal act is not toxic in the same way that other forms of potentially offensive speech (e.g., hate speech) may be, this is a distinctly frustrating state of affairs.

Top Google Results - "no bikinis" rule

Note: this Google survey of cultural attitudes towards different types of swimwear for women and men is a followup to a previous post.

I typed "no bikinis" rule (with the "no bikinis" part in quotes) into a Google search and then surveyed the first page of results. Here is a summary of what I found, with my comments added:

1. What Do You Think?? a No Bikini Policy??
A mom questioning whether her daughter's friend's mom's "no bikini" rule at their home isn't unnecessarily repressive and overly body-conscious (especially for children - I imagine that the conservative parent wants to keep the child ignorant of the power her body holds, but ironically, ensuring that she keeps it covered up at all times just turns it into the elephant in the room).

2. No bikinis! Wear acceptable dresses in India
An article reporting on a minister warning tourists to "respect" the culture of India and cover up. Referred to in the article as "moral policing". I cannot be sure if this prohibition extends to men as well as women, but only "bikinis" are mentioned (and condemned) by name.

3. No bikinis, booze or cannons: 11 quirky Jersey Shore laws
I could not get the gallery to work properly, but presumably, this site is calling out a "no bikinis" law as quirky - which suggests the point of view that this sort of thing is unusual and undesirable, and worth calling out.

4. Everett: Espresso stand rules are not about the bikini
An article about the "bikini barista" controversy. Specifically points out that the newly-enacted restrictions are limited to work place employees (just as you wouldn't be served coffee at a Starbucks by a girl in a bikini), and aimed at curtailing illegal activity (apparently these places were dealing in prostitution). I don't agree that focusing on what the girls are wearing is the right approach, but that's beside the point. The article explicitly states that this "no bikinis" policy does NOT extend to the beach.

5. bikinis and diet coke... a long post about mormons...
A Mormon discussing the subculture's commitment to modesty (among other things), and whether or not their religious views actually prohibit girls from wearing bikinis (or if it could be considered a matter of interpretation and personal choice). Also questions whether bikinis are really that much less modest than other types of swimwear (which is a fair point - even one piece swimsuits reveal a lot of skin). Note that this article associates a "no bikinis" mindset with a repressive religious perspective (one that the author holds), and yet it is still questioning whether that rule is not too repressive.

6. Are bikinis okay? : latterdaysaints
A reddit post associating bikini anxiety with (again) the Mormon church. The poster is an uncertain male who wishes to buy a bikini for his wife, but isn't sure it would be appropriate for his wife to wear something so revealing, especially in public in front of other people. The poster's anxieties are rooted in concerns about modesty, and the fear of other men looking at her "in a way that might not be good." The consensus among those who replied to this post is largely that the OP should do whatever they feel most comfortable with, and that there are indeed Mormons who wear bikinis (some of them included among the commenters), so that is an option.

7. FACT CHECK: 'Multicultural Beach' Sign in Melbourne Prohibits Pork and Alcohol?
A Snopes article debunking the source of an internet uproar when a sign showed up making very conservative requests of visitors to a beach in Melbourne, Australia - specifically, prohibiting pork and alcohol, as well as dogs and bikinis. The City of Melbourne publicly disavowed the sign, saying it was not one of theirs. The irony is that the requirements are allegedly made to respect "multiculturalism" - albeit by forcing everyone to observe the rules of the most conservative culture. Snopes concludes, however, that this was most likely a racist prank, intended to poke fun at (or possibly incite hatred toward) Muslims, and not an authentic expression of (multi?)cultural zeal.

8. Dubrovnik gets a dress code: wear a bikini and pay a fine
A short article reporting on Dubrovnik's (presumably the Mediterranean city) new policy on fining those who wander from the beach into the city without covering up. I think the policy sounds unnecessarily restrictive. If you don't want to see people in swimsuits in the streets, then don't live next to the beach! But that's beside the point. I think it's safe to assume that the restriction does not extend to the beach, where actual swimming occurs. Moreover, this is the first article that explicitly lumps men and women together under the same rule, even though it's the bikini that gets the headline (and why not?). And it's presumably not just for skimpy swimsuits, either - among the images in the article, there is one that includes two guys in regular board shorts (in Europe? Must be tourists :p).

9. Bikinis are inappropriate??? What is your rule?
A poster on a mommy forum questioning (again) whether another parent's "no bikinis" rule for 8 year olds is common practice. Responses are varied, and while some recommend respecting the rules of the other parent (at least at her house), to my surprise (I had thought that the "mommy blogger" demographic ran conservative), quite a few suggest that whatever a girl likes to wear, and can find that flatters her shape - one piece or two - is a-ok, regardless of age (I guess you could count this one as a victory for the feminists). I would be inclined to agree. Putting so much emphasis on the importance of a young girl to cover up seems perverse. It's no more (and probably much less) her responsibility to deflect "attention" than it is for an adult in a miniskirt. What are we teaching her when we tell her she can't wear certain swimsuits because it will make the boys (or men) leer? Instead, we should be teaching the boys (and men) to be respectful - even in the face of an attractive stimulus.

