Yesterday I discovered a naked vlogger on YouTube [NSFW], who goes by the name of Deja Nude, who is a nudist, and has a series of videos discussing nudist issues. I watched a few of her videos (and am looking forward to watching the rest), and I was very impressed both with her views on nudism, as well as her courage to post naked vlogs on YouTube. In fact, she's quite an inspiration, and I've begun to wonder if it wouldn't be a fantastic idea for me to do some naked vlogs of my own. The only problem is, despite my familiarity with being in front of the camera, I am far less comfortable recording videos, specifically ones in which I talk. I'm a pretty good writer, I think (at least that's what people tell me), but giving speeches is not one of my talents. Still, maybe, just maybe, it's worth a shot.
I'll tell you, I was this close to recording a naked vlog with my response to Deja Nude's video titled "Video Voyeurism" [broken link], but I just wasn't comfortable with it, so you'll have to get this written speech instead.
Anyway, in Video Voyeurism, Deja Nude talks about people who take other people's nudist images and submit them to sexual websites, in effect "exploiting" their nude image for sexual purposes. I agree that this is a problem, but I have a minor (maybe not so minor) quibble with the addressing of why this is a problem. (See, also, my post on sexy pictures, which covers the topic of picture trading on the internet).
I think it's important to emphasize that this is a crime of nonconsent, not a crime of sexual deviance. The motivation may be sexual in nature, but it's wrong not because it's perverted, but because these people are taking images and using them in ways that the owners haven't authorized, and may well object to. Focusing on the sexual component, rather than the violation of consent, has a tendency to conflate perversion with nonconsent. Notice how contemporary sexual mores threaten to reframe basic male desire (the pleasure in seeing chicks naked) as criminal intent.
Particularly, the concept of "voyeurism" is so tied up with a notion of clandestine spying, that it gives a bad name to people who might get a thrill out of looking, but only want to do it to people that don't have a problem with it (see my post on consensual voyeurism). The existence of the voyeuristic desire itself does not necessarily entail a corresponding lack of concern for the rights and consent of others (in other words, perversion is not synonymous with, or a direct cause of, sociopathy). Naturally, there are going to be people - voyeurs - who have this desire and don't care about other people's consent, and that's a problem. But again, by focusing on the voyeurism, as if that were the problem, and not specifically the violation of consent, you're giving a bad name to voyeurs who are conscientious and concerned about consent.
And then people who receive these messages (about how voyeurism always seems to involve nonconsent) in the social media environment, who might have these voyeuristic desires, start wondering if they, too, are capable of violating another person's consent for their sexual gratification. What we really need, on the other hand, is a positive model of sexuality that demonstrates that people can have these sexual desires - and all sorts of sexual desires - and engage in them in ways that are not criminal, and are not destructive to the social order. The only way to do that is to focus on what exactly is wrong when people commit sex crimes, instead of writing them off as perversion - as if perversion were a crime. Perversion is not a crime. I'm a pervert. I know perverts. They're good people. They're also fun people.
And in response to Deja Nude's comment that she doesn't want to be a "freakin' sex object" - I can respect that, but as for me, I enjoy being a freakin' sex object. Granted, my opinion is that sexual pleasure is a virtue, not a vice. But if the image of my naked body makes people feel good, then that's great. I'm not concerned about the sexualization of society, or the perversion of morality, or the misguided concepts of degradation and objectification. People who are tend to have either a warped or very narrow view of sexuality and exactly how it works.
Even as a nudist - and this is inevitably a point of contention - I don't mind if people interpret nonsexual nudity (mine or anyone else's) in a sexual context. That's their prerogative. I'm not so concerned about my "image" as a nudist. If someone thinks I look sexy without my clothes on, that doesn't automatically translate my naked body into a sex act, whereby I would therefore be engaging in a "sex act" (being naked) every time I enter a nudist environment - just because someone else might interpret it that way. It doesn't matter who or how many people think nudity is sexy, that doesn't change the truth of the fact that nudists take their clothes off for nonsexual reasons.
We're so afraid of who might be getting turned on in the world (why?), that we become paranoid about policing our images in society, lest somebody should think perverted thoughts about us. On the one hand, I want to say, who cares? But on the other, if people are getting off, then that's great! Isn't that better than people dying of starvation, being shipped off to pointless wars, and such? It's not just that sex isn't the worst problem that society faces, it's not even a problem. Sex is good.
P.S. Deja Nude, I still think you're awesome!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
On the topic of free speech
On the topic of free speech, there's a distinction between allowing a person to voice an unpopular opinion, and then criticizing them for it, and respecting a person's dissenting voice, even as you disagree with it. The former case is not really freedom of speech at all. Even under a regime of censorship, opinions that are disallowed can still be voiced, short of some means that can directly and preemptively prevent people from saying certain types of things. People will be discouraged (strongly) from voicing such opinions, but they still maintain the freedom of choice to voice those opinions, provided they are prepared for the repercussions of doing so. This, however, is not freedom of speech.
It's akin to saying, "you can say anything you want, but you better prepare yourself for the consequences". Giving somebody the opportunity to speak, and then throwing them in jail or executing them (or what have you) for doing so, does not reflect a respect for freedom of speech. Discriminating against a person for their opinions in other, less extreme ways (like personal criticism, ostracization, severing of business ties, etc.), may not be as severe, but it is still a form of punishment for having dissenting views. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone's views are "right" or should be adopted, but that their ability to speak up about those views ought to be respected (not just tolerated but respected); and where disagreement occurs, as it inevitably will (and should!), the focus should be on debating the topic, and not attacking the person whose opinion you disagree with. That shows a true respect for the principle - and the fundamental importance - of free speech.
It's akin to saying, "you can say anything you want, but you better prepare yourself for the consequences". Giving somebody the opportunity to speak, and then throwing them in jail or executing them (or what have you) for doing so, does not reflect a respect for freedom of speech. Discriminating against a person for their opinions in other, less extreme ways (like personal criticism, ostracization, severing of business ties, etc.), may not be as severe, but it is still a form of punishment for having dissenting views. Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone's views are "right" or should be adopted, but that their ability to speak up about those views ought to be respected (not just tolerated but respected); and where disagreement occurs, as it inevitably will (and should!), the focus should be on debating the topic, and not attacking the person whose opinion you disagree with. That shows a true respect for the principle - and the fundamental importance - of free speech.
