A Window on Intimacy

Many of the erotic photos I post are, sexually speaking, depictions of "intimate" (if mainly solo) moments. Pictures of me hard, sometimes pleasuring myself. It occurs to me that someone viewing those photos might get the impression that, because I post those photos publicly for complete strangers to see, I am "open" in such a manner that I wouldn't mind just anyone watching me in those moments as they actually occur (which is debatable, considering my exhibitionism). And, in other photos where I might be with another person, since I share those intimate moments with the world, one might imagine that I'm willing to share moments of that sort with just anyone.

But there is a barrier there - the barrier of photography. I choose which pictures to show the world, and through them, I can engage my exhibitionism while satisfying others' voyeurism, all the while without betraying the sanctity of my body. That is to say, I still get to choose when and where and with whom I behave sexually, and the fact of the matter is, my choices in those matters are much more restricted than you might think. You see, erotic artists are not necessarily sluts and whores, and I would argue that that holds for 'sex workers' of many stripes (individual results will vary).

Aside: In fact, I think the all-or-nothing assumption that if a person gets involved in erotic work of any kind then anything goes is generally harmful - it reflects poorly on the image of the sex industry as viewed by wider society, and it puts undue pressure on those who get involved ("you have to go all the way!"), or those who might have gotten involved if they weren't scared away by the horror stories they've heard (regardless of how true, or how common they are). Not to mention the fact that if you characterize the sex industry as sleazy, it will attract more sleazeballs. And you think that's a coincidence? It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon that the anti-sex puritans are all too happy to support - as long as sex maintains its sleazy image, their arguments which hinge on that "fact" will continue to hold water. Never mind who gets hurt in the process of ensuring that sex remains a dangerous, sometimes even criminal, vice.

Getting back to the main point of this post... If, for example, I were to post a photo depicting someone else touching me - you could not imply from that that I would give that privilege to just anyone I might bump into on the street (or even befriend). The fact that I show the world my intimate moments does not mean that I am "loose". I am essentially saying, "come, look at this", but I am not implying, "come, and join in". To do that requires passing a very thorough vetting process. ;-)

Although as far as pure fantasy goes, you're more than welcome to imagine whatever scenarios please you most. Just remember that those are your fantasies, and I have no obligation to participate in them. :-p

Selling With Sex

I often hear people get upset when people use sex to sell their products. Firstly, advertising is far from an honest, upstanding industry. Either you begrudge their methods (and in the interest of free speech, I do), or you can attack them on a broader platform. People have reasonable arguments about why selling things with sex is stupid or wrong, but I claim that they're using those arguments to conveniently rail against sex from a sex-negative standpoint. If somebody dislikes sex, they're going to latch onto every good argument against sex that's out there (whether it's a valid argument or not), and they're going to try to lean on the non-sex-specific aspects of those arguments in an attempt to hide their personal moral judgments and make it seem like sex is bad from an objective standpoint, regardless of their personal beliefs.

So, people complain when sex is used to sell a product. I just saw a commercial where an anthropomorphic dog was used to advertise a furniture store. It didn't make any sense to me, it was just a stupid gimmick. I imagine whoever came up with it liked dogs, or just thought people who wear animal costumes are cute, and that it would generate some positive attention, that could be directed towards the product they were trying to sell. Why is sex any different? People like sex, so why should it be off-limits from an advertising standpoint? What if a person commissions a sexy advertisement for their product because they are the type of person who likes sex, and includes sex or sexiness as a part of their general lifestyle image (whether or not it has anything directly to do with the product he's selling)? What is wrong with that?

If you don't like sex, you're more than welcome to shop somewhere else. But don't try to prevent advertisers from choosing to use sex to sell products, and don't try to rob people of their choice to support companies that use those advertisements.

Sex Advice from a Nudist

I'm ripping off this idea from nerve.com [broken link] because I thought it would be fun. Of course, I'm probably cheating, because in addition to being a nudist, I'm also a sexual liberationist, but the nudist experience is definitely there. ;-p

Why are nudists better in bed?
Because they are comfortable in their skin, and more sensitive to the everyday stimulations of one's environment.