[search performed on 5/23/2018]

Tally: Two sites questioning whether a "no bikinis" rule is too restrictive, even for children. Two sites featuring Mormons who are wondering if their faith truly forbids wearing bikinis. And five sites reporting on actual rules or laws banning bikinis - two of which don't actually extend to the beach, and one that is just a joke (a joke that wasn't received very well). Of the remaining two, one is singled out as being "quirky" (and it's quite possible that it has either been repealed, or is not actively enforced), and the last one is criticized as "moral policing" by a repressive culture. I'd say that's 9/9 websites in support of people wearing bikinis to go swimming!

Bananas

[description: three bananas in different stages of ripeness, are posed beside an erect penis]

"He who has the right to eat the fruit of a tree
may assuredly pluck it ripe or green,
according to the inspiration of his taste."

- The Marquis de Sade,
from Philosophy in the Bedroom

All three stages of this banana are edible, yet you may only eat two. Which two stages look most appetizing to you? In the absence of the middle option, would you prefer to eat the banana that is underripe, or overripe? What if you happen to have a taste for underripe bananas, yet I told you those were strictly verboten? That you may eat yellow bananas to your satisfaction until they're covered head to toe in brown spots, but that you best not even look at the green bananas with hungry eyes. Despite the fact that they are perfectly edible. And quite tasty. All because of an arbitrary standard that has shifted through the ages, and across different societies.

A New Outlook

Last night I wrote, "we should be teaching young girls about the inherently sexual nature of their bodies (so that they will be prepared for the attention they are inevitably going to receive)". And as much as I'd like to put this issue to rest and move on, I was lying in bed trying not to think about it, when I had an epiphany. (See, there is utility in extended meditation on an issue! I worry, though, that few people ever think about things in enough depth to reach such enlightening conclusions). I realized something. I have personally witnessed examples of the sexual discrimination girls - even very young children - experience at the hands of adults. I have witnessed teachers shaming girls for performing gymnastics in skirts. I have witnessed parents chastising their daughters for showing visible panty lines in public. I have witnessed adults instructing only the girls in a mixed group to cover up, while the boys are permitted to frolic about in their underwear unmolested. These are prepubescent children. They should not be exposed to this kind of body anxiety at such a young age. What in the hell are we teaching them? What kind of message are we trying to send?

This doesn't change my opinion that it's important to teach girls (and boys!) about the sexual nature of their bodies. But I don't think that's really what we're teaching them. We're teaching them to be afraid. That their bodies are powerful, but that this power should be feared. The fact that we're telling little girls they need to be wary of the attention they're "courting" from men is more than a little creepy. Is it really an eight year old's responsibility to police her own behavior so as not to "entice" pedophiles? Am I the only one who is sickened by this thought? If a little girl inadvertently flashes her panties on the playground, it's not her responsibility to be modest. It's not your responsibility to protect her virtue, either. She's just a little girl. Let her play. Your only responsibility is to NOT be a vile pervert, by telling her (albeit not in as many words) she's behaving inappropriately because she's making you think of the sexual nature of her body(!). And you know what? It's no different if we're talking about a sixteen year old wearing shorts in school. If this is what we're teaching our kids, it's no wonder our society has a problem with blaming women for "leading on" the men who sexually assault them.

So, upon further rumination, I could see how a girl could grow up being made to feel as if she's been sexualized from a very young age, and that her body has been objectified by the sexual gaze of our culture. Why can't she - like a boy could - choose to wear shorts on a warm day without it turning into a community-wide (if not worldwide!) discussion of her virtue? I'd say the answer is not because we're always thinking about sex. That's inevitable. It's because our culture suffers from a toxic neuroticism surrounding the topic of human sexuality. "Sexualization" is a bogus term because we're naturally sexual. The problem is not the fact of sexuality, it's the nature of it. To remove the poison, we cannot drain the blood, we must find a way to neutralize it.

Consider this: barring the occasional "pervert" who doesn't understand boundaries (and is really an outlier, despite what our scaremongering culture insists), the people who invariably cause problems are not the ones who think of sex in a positive light, but those who think of it in a negative light. They are the ones shaming others, and trying to police their morality. They're the ones who insist that you cover up, and can't stop reminding you to be wary of the signals you're sending out. A positive, non-toxic view of sexuality embraces the sexual nature of our bodies, while striving to produce positive - not negative - experiences and feelings related to our sexuality, which inextricably relies on a foundation of non-violation of consent.