Modeling after the Lowest Common Denominator
I don't believe the few should be punished for the crimes of the many. Does that make me a privilege-ist? Well, if a person deserves privilege, he should have it. We live in a culture of appropriation and amalgamation, where, in spite of (or perhaps as a reaction to) all the diversity in human life, we try to regulate human behavior according to sweeping generalizations. It's a curious symptom of the equality mindset, that everyone should be treated the same, and have to follow the same rules. Even if it means putting extra pressure on the underachievers and pulling back the overachievers. It occurs when you mistake equal opportunity for mathematical equality. People are not the same. Fairness (and thus, justice) is not predicated upon treating everyone the same. We're all different. We have different abilities, and we have different sensibilities. Equality means that we all deserve to be treated as having equal worth - that no one of us deserves to be overlooked, discriminated against, or have our basic fundamental rights violated. Especially if we're not like everyone else. That we're different doesn't mean we don't deserve to be treated with the same humanity. But that doesn't mean we must or even want to be treated in exactly the same way. A man in a wheelchair should not be expected to take the stairs, but his inability to do so does not reflect a lesser worth or humanity. He is not equal to anyone else in the world, he is different. But just as worthwhile as anyone else. Just as deserving of dignity and his basic human rights.
In law, we have a tendency to want to legislate across the board, because it's easier than taking individual factors into consideration. And yet, this is precisely what the courts are designed to do. And they're designed that way for a reason - to protect each individual's human rights. Because a man in a wheelchair is not a handicapped man, he is an individual. A man of color is not a black man but an individual. A female is not a woman but an individual. A youth is not a child but an individual. There are, unfortunately, persons in our midst that go about committing crimes against law and humanity - raping, stealing, murdering, etc. - but this is no justification for the limitation of the basic human rights of the individual. To legislate "safety" to the extent that it violates the freedom of the innocent is not justice. We do not have a responsibility, as citizens of a social order, to give up our rights and freedoms for "protections", nor for the excessive punishment of those who break the social order (criminals). On the contrary, it is our responsibility to stand up for our rights and our freedoms against this kind of legislative and social protectionism. That one man might steal a gun and use it to commit murder is not reason to restrict another from purchasing a gun for self-defense. The honest citizen should never be penalized for the irresponsible actions of a criminal. It is not just to punish a person for someone else's bad decisions.
In law, we have a tendency to want to legislate across the board, because it's easier than taking individual factors into consideration. And yet, this is precisely what the courts are designed to do. And they're designed that way for a reason - to protect each individual's human rights. Because a man in a wheelchair is not a handicapped man, he is an individual. A man of color is not a black man but an individual. A female is not a woman but an individual. A youth is not a child but an individual. There are, unfortunately, persons in our midst that go about committing crimes against law and humanity - raping, stealing, murdering, etc. - but this is no justification for the limitation of the basic human rights of the individual. To legislate "safety" to the extent that it violates the freedom of the innocent is not justice. We do not have a responsibility, as citizens of a social order, to give up our rights and freedoms for "protections", nor for the excessive punishment of those who break the social order (criminals). On the contrary, it is our responsibility to stand up for our rights and our freedoms against this kind of legislative and social protectionism. That one man might steal a gun and use it to commit murder is not reason to restrict another from purchasing a gun for self-defense. The honest citizen should never be penalized for the irresponsible actions of a criminal. It is not just to punish a person for someone else's bad decisions.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Sensual Nudism
Nudism is - quite vocally - not a sexual activity. But is it a sensual activity? I would argue that - strictly defined - yes, it most certainly is. Just by its own nature: shedding the layer of clothing that normally separates you from the world around you introduces a heightened sense of tactile awareness of one's surroundings, making it an experience that is highly sensual - not in terms of sexual contact, but rather in terms of contact with things in general, through your sense of touch.
Sure, nudism may often be a rather mundane activity. You do whatever you would be doing anyway, except you do it without clothes, because it's just more comfortable (or convenient) that way - because you don't like the feeling of having clothes clinging to, or hanging off of, your body. But at its best, in the most sublime moments of nudism, you are uniquely aware of the sensual experience of being in closer connection to your surroundings, and being free and exposed to the natural world.
This is going to sound counter-intuitive (if not downright offensive), but I would be more comfortable if I saw more semi-erections in nudist venues. For men, one of the primary concerns about engaging in nudism is what to do if an erection pops up - knowing that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon. Nudists tend to shrug it off, rightly saying that it's rarely as big a deal as you're liable to make it out to be. And yet, even though I am no longer a complete newbie to the practice of social nudism, it does cause me some level of anxiety.
Yes, it's true, that when you're focused on other activities, and particularly if your nerves are feeling the pressure of wanting to make a good impression, your member is much less likely to spring to attention. But does that mean that it never happens? How about after you've gotten comfortable, when you're relaxed and off guard, and you happen to find yourself in a moment of sublime enjoyment of the tactile sensations on your body? What if some unexpected pressure is applied to just the right spot, or some unplanned motion stirs an involuntary response?
There's a stereotype about nudists that they're mostly older men. My experience has been that the genders are actually more mixed than I would have expected (certainly from the online nudist presence), though there's a question of how much of that is staged (by gender quotas at nudist resorts), or driven by the male interest in nudism (men persuading their wives to join in). Though, there does seem to be a skew toward the upper ages, only partly balanced by the occasional presence of children. And there's a conspicuous dearth of young persons from around the age of adolescence (said to be caused by the unfortunate embarrassment and body consciousness that puberty brings) to young adulthood.
That's a whole different issue to tackle, but the reason I bring it up is that - and I apologize if this is a gross mischaracterization of the older population - some people may not have much of a problem having inappropriate erections at inappropriate times, particularly if they have enough trouble working up an erection when they really want one! Not everybody is in this situation, however, and there are people like myself (whether young and virile or not) who may be highly sensitive to tactile triggers and responsive to the psychological condition of being free and exposed to the world (this may skirt the issue of exhibitionism, but that's a far more nuanced topic than it's given credit for).
I regret the inconvenience it causes, but, to choose one example, spinning a hula hoop around my waist has a tendency to get me hard. After a while, if I stay focused on the task, it will go away. But at the start, I can't help involuntarily responding to the sensation of thrusting my hips in an enthusiastic manner. Nudists tell you that if you get an erection, you ought to hide it and not flaunt it. This is common sense advice, but it's not always straightforward how to go about doing it. For example, laying on one's stomach, if one is not highly disciplined, can serve to actually encourage an erection (by means of pressure). In the hooping example, if I were to stop, and hide myself, I'd never get past the initial phase after which I could continue hooping without trouble. But to get to that point, I have to spend some amount of time swinging my engorged member through the air. Wouldn't that be considered "flaunting it"?
Another issue that comes to mind is that hiding and discouraging one's sensual enjoyment of nakedness could very well significantly dampen a person's enjoyment of their nudist experience. Nudism tries very (too?) hard to be nonsexual, but the problem comes in trying to define what does and does not constitute "sexuality". Most people, I think, see arousal as a precursor to sexual activity, but I don't necessarily see it that way. Getting a boner is not sexual activity (nor necessarily proceeds or engenders an expectation for sexual activity), unless you'd like to suggest that I was having sex in the middle of my eighth grade history class on an irregular basis (you know, them crazy hormones).
Is it possible to separate sensual enjoyment from sexual enjoyment? I think there's a huge difference between your body showing signs of physical arousal in response to environmental triggers, and sitting there stroking yourself while you fantasize about sex. We can't tell what people are thinking about (and not everyone with a boner is thinking about sex), but there's that huge difference between someone who's hard just because he's having a good time, and someone who's actively encouraging his erection through direct means.