I'm interested in attending my first nudist event, but I'm really insecure about the size of my penis. What should I do?
You should learn to accept what you've got. A man is more than the size of his penis. Anyway, it's not like nudists are going to care how big (or small) you are. You're not there to show off.

My girlfriend is a nudist, but I'm not into it. I'm uncomfortable letting her attend nudist events by herself, and I'm not interested in going. Is it crazy that I want her to hang out with me, with her clothes on, instead of a bunch of naked strangers?
Yes, it's crazy. And you're ruining it for the rest of us. :p Stop being so possessive. Do you realize how lucky you are to have a girlfriend who is into nudism?

What's the best way to pick up someone at a nudist event?
Don't try. Because if you do, there's a good chance you'll get kicked out. If you meet someone, that's great, but it should progress naturally. Just because everyone's nude doesn't mean they're all looking for a hook-up.

I get easily aroused — sometimes for no clear reason. What happens if I'm at a nudist event, and I get an erection around someone I'm not attracted to, or worse, someone I am?
That depends on where you are and who you're with. I like to think most nudists will be forgiving, as long as you're not behaving lewdly (try to ignore or conceal the erection, if possible, instead of flaunting it). I get aroused easily, myself, but I find if you don't stimulate it or concentrate on it (or on whatever might have caused it), it will go away before long. If it's the person in front of you who caused it, then just try really hard to focus on the conversation. :p Worst case scenario, if somebody seems upset, address the issue in a light-hearted manner, showing them that you're personable and not trying to be creepy or aggressive.

How long do I have to wait before I asked out my sister's ex-boyfriend?
You should ask your sister that question. Unless you're on bad terms, in which case it's up to you, provided you're not interested in patching things up with your sister anytime soon.

I am not a fan of women who don't shave. Nothing personal — it's just a preference. I don't want to go home with someone, find out she's unshaven, and then offend her. How can I meet shaved women?
Find an online community for shaved people. Barring that, you have two options. If you're hooking up with someone and it's not serious, then don't feel bad about stating your preference. If you're in a more serious commitment, then you should be able to work something out if you let your girlfriend know how important it is to you.

I think it's really important for a young woman to learn about her sexuality. Is it weird to give my seventeen-year-old daughter a vibrator?
No, it's not weird at all. But you should probably ask her first, she might already have one.

I dated a professor, while I was in his class, secretly. He broke up with me, and now I've found out that he's dating another student of his. Should I report him?
Report him for what? Breaking your heart? Take the high road.

I'm a married woman who's no longer sexually compatible with her husband. Is it better to have a secret affair, and lie, or leave my husband and fuck up my kids?
It's better for you to talk to your husband, and try to work out a compromise, if possible. If that's not possible, you can still be there for your kids. You can't protect them from all the shit that's going to happen to them throughout their lives, but you can be there for them to support them when they need you.

I'm a gay man and I just found out my partner used to "date" older men for money. I wouldn't mind if he was broke and doing it out of necessity, but he was a student at a good college. I'd like to let bygones be bygones, but it's driving me crazy. What should I do?
You should talk to your partner. Find out why it bothers you, and whether it's something you can get over. He's not a bad person just because he's willing to trade sexual favors for money. Anyway, isn't it better that he did it voluntarily, and not out of necessity? Are you saying that 'prostitution' is okay if it's forced, but not if it's engaged in consensually? Isn't that a little backwards?

An Open Letter

To the Anti-Sexual Brigade:

For god's sake, if somebody finds you attractive, it doesn't mean they're going to rape you. And do they really deserve to be ashamed for feeling that way? What reason do you have to counter somebody else's positive vibrations with a buzzkill? You have this opportunity to let other people feel good, and you'd rather they felt bad? Oh, what a fantastic person you are.