Stereotypically, it's men getting territorial over their daughter's virginity (as disgustingly outdated as that is), but in my experience (including every example given in the first paragraph), it's women "looking out" for their kind who more often than not are responsible for shaming and trying to control girls over the choices they make with their bodies. This needs to stop. Men and women alike need to learn to own their feelings. To acknowledge the sexual nature of our very existence, but learn to deal with it in ways that do not poison other people's minds. Don't tell people to cover up because you're uncomfortable - ask yourself why that makes you uncomfortable. Don't teach girls that their body is a weapon (albeit one that can only inflict self-harm), and that they must keep it concealed, otherwise they're inviting retaliation. This is contributing to rape culture! Hold people responsible for their actions instead. Teach girls that they can wear whatever they want, and be happy and confident, and that if anyone makes them feel bad for doing so, they are the problem. And then instruct those people on why they are ruining society for the rest of us.

The bottom line is that you, me, and every one of us is a sexual being (although we each approach that fact from different angles, and reach different conclusions about it). We can't help being reminded of it constantly. But we can manipulate the effect it has on us, by encouraging sex-positive attitudes, and discouraging the sex-negative ones. A girl choosing to wear shorts is not a problem. Nor is anyone looking at her legs and being reminded of the reason we all exist (it sounds weird to put it this way, but that's exactly what's going on). What matters is what we do with that thought. Don't shame her. Don't bug her. Just let her be. If it makes you uncomfortable, then look inside yourself and try to figure out why. Because you're the one with the problem - not her. Otherwise, just continue enjoying your life, and let others enjoy theirs, too. Relinquish the need for control, and you'll be much happier.

Bullet Style

I apologize for ranting on at length about this, but I have an exhaustively analytical mind that sometimes has a tendency to attach itself to things like a hungry Metroid, sucking out all the life until there's nothing left but a hollow shell.

And it's just, this note - it seems all over the place. If it weren't so poorly constructed, I'd think it was a deliberate plant to raise awareness. (Hell, it could even have been designed to make feminism look bad). But my belief is that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. So I'm going to tear it apart piece by piece.

"I am sixteen."

Establishing a fact (I can only presume) that is relevant to the author's argument - fine.

"The sexualization of my body is not my problem; it's yours."

The issue of "sexualization" is problematic, but the placement of blame here is sound. Any actions that result from another perceiving this girl in a sexual light is their issue to deal with, and not the girl's responsibility to remedy.

"You should not be sexualizing a sixteen-year-old."

Alright, you lost me. This is where the "sexualization" angle falls utterly apart. If the girl were not sixteen but eight, it might hold a little more water. Like it or not, biology ensures that the vast majority of sixteen year old human females are sexually mature. Exploiting the modern hysteria around youthful sexuality is not productive - it's a low blow, and it opens up a whole different can of worms. It's a discussion worth having, but it detracts (and distracts) from the point being made, and is on the wrong side of the issue anyway. But even if the girl in question were only eight years old, making this issue about the appropriateness of sexuality completely destroys its credibility. If eight year old girls are allowed to wear shorts because they're too young for their bodies to be viewed sexually, then what excuse do 24 year old women who wear skirts have? Saying "I can wear what I want because I'm sexless" is not only problematic, it's not even true!

"You should not be teaching young girls their bodies are inherently sexual."

As above, I hate to break it to you, but Homo sapiens is a sexual organism, and, politically correct or not, biology has seen to it (and history bears out) that most females are ready to procreate before age 16 (whether they should in our modern society or not). We should be teaching young girls about the inherently sexual nature of their bodies (and all of our bodies), so that they will be prepared to deal with the attention they are inevitably going to receive once they start puberty (if not before). This is an unavoidable fact of life. But it doesn't have to be unpleasant. We should prepare girls for it (as we simultaneously teach boys how to deal with the feelings they'll be having), not bury our heads in the sand and naively hope that things will work themselves out on their own.

"...or inappropriate."

On this count I agree wholeheartedly, although many might not. There is an argument to be made about what level of decorum is "appropriate" in certain situations - such as school. Very few people would argue that exposing your genitals in a school atmosphere is "appropriate" (although I might be one of them). How, then, does telling a girl that her genitals are inappropriate send a significantly different message than saying the same thing about her legs? If this is a feminist issue, there has been no mention whatsoever about how the rules may or may not differ for girls than they do for boys. That would have been pertinent information.

"We are people, not objects."

This is more feminist rhetoric that suggests the specious concept of "objectification". Yes, girls are people. People have bodies. Bodies are objects. We can talk about people's bodies without forgetting that they belong to people. There is no description given here to lend evidence to the claim that the author is being treated more like an unthinking, unfeeling object than a conscious human being (who must, therefore, follow the rules of society).

"Stop policing my wardrobe."