Can't we see the difference between the state of arousal and the act of sex? Don't nudists often complain that textiles don't see the difference between the state of being nude and the act of behaving in a lewd fashion? Why does the presence of engorged tissue in a particular part of the male anatomy (a state) cross this line, when a much clearer crossing point would be the direct physical manipulation of that tissue (an act)? The arousal is no more evidence of sexual behavior than a sexual fantasy that exists only in one's mind. It's only after one chooses to act on the thought or the feeling that it crosses into deliberate behavior.
As it is, I know the whole "what if I get an erection" problem is more of a psychological concern than the reality of it warrants. Nevertheless, it's something that a lot of people think about and a lot of people worry about. There are certain activities, that could be very enjoyable for me, that I am afraid to engage in on account of what might happen. As I said, nudists say it's not a big deal, but when was the last time you saw someone sporting a semi at a nudist venue and everyone ignored it or laughed it off? It's all about hiding it as quickly as possible so as not to give the wrong idea.
If I saw a few of them every now and then, and could observe that no one was getting upset about it, I wouldn't care so much whether or not one happened to pop up, knowing that my resolve not to behave lewdly was enough to prevent embarrassment. Getting hard is an involuntary biological response to a trigger, which may or may not be deliberate, and is not something you can willfully and directly control like the flexing of your bicep (I understand this is a difficult concept, as I can recall a heated discussion on this very topic between some of the students and the teacher of my 9th grade biology class).
I'd just like to have the comfort of knowing that something I can't control doesn't stand the risk of ruining my reputation and, to extrapolate to the worst case scenario - especially if it happens in front of unsuspecting women or, worse yet, poor, defenseless children - get me ousted from the club for lewd "behavior". I mean, there are nudists who think it is never appropriate to even sit with your legs apart. In a truly nudist society, we would see these things, and we would get used to them, and understand that they're natural, and nothing to get alarmed about.
I have one final note on the distinction between sensuality and sexuality. I know it's tempting to view arousal as an inherently sexual phenomenon, and hard to view it any other way. We engage in sensual experiences of various types with other people all the time. These are not people we are (necessarily) sexually intimate with. Have you ever sat in a hot tub with strangers? Had a delicious meal with family? Gone skinny dipping with friends you weren't sexually interested in (like, for example, other guys, if you were a straight male)? Or gone to a spa with your girlfriends? Most of these experiences don't cause people to get hard in most cases, but what if it did? What if stripping off your clothes and diving into the lake got you excited, despite the fact that you're not about to have sex, and aren't in the company of anyone you'd want to have sex with? It doesn't mean you're suddenly a sexual predator, looking for a target. It's just a natural, physiological function that we put far too much weight on.
And putting that weight on it is what causes this neurotic anxiety that results in far too many men worrying and asking about "what happens if I get an erection when I go to this nudist venue for the first time". If you're a nudist, and you're sick and tired of hearing this question, the best thing you can do (if you're a man), is to sport an erection the next time you go to a nudist resort. Don't flaunt it, and don't encourage it, but if it happens to pop up, don't hide it. Just let it be. And everyone else who sees it will thank you, not because they're sexually interested in you (although one or two of them might be, but who cares?), but because they'll all be that much more relieved about what would result if the same thing happened to them.
Of course, if you're in the mindset that you would quickly and happily ban anyone who acts in such a way from any nudist resort you visit (or perhaps are in charge of), then here's the effect of your actions. You're getting rid of everyone who has a healthy attitude toward sexuality, while keeping everyone around who is uptight and sexually repressed. Your fear of total sexual abandon is totally misplaced in the healthy subset of the pro-sex population. A healthy approach towards sexuality does not mean having sex everywhere with everyone. That's just as unhealthy as being so uptight that you never have sex with anyone, except maybe in the dark, under the sheets, behind locked doors, with your spouse, while shouting down anyone who ever dares to speak more freely and openly about sex than you feel is decent.
A healthy approach to sexuality means treating sexual arousal, outside the context of deliberate sexual intention, largely in neutral terms (with a lean toward feeling good for another person's enjoyment, rather than jumping down their throat for being "indecent") when it is not also accompanied by inappropriate sexual behavior. Once again, there is a huge difference between enjoying life, however your body displays this enjoyment, and acting in a socially unacceptable manner. You may as well start punishing people for getting goosebumps, blushing, or having their nipples harden when exposed to cold water.
Sure, nudism may often be a rather mundane activity. You do whatever you would be doing anyway, except you do it without clothes, because it's just more comfortable (or convenient) that way - because you don't like the feeling of having clothes clinging to, or hanging off of, your body. But at its best, in the most sublime moments of nudism, you are uniquely aware of the sensual experience of being in closer connection to your surroundings, and being free and exposed to the natural world.
This is going to sound counter-intuitive (if not downright offensive), but I would be more comfortable if I saw more semi-erections in nudist venues. For men, one of the primary concerns about engaging in nudism is what to do if an erection pops up - knowing that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon. Nudists tend to shrug it off, rightly saying that it's rarely as big a deal as you're liable to make it out to be. And yet, even though I am no longer a complete newbie to the practice of social nudism, it does cause me some level of anxiety.
Yes, it's true, that when you're focused on other activities, and particularly if your nerves are feeling the pressure of wanting to make a good impression, your member is much less likely to spring to attention. But does that mean that it never happens? How about after you've gotten comfortable, when you're relaxed and off guard, and you happen to find yourself in a moment of sublime enjoyment of the tactile sensations on your body? What if some unexpected pressure is applied to just the right spot, or some unplanned motion stirs an involuntary response?
There's a stereotype about nudists that they're mostly older men. My experience has been that the genders are actually more mixed than I would have expected (certainly from the online nudist presence), though there's a question of how much of that is staged (by gender quotas at nudist resorts), or driven by the male interest in nudism (men persuading their wives to join in). Though, there does seem to be a skew toward the upper ages, only partly balanced by the occasional presence of children. And there's a conspicuous dearth of young persons from around the age of adolescence (said to be caused by the unfortunate embarrassment and body consciousness that puberty brings) to young adulthood.
That's a whole different issue to tackle, but the reason I bring it up is that - and I apologize if this is a gross mischaracterization of the older population - some people may not have much of a problem having inappropriate erections at inappropriate times, particularly if they have enough trouble working up an erection when they really want one! Not everybody is in this situation, however, and there are people like myself (whether young and virile or not) who may be highly sensitive to tactile triggers and responsive to the psychological condition of being free and exposed to the world (this may skirt the issue of exhibitionism, but that's a far more nuanced topic than it's given credit for).