You don't have to go out of your way to please anyone you don't want to, but neither do you have to go out of your way to punish anyone for being pleased by what you would have done anyway. And if you take pleasure in pleasing others, then more power to you. God forbid somebody should get their rocks off. Heavens, no!

It's one thing if somebody is giving you attention that makes you feel uncomfortable, but to punish a person just for admitting what he likes? If you had your way, I bet you would put anyone who likes to look at porn in a concentration camp, wouldn't you? Bravo, you're a true Christian soldier, doing the Lord's work. How many souls do you have to crush in order to earn your wings?

Photographic Solipsism

I envy photographers who have confidence and a pure enough spirit, that they can afford to take the moral high ground on the issue of photographing only people who have given their express consent to be photographed. I don't want to take pictures of people who don't want their pictures to be taken, but I sometimes get stuck thinking that the people I'd like to photograph would never consent to it - considering the nature of my work, and that I'm too honest to pretend that there isn't a sensual quality to my appreciation of beauty, something that is bound to scare many people away.

But, I suppose if you never ask, the answer is always no.

The trouble is, I hardly ever meet people - especially the ones I'd like to photograph - let alone tell them all about my photography hobby (which is a little bit more difficult to explain than it would be for someone who shoots inoffensive things like flowers and pets and sunsets).

If I were to take pictures of a public crowd, I would be instinctively drawn to the more attractive members of that crowd, and my realization of that fact would make me self-conscious, and I would begin to feel guilty. Because the fact of the matter is, I don't really want to take pictures of the crowd. It would just be an excuse for me to take pictures of the attractive members of the crowd, without having to single them out and ask them to model for my camera. And part of the reason I'm afraid to do that is because I feel guilty treating a person like a piece of meat.

I'd like to believe that anyone would be flattered if a photographer came up and told them they're pretty enough to be in pictures, but it's hard for me to think that way when I hear so many things about people being suspicious of photographers, not wanting their pictures showing up on the internet, and about how degrading it is to have your image appreciated on a superficial level by complete strangers.

Maybe it's my fault for conflating what people say about pornography with plain portraiture, but then again, maybe it's the odd way my mind works: that if you look at a picture and like it because the girl is pretty, that it doesn't make all that much of a difference to me (in terms of being more or less degrading) if the girl is fully dressed or nude and spread-eagled. To me, sex is sacred, and pornography is as innocent as any other kind of portraiture.

So I guess when people say, "it's different with porn", I don't really understand what they mean. Especially considering that we can't come to a consensus on what is considered porn. If a person can use an innocent image for pornographic purposes, is it right for us to then become suspicious of innocent images? And if not, then how can we condemn pornographic images outright, if there is the possibility that they can be meaningful, uplifting, and positive accounts of sexuality, that do not degrade the models? I just can't seem to sort out the logic behind the way we act on these issues, together as a culture. And I suspect that's because there is no logic behind it.

And that's why I rarely take pictures of crowds, and have very few pictures of other people, besides myself (with a few rare and important exceptions). I'm the only person I want to take pictures of who I know - with certainty - is on board with my goals and purposes as a photographer. And, you know, who won't complain when they learn that I sometimes shoot pornography, and then come to the conclusion that that somehow stains the rest of my work.

Blaming the Victim

"It's society that needs to change, not the length of my skirt." [link to news article]

Sooo, regarding the crime of rape, I think it's fairly accepted these days that the civil approach is not to blame the victim. That is, if a girl dresses in provocative clothing, or if she acts in a flirty manner, or what have you, this is not an invitation for sexual assault. I am fully behind this approach. In fact, it's the only humane approach; which places the responsibility for rape in the hands of the rapist himself, while allowing for the rest of us the full range of free expression. In other words, I can express myself in a sexual manner if I like, and that does not constitute an excuse to be sexually assaulted. (Thank you very much.)