Although I would agree with this imperative - as I believe in the concept of radical freedom of dress - it rather undermines the author's argument. Although it is not clear from the limited context (I can't find a news source for the image), if the conflict has taken place in school, we come to the issue of whether the school has the right to impose a dress code. The general consensus is that yes, it does. If this were a protest of that right, I'm not sure what all this talk about "sexualization" and "objectification" has to do with it. Furthermore, there is not much of an argument being made about why the school should not have this right. If the conflict had not taken place at school, it either occurred somewhere else where a dress code is in effect (e.g., a church); otherwise, the argument becomes even flimsier, as I am not aware of any situation where a girl is not permitted to wear shorts in public (in this or any free country). In that case, the girl would not be responding to a restriction of her liberties, but merely railing against some actual or perceived criticism against her freely made choices. Although less serious, I would support her in this endeavor, if only she were making a better argument, instead of falling back on feminist buzz words to garner hollow sympathy.

"It's warm out. I'm wearing shorts."

Amen. I find myself a little surprised to be spending so much time refuting a young girl's defense of her decision to wear shorts. I love it when young girls wear shorts. And I think they should not only have the freedom, but be socially encouraged to do so. But that's why I wish she'd made a stronger argument. By equating the controversy surrounding her decision to wear shorts with the shaming of men and the "objectification" of her body, she's associating it with the worst aspects of feminism. How about, "It's a free country, and I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions. If I want to wear shorts, I'll wear shorts. After all, boys can wear shorts. What you think of my body is your business, not mine. I like my body just fine, and that's all there is to it." Now that is a positive, liberating message I could get behind!

Feminism Strikes Again

I wrote my last post several days ago. I stalled for a while on publishing it, because I felt that it was a bit harsh. I'm not trying to make enemies here. Ultimately, though, I decided to push it through, because I concluded that my frustration was justified, and feminism (for all it might be good for) cannot go uncriticized. Echo chambers produce negative feedback. Treating feminism like it's beyond criticism actually harms feminism. And feminism is desperately in need of a rehauling. Anyway, I published the post this morning, and not twelve hours later I was embraced with yet another example of sex-hating feminist rhetoric (thanks, Facebook...).

Trigger warning: feminist rhetoric

It's becoming a pervasive issue: the sexualization of school dress codes - what could arguably be described as a spoiled teenager using feminist rhetoric to legitimize a tantrum by railing against male sexuality. Schools have a right to impose a dress code. If you disagree, you have the right to protest. If the dress code discriminates against you based on your sex (e.g., girls aren't allowed to wear shorts, but boys are), then that is a legitimate feminist issue. But by riding the wave of erotophobia, couched in misandrist language, this girl is elevating her sense of entitlement to the level of social activism, dragging feminism's reputation through the mud in the process. (And the internet is eating it up in droves).

Of course a girl should be allowed to wear shorts if it's warm. And it's inexcusable for anyone (male or otherwise) to suggest that she should cover up only because the exposure of her bare skin is making somebody uncomfortable. These are the problems - the real issues at play. Not "sexualization". I've got some news for you, honey. You're sixteen. Your body is sexual. I'm sorry that the attention you're receiving is making you uncomfortable (I'm certain your sexual education hasn't prepared you for this). But that's a fact. You can't change biology just because it's politically incorrect. And are you seriously making the argument that because 24 year old women's bodies are sexual, they can't wear shorts if doing so distracts men?

The issue here is that men haven't been prepared to deal with their own sexual feelings (did I mention that sex ed in this country is atrocious?). Whether you're sixteen, or twenty-four, or eight, or eighty, you have the right to wear what you feel comfortable in. Whether that's a burqa, a bikini, or anything in between. And as a nudist, I would argue that that even includes walking around completely naked - the argument doesn't change no matter how much of your body is on display (it'd be pretty disgusting - and nudism would fall utterly apart - if that weren't the case). When a man attempts to impose a dress code because your outfit makes him feel uncomfortable, he's trying to control your behavior in lieu of dealing with his own issues.

That is the problem. And fixing it requires acknowledging and accepting the existence of those feelings (which are not going away), not fabricating an illusive reality where the fact that men have sexual feelings is the problem, and eliminating them is the only or best possible solution. This is feminism's enduring fault, and why I can never fully get on board with it - adopting politically expedient delusions while willfully ignoring the evidence provided by reality. Real, positive change can never occur in opposition to the truth of human nature. I wholeheartedly support women's rights, freedoms, and equality. And men's sexual feelings should never stand in obstruction to these goals. But all this talk about "sexualization" is bullshit. Can we stop ruining feminism's reputation with this crap already? Please?

Self-Respect

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Rape

This concept seems to elude a lot of people, but the literal breakdown of the phrase "statutory rape" yields "rape by statute" - which is to say, rape as determined by statute (not sexual violation by a legal document). The implication is that this is "rape in name only". If it was literally rape, then it would just be rape. But it's not. It's statutory rape. Being that the term "rape" refers to a sexual act conducted in violation of the victim's consent, statutory rape is applied in cases of consensual sex where one or more of the participants' consent is simply not recognized by the state - technically, making it rape. This is obviously not as bad as actual rape. Technical rape only exists so that we can tell certain people that they aren't allowed to have sex (for better or worse). It has nothing to do with what those people actually want.