I regret the inconvenience it causes, but, to choose one example, spinning a hula hoop around my waist has a tendency to get me hard. After a while, if I stay focused on the task, it will go away. But at the start, I can't help involuntarily responding to the sensation of thrusting my hips in an enthusiastic manner. Nudists tell you that if you get an erection, you ought to hide it and not flaunt it. This is common sense advice, but it's not always straightforward how to go about doing it. For example, laying on one's stomach, if one is not highly disciplined, can serve to actually encourage an erection (by means of pressure). In the hooping example, if I were to stop, and hide myself, I'd never get past the initial phase after which I could continue hooping without trouble. But to get to that point, I have to spend some amount of time swinging my engorged member through the air. Wouldn't that be considered "flaunting it"?
Another issue that comes to mind is that hiding and discouraging one's sensual enjoyment of nakedness could very well significantly dampen a person's enjoyment of their nudist experience. Nudism tries very (too?) hard to be nonsexual, but the problem comes in trying to define what does and does not constitute "sexuality". Most people, I think, see arousal as a precursor to sexual activity, but I don't necessarily see it that way. Getting a boner is not sexual activity (nor necessarily proceeds or engenders an expectation for sexual activity), unless you'd like to suggest that I was having sex in the middle of my eighth grade history class on an irregular basis (you know, them crazy hormones).
Is it possible to separate sensual enjoyment from sexual enjoyment? I think there's a huge difference between your body showing signs of physical arousal in response to environmental triggers, and sitting there stroking yourself while you fantasize about sex. We can't tell what people are thinking about (and not everyone with a boner is thinking about sex), but there's that huge difference between someone who's hard just because he's having a good time, and someone who's actively encouraging his erection through direct means.
Can't we see the difference between the state of arousal and the act of sex? Don't nudists often complain that textiles don't see the difference between the state of being nude and the act of behaving in a lewd fashion? Why does the presence of engorged tissue in a particular part of the male anatomy (a state) cross this line, when a much clearer crossing point would be the direct physical manipulation of that tissue (an act)? The arousal is no more evidence of sexual behavior than a sexual fantasy that exists only in one's mind. It's only after one chooses to act on the thought or the feeling that it crosses into deliberate behavior.
As it is, I know the whole "what if I get an erection" problem is more of a psychological concern than the reality of it warrants. Nevertheless, it's something that a lot of people think about and a lot of people worry about. There are certain activities, that could be very enjoyable for me, that I am afraid to engage in on account of what might happen. As I said, nudists say it's not a big deal, but when was the last time you saw someone sporting a semi at a nudist venue and everyone ignored it or laughed it off? It's all about hiding it as quickly as possible so as not to give the wrong idea.
If I saw a few of them every now and then, and could observe that no one was getting upset about it, I wouldn't care so much whether or not one happened to pop up, knowing that my resolve not to behave lewdly was enough to prevent embarrassment. Getting hard is an involuntary biological response to a trigger, which may or may not be deliberate, and is not something you can willfully and directly control like the flexing of your bicep (I understand this is a difficult concept, as I can recall a heated discussion on this very topic between some of the students and the teacher of my 9th grade biology class).
I'd just like to have the comfort of knowing that something I can't control doesn't stand the risk of ruining my reputation and, to extrapolate to the worst case scenario - especially if it happens in front of unsuspecting women or, worse yet, poor, defenseless children - get me ousted from the club for lewd "behavior". I mean, there are nudists who think it is never appropriate to even sit with your legs apart. In a truly nudist society, we would see these things, and we would get used to them, and understand that they're natural, and nothing to get alarmed about.
I have one final note on the distinction between sensuality and sexuality. I know it's tempting to view arousal as an inherently sexual phenomenon, and hard to view it any other way. We engage in sensual experiences of various types with other people all the time. These are not people we are (necessarily) sexually intimate with. Have you ever sat in a hot tub with strangers? Had a delicious meal with family? Gone skinny dipping with friends you weren't sexually interested in (like, for example, other guys, if you were a straight male)? Or gone to a spa with your girlfriends? Most of these experiences don't cause people to get hard in most cases, but what if it did? What if stripping off your clothes and diving into the lake got you excited, despite the fact that you're not about to have sex, and aren't in the company of anyone you'd want to have sex with? It doesn't mean you're suddenly a sexual predator, looking for a target. It's just a natural, physiological function that we put far too much weight on.
And putting that weight on it is what causes this neurotic anxiety that results in far too many men worrying and asking about "what happens if I get an erection when I go to this nudist venue for the first time". If you're a nudist, and you're sick and tired of hearing this question, the best thing you can do (if you're a man), is to sport an erection the next time you go to a nudist resort. Don't flaunt it, and don't encourage it, but if it happens to pop up, don't hide it. Just let it be. And everyone else who sees it will thank you, not because they're sexually interested in you (although one or two of them might be, but who cares?), but because they'll all be that much more relieved about what would result if the same thing happened to them.
Of course, if you're in the mindset that you would quickly and happily ban anyone who acts in such a way from any nudist resort you visit (or perhaps are in charge of), then here's the effect of your actions. You're getting rid of everyone who has a healthy attitude toward sexuality, while keeping everyone around who is uptight and sexually repressed. Your fear of total sexual abandon is totally misplaced in the healthy subset of the pro-sex population. A healthy approach towards sexuality does not mean having sex everywhere with everyone. That's just as unhealthy as being so uptight that you never have sex with anyone, except maybe in the dark, under the sheets, behind locked doors, with your spouse, while shouting down anyone who ever dares to speak more freely and openly about sex than you feel is decent.
A healthy approach to sexuality means treating sexual arousal, outside the context of deliberate sexual intention, largely in neutral terms (with a lean toward feeling good for another person's enjoyment, rather than jumping down their throat for being "indecent") when it is not also accompanied by inappropriate sexual behavior. Once again, there is a huge difference between enjoying life, however your body displays this enjoyment, and acting in a socially unacceptable manner. You may as well start punishing people for getting goosebumps, blushing, or having their nipples harden when exposed to cold water.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Consistency & Accuracy
A huge obscenity trial [broken link] just went through in the U.K., which put the decades old Obscene Publications Act to the test. I'm happy to report that the good guys won, and the court ruled that it is legal to advertise/sell pornography depicting legal sex acts (fisting, water sports, etc.) to informed, consenting adults. Although it should have been a foregone conclusion, this is a very exciting and positive result, because in this world, you don't get to wield your basic human rights until after they've been successfully defended in court (and then, only until a different judge overturns that decision).
In addressing this result, blogger Belle de Jour writes a fantastic post [broken link] that is nearly flawless, but for a small oversight that most people would probably forgive or ignore, if not outright defend, because it relates to bestiality. Yeah, I know, bestiality is different because it relates to animals and not people. Well, fisting and water sports are unpopular to a certain demographic, too. I'm not interested in animal sex and I don't generally support it (nor necessarily think that it's unproblematic to the extent that fisting or water sports is between consenting adults) (incidentally, Belle, I regret that I have to make this disclaimer, but you know, does your argument apply to fetishes that could cost you a webhost?), but what I am interested in is being consistent, even where it means taking an unpopular stance, and that's where Belle briefly (only briefly) stumbles.