But I think this approach can be expanded a little bit further. Some so-called feminists have a bit of a misandrist streak and love nothing more than to define expressions of male sexuality as being inherently misogynistic and degrading of women. You hear this a lot from the anti-pornography camp. Well, here's the way I look at it. If I feel compelled to create artistic renditions of girls as viewed in a sexual light through the gaze of the horny male, I don't see how any part of that involves my supporting the rape and degradation of women. If somebody looks at pictures and goes out and rapes a woman, the rapist is to blame, not the pictures, and not the person who created those pictures. If women aren't to be blamed for being raped because they dressed provocatively, then neither should I be blamed for encouraging the rape of women by taking provocative pictures of them.

Because you see, thinking that a picture depicting a girl in a sexualized manner invites rape is no different from thinking that a girl presenting herself in a provocative manner (by way of dress or behavior) invites rape. It would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that women ought to be allowed to contextualize themselves as sexual agents, but that men should simultaneously be barred from viewing them that way. Even were it possible, it would completely disrupt the sexual chemistry between males and females. You simply cannot write off all male appreciation of female sexuality as the degradation of women, and proof of their support of rape. The key to preventing sexual assault is having a clear understanding of the line between sex and rape. Defining all sexual attention as assault doesn't accomplish that.

So please, place the responsibility where it belongs; don't treat people who express themselves sexually (and that includes pornographers) as if they were inviting or supporting sexual abuse.

Lust as a Sin

I think a lot of people have a tendency to take the seven deadly sins at face value, and forget that they are only deadly in so far as you indulge in them excessively to the exclusion of other important things in your life - specifically, from a religious perspective, your duty to God. It's very similar to the concept of addiction. In moderation, none of the sins are necessarily a bad thing - despite the fact that they are considered to be vices.

Take gluttony, for example. There's absolutely nothing wrong with eating - in fact, it's necessary for survival. And I personally don't see any problem in taking enjoyment out of eating. It's only when your love of eating overcomes other considerations - like your health, spending time with friends, being able to concentrate on your job - that it becomes dangerous and loses its virtue. If you'd rather put down a sandwich than play ball with your son, for example, your love of food is a problem.

What are the other sins? Sloth? It's perfectly fine to enjoy some relaxation now and then, so long as you're not resting so much that you're not getting things done that you need to be getting done. Pride? It's a good thing to take a certain amount of pride in your achievements - it only becomes insidious when you start to overinflate your ego and put down other people to hoist yourself up. Greed? This is a tricky one, because the desire for material possessions is tempting, but who's to say a reasonable desire for enough wealth to live a comfortable life is something that poisons one's humanity? That excessive greed is a sin doesn't mean that you have to be a penniless ascetic to preserve your virtue. Wrath is a hard one to argue because even a little bit of anger can cause problems - but everyone is entitled to feel angry at times in their life. In fact, it's healthy - bottling up that anger can cause even more problems. The important thing is not to let your anger get control over you to the point that you hurt others.

People seem really quick to label anything sexual as being lustful. We can argue the definition of the word "lust", but in terms of the seven deadly sins, having an appreciation for sex and an interest in the vast realm of sexuality does not itself indicate that a person has been consumed with vice and fallen off the path of virtue. Get your head out of the Puritan sand - sex was not invented by the devil. Pleasure is not solely a device for temptation. Pleasure is a gift that God gave us. And sex is divine.

The different sins depict different qualities of varying virtue (or lack of virtue, one might say). Wrath and envy are generally seen as being negative things. Pride and greed and sloth are all viewed as vices, but this depends on the excessive application of their behaviors. In moderation, none of them are all that bad. Just like with gluttony - we don't define eating for survival, or enjoying feasting in moderation, as gluttony, it only becomes gluttony when it crosses the line into unhealthy addiction. Why shouldn't we view lust the same way? If your love of sex is getting in the way of things, then that can be unhealthy, but whose to say that all things sexual are demonic, that any sexual activity is a vice, that sex cannot be pursued as a virtue, like one who pursues the culinary arts for the purpose of brightening the lives of others?

Well I think it can.