Now, the inevitable fallout of claiming that "statutory rape is a consensual crime" is moral outrage. People will say, "but sex is inherently damaging to kids!" But we're not talking about "child sexual abuse" here. If statutory rape was child sexual abuse, then it would be called child sexual abuse (although there are zealots out there who would like to see this happen), and there would be no statutory rape anymore. But the concept exists because it describes a distinct phenomenon - one where actual consent (as opposed to legal consent) is present. And what about these things called Romeo and Juliet exceptions? Kids of a certain age (i.e., the age of sexual maturity, not to be confused with the legal age of consent) are in some cases explicitly permitted to have sex. Their "dating" pool is just restricted to their own age range.

So let's not pretend that nature gave nubile teens raging hormones knowing that it would destroy their minds and bodies, as opposed to, you know, contributing to the propagation of the species. Statutory rape exists for two reasons - to give a youth's parents legal recourse to pressure and punish them and their peers on the subject of becoming sexually active (because we live in a very judgmental, moralist culture); and, hopefully more importantly, to protect them from the possibility of coercion, exploitation, and abuse (none of which is guaranteed as a matter of course) by more experienced authority figures. Does the concept of statutory rape serve an important role in society? Is its inclusion on the law books justified? Quite possibly. But please, when we talk about this, let's not forget the very real difference between legal consent and actual consent. Because, whatever your agenda may be, I agree with Kinsey et al., who once said "that the happiness of individual men, and the good of the total social organization, is [never] furthered by the perpetuation of ignorance."

Sexual Agency

As a sex-positive, I don't like the idea that sexual stimulation is fundamentally Wrong (with a capital 'W') under certain categorical contexts, even where all participants would disagree with such a judgment. If two (or more) people go into a bedroom of their own volition, fool around in private (without violating the bounds of a mutually agreed upon exclusive commitment), are safe, responsible, and decent to each other, and do not regret what they have done (absent external influences applied after the fact), then in my mind, they have done nothing wrong. Doesn't matter the sexes involved, the races, the positions, the number of participants, the familial connections, or the ages. The individual is the ultimate arbiter of their own sexual agency - not the government or society. The individual makes the decision - the government and society exist only to educate the individual about their options.

Now, to be fair, I don't have a problem with placing (reasonable) restrictions on specific types of sex acts - like unprotected sex, either physically or psychologically "extreme" sex, or procreative sex. People should have the privilege to choose to engage in these activities if they desire it and are of a sufficiently sound mind and body. In a completely liberated world, everyone would have the freedom to destroy themselves (but not others, without consent) sexually. But I recognize that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own stupidity (to a certain point). Failure to mitigate the spread of disease, or the risk of unprepared (whether planned or not) pregnancy, as well as coercion and physical or psychological abuse, should all be prosecuted on the word of the victim (with all the defenses of democracy in place), in a culture that encourages open conversation, and does not shame people into keeping silent about their sexual misadventures.

I just don't believe that some people should be allowed to have all kinds of sex without discrimination, and others none - that it's a binary step function, as opposed to a dimmer switch. I believe that we all should be subject to the same reasonable rules and protections. Not everyone is (physically or mentally) capable of engaging in all varieties of sex acts. But there is not a person alive who can experience sexual desire that does not have the right to some form of stimulation. And because they have this right, we owe them an education, so that they may navigate their feelings and desires, and wield their agency safely and responsibly. It is not our role to withhold information in the vain hope of keeping people from the threshold of sexual activity. It is our duty to give them the knowledge they need, so that they will be prepared whenever they decide to cross it.

The Inevitability of Nude Selfies

[description: typical MySpace-angle nude bathroom selfie]

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

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

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

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

Nude Camping

[description: front and back portraits of a nudist carrying a camp chair and volleyball]

So I went nude camping the other weekend. Played a little volleyball. Got some sun (but not too much). Being out of the lifestyle for several months (over the winter), it's always an interesting experience coming back. By now (this being my seventh year in the social scene), it's all very familiar to me, but there are still some things that one tends to look at in different ways as one's mindset changes. Having read much discussion online about one of organized nudism's biggest challenges - drawing a younger audience to replace the aging nudist population (I have to be honest, I consider the fact that most kids raised in nudism abandon the lifestyle in their teens to be a critical failure of nudism) - it was interesting for me to consider just how little the typical nudist camp experience (at least as I've known it) appeals to a stereotypical younger demographic. I mean, even the whole "drinking and partying late into the night" thing which all the aging attendees love to do (contrary to anyone who might think otherwise) seems less appealing when you're in a clubhouse with old and sagging bodies, instead of a nightclub filled with hot, young, nubile flesh.