The importance of consent is crucial to the smooth running of a healthy, sex-positive world. However, in order to respect consent, we have to understand it. Belle said that sex with animals is "necessarily non-consensual". It is my understanding that engaging in sex acts with animals is illegal. It may be true that gauging an animals' consent is effectively impossible, and for this reason, the ease with which a person could take advantage of and sexually abuse an animal justifies across the board restrictions against bestiality. However, to say that sex with animals is necessarily non-consensual is not accurate. If the only thing that mattered in negotiating sex were the consent of the participants, then we'd have to allow those consensual acts that we find distasteful. A person could make the argument that nobody could properly consent to fisting, or any other kind of sexual depravity, but what really counts is what the person engaging in it wants. If it's impossible for us to know what an animal wants, or if it's our collective belief that animals are too vulnerable to abuse to allow any humans to have sex with them, then so be it. But unless you're willing to ask the animals (and are able to understand them), you can't say there is necessarily a lack of consent. That's speaking for another demographic - a demographic that doesn't have a voice. If we can't understand animals, then the most we can say is that we don't know what they want (and maybe it's best not to test the waters just to be on the safe side), but that's different than speaking for them and saying "they could never want this".
It's easy to talk about sex acts between consenting adult humans, because we're currently in a zeitgeist where that sort of thing is on the vanguard of what's popularly allowed in the sexual landscape. But if we're more concerned with truth than politics, and wish to be consistent in our beliefs and ideologies, then we must be willing to extend the principles we apply to the popular issues (fisting porn, water sports, etc.) to the unpopular issues also. Otherwise we risk engaging in hypocrisy, and allowing our well-reasoned arguments to stand as nothing more than convenient explanations for why we ought to be doing what it is we want to be doing. That's not science, it's rhetoric. And I must ask the question, is "consent" a privilege we extend only to those whom we deem fit for it (in today's zeitgest, living adult humans), like as if it were the right to vote, or the right to own land, or is it something we ought to extend to anyone (my own personal prejudice is toward living organisms, with the caveat that dead or inanimate objects don't have much to lose by being "inappropriately" handled - when was the last time you asked your vibrator for consent?) who can demonstrate that they have a personal will and the ability to differentiate (and communicate, on some level) between something they want or enjoy, and something they do not?
In addressing this result, blogger Belle de Jour writes a fantastic post [broken link] that is nearly flawless, but for a small oversight that most people would probably forgive or ignore, if not outright defend, because it relates to bestiality. Yeah, I know, bestiality is different because it relates to animals and not people. Well, fisting and water sports are unpopular to a certain demographic, too. I'm not interested in animal sex and I don't generally support it (nor necessarily think that it's unproblematic to the extent that fisting or water sports is between consenting adults) (incidentally, Belle, I regret that I have to make this disclaimer, but you know, does your argument apply to fetishes that could cost you a webhost?), but what I am interested in is being consistent, even where it means taking an unpopular stance, and that's where Belle briefly (only briefly) stumbles.
The importance of consent is crucial to the smooth running of a healthy, sex-positive world. However, in order to respect consent, we have to understand it. Belle said that sex with animals is "necessarily non-consensual". It is my understanding that engaging in sex acts with animals is illegal. It may be true that gauging an animals' consent is effectively impossible, and for this reason, the ease with which a person could take advantage of and sexually abuse an animal justifies across the board restrictions against bestiality. However, to say that sex with animals is necessarily non-consensual is not accurate. If the only thing that mattered in negotiating sex were the consent of the participants, then we'd have to allow those consensual acts that we find distasteful. A person could make the argument that nobody could properly consent to fisting, or any other kind of sexual depravity, but what really counts is what the person engaging in it wants. If it's impossible for us to know what an animal wants, or if it's our collective belief that animals are too vulnerable to abuse to allow any humans to have sex with them, then so be it. But unless you're willing to ask the animals (and are able to understand them), you can't say there is necessarily a lack of consent. That's speaking for another demographic - a demographic that doesn't have a voice. If we can't understand animals, then the most we can say is that we don't know what they want (and maybe it's best not to test the waters just to be on the safe side), but that's different than speaking for them and saying "they could never want this".
It's easy to talk about sex acts between consenting adult humans, because we're currently in a zeitgeist where that sort of thing is on the vanguard of what's popularly allowed in the sexual landscape. But if we're more concerned with truth than politics, and wish to be consistent in our beliefs and ideologies, then we must be willing to extend the principles we apply to the popular issues (fisting porn, water sports, etc.) to the unpopular issues also. Otherwise we risk engaging in hypocrisy, and allowing our well-reasoned arguments to stand as nothing more than convenient explanations for why we ought to be doing what it is we want to be doing. That's not science, it's rhetoric. And I must ask the question, is "consent" a privilege we extend only to those whom we deem fit for it (in today's zeitgest, living adult humans), like as if it were the right to vote, or the right to own land, or is it something we ought to extend to anyone (my own personal prejudice is toward living organisms, with the caveat that dead or inanimate objects don't have much to lose by being "inappropriately" handled - when was the last time you asked your vibrator for consent?) who can demonstrate that they have a personal will and the ability to differentiate (and communicate, on some level) between something they want or enjoy, and something they do not?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A New Year's Resolve
I began last year working on my overly ambitious Slumber Party Massacre [broken link] project, which took months to complete, required tracking down various outfits and scouting out different locations, and wasn't ready for exhibition until May. Actually, it was ready in April, but April saw my anticipated attendance of an anime convention, during which I cosplayed Chii [broken link] in an extravagant (both elegant and skimpy) pink dress. Between posting my cosplay photos (in addition to myself, also the girls in cosplay [broken link] I took pictures of at the con) and the Slumber Party Massacre photos (along with their Behind The Scenes entries), I got massively behind and ended up with a backlog of photos to upload for the majority of the remainder of the year - which I have only recently gotten pretty much caught up on.
However, I have the sense that I am evolving as a photographer (and model), and I'm looking into better and more efficient ways to exhibit my photography to the world. I have seen, in my work, a distinct strain of material that has uncovered itself over the last year, which reflects the sort of erotic (or pornographic, if you will) photo sets that are produced commercially, that you can find all over the internet. This type of photography has always undoubtedly been a large inspiration on my own work - websites like femjoy [NSFW] and domai [NSFW] and met-art [NSFW], and the erotic art they produce. But lately I've noticed that I've been producing distinct photo sets (as opposed to loose art) that mimic the sort of themed shoots you'll see elsewhere, usually with me dressed in some kind of outfit (either sexy or girly), stripping off my clothes and posing erotically for the camera in various stages of undress.