I hate to be superficial - I really do. One of the amazing things about nudism is that you learn to judge people based on their personality, and not their looks. Somebody with a nice body could be a total a-hole, while someone else with a decidedly less "aesthetic" figure could be a total sweetheart. And seeing what happens to everybody's bodies as we grow older puts things into perspective. One of nudism's enduring and most redeeming features is its support of body acceptance. At the same time, I've never considered this position incompatible with the truth that beauty (even just pure, raw, physical beauty) is a virtue in and of itself, deserving of admiration. And one of the tenets of nudism that I regret to see has gone somewhat by the wayside these days is the emphasis on fitness.

I'm an all-inclusive kind of person, and if you want to drink and smoke and get piercings and tattoos and sit on your ass and grill steaks on the barbie, then have at it. It's [nominally] a free country, and if that's what makes you happy, then by all means, don't let me get in the way of your happiness. At the same time, I wouldn't mind seeing those of us who do appreciate physical fitness (both as participants and as spectators) having more opportunities and being given more leeway to indulge those interests. I know, there's a whole judgment culture that goes along with that that tends to be damaging to a body acceptance perspective. I'm not saying there aren't pitfalls to navigate. But I think they're worth navigating, instead of just picking a side. Like how I've explained my perspective on beauty pageants (a mostly outdated tradition in modern nudism - at least of the American variety). The competition aspect is perhaps not all that positive (although it still seems to be accepted in terms of athletic demonstrations, for better or worse), but I don't see what's the harm in continuing to celebrate, if in a more egalitarian manner.

Anyway, another one of my enduring regrets about the organized nudist scene is the total fear of cameras. It's a justified fear, to be sure, but it's still one I think we'd be better off overcoming. To be realistic, I don't see that happening anytime soon (although a nudist revolution - perhaps sparked by a younger demographic attached to their mobile devices, if it weren't so nonexistent - could introduce drastic and unforeseen changes). But I'm dedicated to it enough not to give up on it. To me, the risk of some stranger taking my picture is smaller than the gains I could receive from being able to photograph the nudist lifestyle. Granted, I'm in a somewhat unique position in that I don't have a reputation that needs to be protected (there are already naked pictures of me on the internet - put there deliberately by none other than myself; and I have nothing to lose by anyone learning that I am a nudist - indeed, I do not make that fact a secret), and that I happen to be a photographic artist (with the interest and the talent to create beautiful works of art on the subject of nudism, and not simply snapshots of naked people to share with my friends and laugh at/jerk off to, as the case of your worst nightmare might be - although, notice how neither of those contingencies are exactly end-of-the-world scenarios).

I've spent a lot of time thinking about a way to get around this obstacle - of wanting to shoot a subject that doesn't like to be shot at - but it's a thorny problem with no clear solution, especially to one such as me who has a hard time in the "social networking" game, and is also just liberated enough to make most people uncomfortable. That's all I can say for now, as it's an open case. Suffice to say, I'd love to take action shots of myself or others (but I could settle for myself) engaged in interesting physical activities like playing volleyball out in the sunshine, but until I can work out a solution to this problem, you'll have to settle for something decidedly less genuine. Just...use your imagination.

[description: portraits at different angles of a nudist simulating hitting a volleyball]

Sex-Positive Education

I'm actually in the process of mulling over my own personal manifesto detailing what I believe sex-positivity should be, since I've come across so many sex-positives with iffy views. But I encountered this article on educating your kids in a sex-positive manner, and while it's generally a very good article with very good advice, there were a few comments I wanted to make.

8 Sex Positive Things You Can Say To Your Kids

1. "Your Body Belongs To You"

Standard good advice. But you'll notice that people always phrase this in the negative, and not realize that the freedom to say no also encompasses the freedom to say yes. Otherwise you do not have ownership of your own body, and you are simply being told to always say no (which relates to what other people want you to do with your body, and not what you actually want). So, yes, your body belongs to you, and that means no one gets to touch you without your permission. But that also means that if you want somebody to touch your body, you're allowed to give them permission to do so.

2. "If They're Not Having Fun You Have To Stop; If You're Not Having Fun, They Have To Stop"

This is a good baseline rule, but the whole "if this...then you have to stop" rubs me the wrong way. People have sex for different reasons. Having fun is perhaps one of the best. Whether or not having sex when you're not having fun is wrong or unhealthy, I believe in a person's basic freedom to engage in un-fun sex if they so choose. That's all part of the "your body belongs to you" mantra. You get to make decisions about your own body. You don't have to follow arbitrary rules that other people make for you.

Now, if the person you're having sex with is not having fun, then you should stop - unless or until you have good reason to believe that that person really does want to continue despite it not being fun for them - and that doing so won't make you criminally liable if any physical or psychological harm should result. Sex positive does not mean that all sex is always positive - it means that we take a positive approach towards sex, and we give people the basic freedoms and choices they have a right to have.

But, I'll grant the author the benefit of the doubt here, because this is probably one of those "complications" that are best left until a person has reached a certain level of maturity. I wouldn't necessarily expect a kid to be able to understand or deal with a situation like that, nor would I necessarily want them involved in those kinds of experiences. Plus, it could make sex seem unnecessarily scary, which would have the opposite desired effect that sex-positive education is going for.

3. "Penis. Vulva. Labia. Vagina. Breasts. Testicles."

Yes, this is crucial for enabling people to talk about sex, which is critically important for dealing with any and all problems that arise. However...

"vulvas are private"

Wrong, wrong, so wrong. This is NOT sex positive. Your body, your rules. That means if you don't want anyone (except you and your doctor) to see your vulva, then fine. But there is NOTHING wrong with showing people your vulva - e.g., if you happen to be a nudist. The whole "private parts" thing is very body negative and needs to be done away with post haste. We do not have public parts and private parts - we just have parts. Whether or which of those you want to make public or private is your individual choice, and it should not influence your opinion of those who make different choices than you.

Also, as I explained above, "only you or your doctor is allowed to touch your testicles" pretty much violates the whole "your body belongs to you" thing, doesn't it? Everybody is fine and dandy on "if you don't want to be touched, you have the right not to be touched." But it's a two-sided coin, and sex positivity encompasses the freedom to give people the permission to touch you if you want them to.

4. "Love Is Love"

Agreed. It's very important that kids be exposed to both alternative sexualities - gays and lesbians (among others) - as well as transgendered individuals (which kids currently still have a hard time understanding, because we still live in a culture that teaches that there are only two kinds of people - boys and girls). This should absolutely not wait until "they're old enough", which indeed encourages the viewpoint that there is something taboo about their very existence.

5. "To Each Their Own"

Yes. And let's please stop stigmatizing people for playing with their toys in ways that seem odd to the majority of the population. Diversity is beautiful.

6. "Everyone's Body Deserves Respect"

Yes! Absolutely. Especially adolescent bodies, which are the most vulnerable to body-negative messages and yet are still extremely taboo.

On the flip side, however, it's important to understand that it's okay to be attracted to some bodies and not others. It doesn't change the way you should treat a person - people deserve respect whether you're attracted to them or not - and it's not nice to insult people because you don't like the way their bodies look. But as long as you're polite and respectful, it's okay not to be attracted to everybody and think that every body is equally beautiful.

Also, it's good to focus on the fact that bodies are for more than just appearance - what matters is not just how they look, but what they can do. (And a good analogy for not insulting people because you don't like the way their bodies look is thinking about disabled people - their bodies may not be able to perform some functions that other bodies can, but they are still human beings deserving of dignity and respect).

7. "You Are Loved And Valued"

This is a great message - especially if you're saying these things to your kid - though I'm not sure to what extent it's part of a sex positive framework. I don't know how convincing it is to tell someone they are "loved and valued" if they're living out on the street with no friends because their parents kicked them out of the house. It might be better to tell people to make an effort to love and value others, rather than feeding them what could amount to sweet lies. Certainly, if you love and value the person you're teaching these values to, then by all means, go ahead and let them know that. Feeling loved and valued is indeed important to developing a healthy, sex-positive attitude, but attacking people for loving and valuing people just because we don't understand the form that that love and value takes doesn't contribute to that.

8. "I Am Here Whenever You Need Someone To Listen"

Also good. A lot of sex problems can be alleviated by having someone to talk to, that you don't feel ashamed about discussing sex (and your personal sexual feelings and activities) with. It should be noted that most parents fall far short of this, however, and in some (perhaps a lot of) cases, parents are not a child's first choice for these kinds of discussions. We can maybe change that by starting an open dialogue early, but I think it's also important that there be other resources available out there for kids to turn to in case they don't feel comfortable talking about this stuff with their parents. (Which means we'll need to relax some of the restrictions and knee-jerk reactions we have to unrelated adults talking to kids about sex).

Springtime of Youth

It is not a sickness to prefer the flowering trees in the springtime to the full foliage of the summer. It is one thing to admire the buds before they've begun to bloom, but flowers are a naturally beautiful expression of sexual nubility. They attract your attention for a very good reason - the reason we are all here in the first place. So let us not forsake this splendorous phenomenon.

Fetishizing Virginity

Can innocence be sexy? Is it allowed to be? By the principle of contradiction, every concept invites its own opposite. And as nature abhors a vacuum, so it is also true that virginity is a hole begging to be filled. Of course, this view implies that sexual activity is an inevitability, but few things in life are more certain. In that category, Benjamin Franklin would undoubtedly include death and taxes. But as sure as we struggle for survival as individuals, our biological imperative demands that we fornicate (for the inconvenient if critically important intended goal of procreation).

For some people, this involves raising a family. For others, it leads to a long string of one-night stands. For others still, it simply means masturbating before the warm glow of a computer screen (and that approach certainly has its merits). Regardless - and in spite of the existence of an asexual minority, for whom much of this discussion will probably not apply - the recorded difficulties of a celibate lifestyle (whether voluntary, or the product of ill fortune) lend support to the view that virginity was designed to be (at best) a temporary state.