For a while now it's been my desire to have a website to feature these erotic photo sets (some of which have gone unpublished), but my unfortunate lack of webdev skills (I impressed my computer teachers in the '90s, but technology has come a long way since then) and total lack of experience as an economist or entrepreneur of any sort has left me high and dry. I've also been increasingly inspired to try to somehow make my artistic talent work for me, in terms of earning money for the greater and greater amount of effort I've been putting into my photography. I'll be straight with you - I hate capitalism, but I don't have any choice but to submit to it, as I don't have the skills to live off the land on my own. So I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to get things for free (and it pisses me off that my work as a photographer is not valued monetarily in the way that other types of work arbitrarily are), but I've come to the decision that to value myself and my art and the work that I put into it means to put a price on it. It's up to you to decide whether my work's good enough to pay for, but I simply can't afford to continue producing it for free. So I either have to start making some money off of it, or spend my time doing something else that's more profitable.
And that's where XTube comes in. For the longest time I was reluctant to embrace openly pornographic sites like XTube, not because I bear any ill will towards them at all, but simply because I don't like to surround myself with raw images of genitalia closeups and gushing bodily fluids. To me, eroticism is about beauty and nudity, not the sticky, sweaty, grunting mess that characterizes sex. So it's simply been a matter of taste. But there are very few sharing sites that cater to the middle ground of eroticism, and most non-porn sites don't even allow content that involves nudity (let alone blatantly sexualized nudity). Flickr is the one major exception I've found, in that they allow pornographic content, but are not characterized as a website by it. However, flickr offers no options for users to profit off of their own content (especially if it's pornographic, which is an attitude that persists all over the non-porn web - blogger included, unfortunately), and in fact they actively discourage using their site for that purpose. But XTube has its own Amateur program which makes it very easy for me to upload photo sets (or videos, if I choose), charge a small fee, and profit off of them if they're popular.
So, it's taken me some time to warm up to using, let alone associating myself with, a blatant porn site, but I've joined XTube and as of this week, I have signed up and become verified as an amateur model. Now it's a matter of producing lots of good content, and seeing if I can make any money off of it. I'd like to advertise here on blogger, but my reading of their content policy leads me to the conclusion that that wouldn't be allowed, and I don't want to risk deletion, as I've enjoyed using this blog to post lots of good content about my philosophical explorations on nudity, eroticism, and sexual liberation. However, I have registered two other accounts - on twitter [abandoned], and on tumblr [defunct] - that I intend to use to keep my followers up to date on the sets that go up on XTube, as well as other things of an erotic nature that pertain to me or happen to catch my interest. So I encourage you to check those accounts out, and follow me, and hopefully as I begin to fill my XTube account [defunct] with lots of new material, you'll find something you like, that's worth spending a paltry percentage of the money you make from whatever work you spend your time doing for a living. Thanks!
However, I have the sense that I am evolving as a photographer (and model), and I'm looking into better and more efficient ways to exhibit my photography to the world. I have seen, in my work, a distinct strain of material that has uncovered itself over the last year, which reflects the sort of erotic (or pornographic, if you will) photo sets that are produced commercially, that you can find all over the internet. This type of photography has always undoubtedly been a large inspiration on my own work - websites like femjoy [NSFW] and domai [NSFW] and met-art [NSFW], and the erotic art they produce. But lately I've noticed that I've been producing distinct photo sets (as opposed to loose art) that mimic the sort of themed shoots you'll see elsewhere, usually with me dressed in some kind of outfit (either sexy or girly), stripping off my clothes and posing erotically for the camera in various stages of undress.
For a while now it's been my desire to have a website to feature these erotic photo sets (some of which have gone unpublished), but my unfortunate lack of webdev skills (I impressed my computer teachers in the '90s, but technology has come a long way since then) and total lack of experience as an economist or entrepreneur of any sort has left me high and dry. I've also been increasingly inspired to try to somehow make my artistic talent work for me, in terms of earning money for the greater and greater amount of effort I've been putting into my photography. I'll be straight with you - I hate capitalism, but I don't have any choice but to submit to it, as I don't have the skills to live off the land on my own. So I can absolutely sympathize with the desire to get things for free (and it pisses me off that my work as a photographer is not valued monetarily in the way that other types of work arbitrarily are), but I've come to the decision that to value myself and my art and the work that I put into it means to put a price on it. It's up to you to decide whether my work's good enough to pay for, but I simply can't afford to continue producing it for free. So I either have to start making some money off of it, or spend my time doing something else that's more profitable.
And that's where XTube comes in. For the longest time I was reluctant to embrace openly pornographic sites like XTube, not because I bear any ill will towards them at all, but simply because I don't like to surround myself with raw images of genitalia closeups and gushing bodily fluids. To me, eroticism is about beauty and nudity, not the sticky, sweaty, grunting mess that characterizes sex. So it's simply been a matter of taste. But there are very few sharing sites that cater to the middle ground of eroticism, and most non-porn sites don't even allow content that involves nudity (let alone blatantly sexualized nudity). Flickr is the one major exception I've found, in that they allow pornographic content, but are not characterized as a website by it. However, flickr offers no options for users to profit off of their own content (especially if it's pornographic, which is an attitude that persists all over the non-porn web - blogger included, unfortunately), and in fact they actively discourage using their site for that purpose. But XTube has its own Amateur program which makes it very easy for me to upload photo sets (or videos, if I choose), charge a small fee, and profit off of them if they're popular.
So, it's taken me some time to warm up to using, let alone associating myself with, a blatant porn site, but I've joined XTube and as of this week, I have signed up and become verified as an amateur model. Now it's a matter of producing lots of good content, and seeing if I can make any money off of it. I'd like to advertise here on blogger, but my reading of their content policy leads me to the conclusion that that wouldn't be allowed, and I don't want to risk deletion, as I've enjoyed using this blog to post lots of good content about my philosophical explorations on nudity, eroticism, and sexual liberation. However, I have registered two other accounts - on twitter [abandoned], and on tumblr [defunct] - that I intend to use to keep my followers up to date on the sets that go up on XTube, as well as other things of an erotic nature that pertain to me or happen to catch my interest. So I encourage you to check those accounts out, and follow me, and hopefully as I begin to fill my XTube account [defunct] with lots of new material, you'll find something you like, that's worth spending a paltry percentage of the money you make from whatever work you spend your time doing for a living. Thanks!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Exhibitionists "Hiding" Behind Nudism
I've kind of pulled back on calling myself a nudist lately. It's not because I'm any less supportive or enthusiastic about the activity of nudism, but I'm becoming increasingly jaded about the community of nudism, and its seemingly unhealthy obsession with sexual purity. Now, there are practical reasons for this obsession (which I've discussed before), but that still doesn't excuse their prudishness. To be clear, it's not that every nudist is a prude - in fact, there has always been a large subset of the nudist population that is very open to sexuality, which is a fact that prudists regret, because it supposedly tarnishes the clean, nonsexual image of nudism.
Make no mistake, nudism is not intrinsically related to sexuality, and is not a sexual activity. But if we, as nudists, were to be honest about our mantra of "normal, just naked", then we ought to understand that sex can be involved in nudism in the same way that sex is involved in people's textile lives outside the world of nudism, without it suggesting that the sex is an inherent part of the activity (whether nudist or textile - sex is just a part of life, and a big and important part too, that we ought not try so hard to extricate from our lives based on bullshit puritan values). No, the thing that bothers me is this wave of elitism, which is born of nudists' desire to keep nudism's image pure - so as to render it more acceptable to mainstream textile society. This elitism breeds the sort of attitude I detest, where the pure, nonsexual nudist is a "true" nudist, and a nudist who happens to be an exhibitionist or a swinger, or gets turned on by nude scenes in movies, or what have you, is a "fake", and worse yet, a traitor to the world of nudism.
I've said it before. I get that nudism is nonsexual. And I like that nudism is nonsexual. If nudism were about naked people getting together to have sex orgies, I wouldn't be interested in it. That's precisely why I'm not a swinger, and have no real interest in becoming one. I can enjoy nudity on a purely nonsexual level. But there's also that middle ground, where being naked outdoors and in public feels sexy, and might get me aroused - not to the point that I want to start boning someone, stroking myself, getting covered in disgusting bodily fluids, no! I just mean, on a sensory level, it can be a very enjoyable sensation both physically and psychologically. And trying too hard to take the eroticism out of that just defeats the fun of it.
I'm an exhibitionist. I'm a voyeur, too. I won't lie and tell you that it isn't exciting to be able to be naked in front of other people, strangers, in different places. I won't lie and tell you that it's not exciting to be able to see attractive people nude in similar situations (most nudists are not attractive to me, just like most people in the world are not attractive to me - but every once in awhile, you'll come across someone who's attractive, and it's that much more exciting if you have the opportunity to see them naked - that's the simple truth, void of any feeble attempts to deny biology and my feelings in the hope of winning brownie points with my pastor who preaches God's decree that Man be asexual, against our very natures - that's the very basis of my point about the truth of beauty - being honest, and sincere, regardless of the image you wish to project).
Problem is, most people have this idea in their head, the image of the exhibitionist, who stands there with a stupid smile on his face, staring at all the naked people, and the voyeur, who hides in the bushes or peeks over the fence, jerking himself off while spying on all the naked people. Few voyeurs and exhibitionists actually behave like this. Most of the peepers, anyway, are not dedicated voyeurs - they're probably just curious (and who can honestly blame them?). The real voyeurs and the real exhibitionists are probably already inside the club, and are probably already good friends with you. And there's a good chance you don't know that they're a voyeur or an exhibitionist, because they aren't cartoon caricatures, they're people.
Now a lot of people being faced with that fact might think, oh god, I'm being deceived and taken advantage of, something must be done! But that's ridiculous. Voyeurs and exhibitionists are not dangerous. They're not going to rape you or your kids - in fact, if they're really voyeurs and exhibitionists, that means they enjoy just watching, and not actively getting involved; and even apart from that, their interest in the eroticism of the naked sensory experience a) does not mean they are constantly horny, looking for sexual targets, and b) does not imply that they cannot also enjoy the true nudist appeal of being naked, that is to say, the myriad nonsexual reasons that nudity is enjoyable. It's true, that a person can (and even simultaneously) be both a nudist and a swinger, voyeur, or exhibitionist. Many nudists do acknowledge this fact, but from the elitist/prudist point of view, these nudists are "dirty" nudists, not true nudists, traitors and deceivers, bringing down the name of nudism, and hurting nudists everywhere. Well that's ridiculous.
Let's think critically for a moment. Naturally, there are going to be people in the world who are turned on by nudity. Whether this is something any one person thinks ought to be the case or not, those people are going to exist. Obviously, there are a lot of people who like sex, but I think it would be a specific kind of person who is attracted to the sort of not overtly sexual nudity that nudism celebrates. Anyone with half a brain could figure out after a little research that nudist resorts are not playgrounds for sex orgies, and if that's what they're looking for, then they're bound to start looking elsewhere once they figure this out. What about the people who are curious about the nudity? Is it our place to police people's thoughts, to place restrictions upon certain kinds of motivations? Or should we judge people based on their behavior and how they comport themselves? It's easy to kick out a person who's causing a disruption, and engaging in behaviors that are clearly frowned upon. If a person behaves impeccably, should it matter whether or not he thinks nudity can be sexually exciting?
What this world needs is the creation of the image of the polite pervert, the person who can enjoy the erotic stimulations that life sends us, without acting like the stereotypical pervert, making rude comments, harassing strangers, engaging in lewd behaviors in public. Ironically, the polite perverts go largely unnoticed, due to their great ability to control their perversion and not act out in stereotypically perverted ways. So they go ignored, and the public, seeing only the type of pervert who acts out, begins to associate perversion with acting out. Then, in their language and their policies, they begin to fight perversion when the original goal was to fight those disruptive behaviors. And the casualty is the polite pervert who does not engage in those disruptive behaviors, but who is nevertheless discriminated against in the language of the policies and attitudes that have adapted to treating perversion as if it were the causal factor triggering the sort of rude and lewd behaviors they want to abolish.
And so sex becomes an enemy, and people repress themselves, and we end up in this terrible state of affairs, overwhelmed by deception and hypocrisy, where everyone is absolutely obsessed with sex (more so because it's taboo), but too terrified to admit it because they don't want to be one of those obnoxious perverts that they and all their friends are constantly compelled to complain about (because that's the zeitgeist, and god forbid you should step out of line and refuse to conform to popular notions - then again, you've been raised with these erroneous beliefs, so you probably don't even realize how wrong you are).
It's quite a mess, isn't it? Well, I'm doing my best to right it by advocating for sexual liberation - the goal being not to induce sexual anarchy, but to encourage the polite perverts, the ones who are being overlooked, to admit to their perversion in the hope that in doing so, more people will be able to recognize that perversion doesn't have to be about indiscriminate sex orgies and all the "terrible" things god (and our politicians) warn us about.
And in the meantime, I see no reason to be alarmed by the fact that sex perverts are going to necessarily be attracted to nudism. As long as nudists continue to make it clear that nudism is not about having sex orgies, and that overtly sexual behaviors will not be permitted in nudist venues, that's all that really needs to be done. There's no point in fretting over the perverts who might have the wrong idea - they can be educated, and if this doesn't change their perverted feelings, then what more can you expect? You're never going to be able to force people to not be attracted to nudity, and you're never going to be able to stop perverts from having some interest in nudism, on account of the fact that nudity is so hard to come by in this puritan world. So you might as well stop worrying about it. You can't perfectly police the image of nudism, either - you will never get everyone in the world to have the "right" (according to your limited perspective) view of nudism, and you really shouldn't want to (think diversity), so you might as well stop losing sleep over it.
People will always be attracted to nudity. You can't change it or stop it. If that's the result that public acceptance of nudism requires, then you better think of a different strategy, because you're never going to get there. You might wonder what other strategy one could possibly have - well I've already got one. Ending the sex taboo. Prohibitionists and abolitionists (these people actually believe commercial sex work is a form of slavery) will try to convince you that embracing sex will initiate a rapid societal decline into a state akin to that of Sodom & Gomorrah. This is a lie. It's called propaganda. It's seductive because it's designed to be - it's designed to make you accept their goal (controlling sex). But it's not true.