So I was munching on some chocolate-covered dried cherries the other day (very tasty), and a thought occurred to me (because that's how my brain works). It's hard to find any aspect of human sexuality that is not reviled in some circles, but - popular though it is in the annals of history - lusting after virgins is not generally considered a politically correct expression of one's sexuality. Why should that be? While I don't see it as being intrinsically problematic, there are a couple of potential pitfalls that deserve to be addressed.

Love the Madonna, Hate the Whore

I despise the Madonna-whore complex. It is a woefully sex-negative view that encompasses the epitome of everything that is wrong with the Christian approach to sex. Purity is divine, because the stain of sex is a sin. When we begin to value virginity - not just for its own sake, but even as a sexual ideal - we run the risk of disparaging those with sexual experience. This view is often applied within a sexist framework, dovetailing neatly with the phenomenon of slut-shaming. If the vestal virgin is godly, then the woman who has carnal knowledge of man is one step closer to the fires of Hell.

The unfortunate result of this belief is the cultural appraisal of a woman's value based on her [lack of] sexual experience, manifested in the traditional version of marriage, in which a father barters his daughter's virginity as if it were an item for trade. This is the appalling historical origin of the custom of a man asking permission from his lover's father for the privilege of marrying her (i.e., having intercourse with her - which leads to babies - in the antiquated view). The even more disgusting flip side of this is the notion that an unattached woman without her virginity is fallen and worthless - damaged goods.

I Saw, I Conquered...Then I Came

Another potential pitfall comes in the form of the stereotype of the man who wishes to "conquer" or "steal" a woman's virginity - or, worse yet, the idea that the man wishes to "destroy" the woman (leaving her a confused and bloody mess) by taking her purity (and thus value) away from her. This relies on the belief that sex is a corrupting influence, shared by puritan religious conservatives and sex-negative feminists alike. But while it can be "perverted" (in the sense of being twisted to evil ends), I view sexuality as a positive force - a pleasure-inducing principle. I would never propose to assume that a person would be better off without carrying the weight of their own virginity - as that is a decision everyone must make for themselves - but I don't see the harm in a little friendly influence (god knows the abstinence educators use it to their own dirty ends).

A New Awakening

So, then, is the fetishization of virginity redeemable? If one were to successfully navigate the pitfalls, is there anything legitimately positive that could be said about the desire to relieve another person of their virginity? I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding yes! It's important not to put too much emphasis on a person's virginity, to avoid running the risk of reducing a person to the level of sexual experience they have, with an objectifying focus on defloration as a stackable award, instead of the importance of the thoughts and feelings of your sexual partner, while simultaneously contributing to the sexist double standards that promote unhealthy attitudes towards female sexual empowerment.

But if the evil that undoubtedly exists in the world - self-gratifying male "maidenheadhunters" - has obscured your vision to the point that you see only the evil, for fear of its possibility, and not the potential for good that underlies it, then you have already lost. And what is the loss of virginity but an expansion of horizons - the acquirement of a brand new source for pleasure? It's the first step on an exciting, and truly eye-opening journey. What man - or woman - could be criticized for wanting to share in that experience, to be responsible for giving a person their first orgasm, or even just the first stirrings of sexual reception?

Surely, you've heard the stereotype that the first time is always bad. But this doesn't have to be the case. While practice improves performance, experience can never replace the novelty of awakening a newfound sense that's never been engaged before. And while the fantasy of two first-timers groping about in the dark is (arguably) seductive, it pales next to the promise of the age-old pairing of innocence and experience. In any other discipline, we would welcome the expertise of an old-hat guiding a newbie, but for some reason, with sex, we insist on leaving the blind to lead the blind.

Again, it is imperative that we do not overvalue the importance of virginity, lest we end up hoarding it and lording over it like in the past. The second, third, and fourth times can be just as thrilling as the first - if not more so. And surely there are those who prefer experienced partners. As for me personally, I have a low opinion of those sorts of persons who have an inflated sense of modesty, and look down their noses on anyone who freely indulges in their "baser" instincts. I don't see any intrinsic value in a person holding onto their virginity beyond artificial bounds - and I don't believe that the journey from sexual innocence to experience is one that ought not to be taken, under normal (and not necessarily special, as on one's wedding night) circumstances.

But I would never disparage a virgin for her lack of experience, provided she's willing to experiment. I wouldn't disparage a seasoned veteran for her abundance of experience, either - sometimes it can be just as much fun to learn as it is to teach. But if we can be allowed to appreciate the one, then we should be allowed to appreciate the other, as well. Consider the fact that the MILF phenomenon (young men desiring experienced women) is more mainstream than its inverse - cougar culture, and that digging for gold carries a considerably less sinister connotation than robbing the cradle. Yet surely, it is no mystery to me - nor an indictment of the general goodness of human nature - that some may find an erotic appeal in innocence, and harbor a desire to participate in the sexual awakening of others.