The same argument is used about drug use, and all sorts of "vice crimes" that don't hurt anyone. Pretty much everything you've been told is wrong. Why do you trust the media and politicians? Why do you trust scientists and teachers without critically examining the evidence yourself? Everyone has an agenda, everyone stands to profit from getting other people to believe their lies. Even I do. But that's why I try so hard to emphasize skepticism, and honesty to combat hypocrisy. I don't want you to believe what I say, I just want you to consider the point of view that's being silenced. Because only after balancing the issue, and critically examining the two sides can you come to a balanced decision, and have a much greater chance of accepting what is true, instead of what is convenient (or what someone else is invested in having you believe).
Everywhere I go, I see chants of sex is bad, sex is dangerous, sex is dirty. So naturally, since I enjoy sex in a good, wholesome, healthy manner, I want to promote my perspective, which is quite contrary to the popular image, which encourages no end of discriminatory language and practices against those who engage in sex (who certainly, in most cases, don't view themselves in the same negative terms their opponents fling at them). What is your goal in this world? To make everyone else think the way you do? To force them to embrace your idea of what's good and what's evil, of what's valuable, and what's rubbish? To act and think like you? Do you want to control other people? Shame on you. My goal is freedom of choice - giving people the ability to choose to live their lives the way they want to - not the way you or the sheriff or the mayor or God wants.
Generalization is the enemy of individuality. And I caution you to avoid using it where you can. I feel guilty about using it myself against my opponents, but I'm dealing with people who hurt me and others like me, due to their narrow-mindedness. I don't think most of them are bad people, I could probably be friends with them given the chance. They might not even realize how hurtful the ideas they toss around are. But that's why I'm speaking out to raise awareness. Don't criticize people who don't live like you. Try to get to know them first - actually get to know them, not just research stereotypes and more generalizations. And in the meantime, refrain from judging them, just because they're not like you, and you maybe can't understand them through the lens of your own biased perspective (everyone has a biased perspective, even me - that's why it's important to put extra effort into being objective and thoughtful, and thinking before you speak). Not everyone has it in them to be a better kind of person, but if you do, you owe it to yourself and the rest of humanity to try.
Make no mistake, nudism is not intrinsically related to sexuality, and is not a sexual activity. But if we, as nudists, were to be honest about our mantra of "normal, just naked", then we ought to understand that sex can be involved in nudism in the same way that sex is involved in people's textile lives outside the world of nudism, without it suggesting that the sex is an inherent part of the activity (whether nudist or textile - sex is just a part of life, and a big and important part too, that we ought not try so hard to extricate from our lives based on bullshit puritan values). No, the thing that bothers me is this wave of elitism, which is born of nudists' desire to keep nudism's image pure - so as to render it more acceptable to mainstream textile society. This elitism breeds the sort of attitude I detest, where the pure, nonsexual nudist is a "true" nudist, and a nudist who happens to be an exhibitionist or a swinger, or gets turned on by nude scenes in movies, or what have you, is a "fake", and worse yet, a traitor to the world of nudism.
I've said it before. I get that nudism is nonsexual. And I like that nudism is nonsexual. If nudism were about naked people getting together to have sex orgies, I wouldn't be interested in it. That's precisely why I'm not a swinger, and have no real interest in becoming one. I can enjoy nudity on a purely nonsexual level. But there's also that middle ground, where being naked outdoors and in public feels sexy, and might get me aroused - not to the point that I want to start boning someone, stroking myself, getting covered in disgusting bodily fluids, no! I just mean, on a sensory level, it can be a very enjoyable sensation both physically and psychologically. And trying too hard to take the eroticism out of that just defeats the fun of it.
I'm an exhibitionist. I'm a voyeur, too. I won't lie and tell you that it isn't exciting to be able to be naked in front of other people, strangers, in different places. I won't lie and tell you that it's not exciting to be able to see attractive people nude in similar situations (most nudists are not attractive to me, just like most people in the world are not attractive to me - but every once in awhile, you'll come across someone who's attractive, and it's that much more exciting if you have the opportunity to see them naked - that's the simple truth, void of any feeble attempts to deny biology and my feelings in the hope of winning brownie points with my pastor who preaches God's decree that Man be asexual, against our very natures - that's the very basis of my point about the truth of beauty - being honest, and sincere, regardless of the image you wish to project).
Problem is, most people have this idea in their head, the image of the exhibitionist, who stands there with a stupid smile on his face, staring at all the naked people, and the voyeur, who hides in the bushes or peeks over the fence, jerking himself off while spying on all the naked people. Few voyeurs and exhibitionists actually behave like this. Most of the peepers, anyway, are not dedicated voyeurs - they're probably just curious (and who can honestly blame them?). The real voyeurs and the real exhibitionists are probably already inside the club, and are probably already good friends with you. And there's a good chance you don't know that they're a voyeur or an exhibitionist, because they aren't cartoon caricatures, they're people.
Now a lot of people being faced with that fact might think, oh god, I'm being deceived and taken advantage of, something must be done! But that's ridiculous. Voyeurs and exhibitionists are not dangerous. They're not going to rape you or your kids - in fact, if they're really voyeurs and exhibitionists, that means they enjoy just watching, and not actively getting involved; and even apart from that, their interest in the eroticism of the naked sensory experience a) does not mean they are constantly horny, looking for sexual targets, and b) does not imply that they cannot also enjoy the true nudist appeal of being naked, that is to say, the myriad nonsexual reasons that nudity is enjoyable. It's true, that a person can (and even simultaneously) be both a nudist and a swinger, voyeur, or exhibitionist. Many nudists do acknowledge this fact, but from the elitist/prudist point of view, these nudists are "dirty" nudists, not true nudists, traitors and deceivers, bringing down the name of nudism, and hurting nudists everywhere. Well that's ridiculous.
Let's think critically for a moment. Naturally, there are going to be people in the world who are turned on by nudity. Whether this is something any one person thinks ought to be the case or not, those people are going to exist. Obviously, there are a lot of people who like sex, but I think it would be a specific kind of person who is attracted to the sort of not overtly sexual nudity that nudism celebrates. Anyone with half a brain could figure out after a little research that nudist resorts are not playgrounds for sex orgies, and if that's what they're looking for, then they're bound to start looking elsewhere once they figure this out. What about the people who are curious about the nudity? Is it our place to police people's thoughts, to place restrictions upon certain kinds of motivations? Or should we judge people based on their behavior and how they comport themselves? It's easy to kick out a person who's causing a disruption, and engaging in behaviors that are clearly frowned upon. If a person behaves impeccably, should it matter whether or not he thinks nudity can be sexually exciting?
What this world needs is the creation of the image of the polite pervert, the person who can enjoy the erotic stimulations that life sends us, without acting like the stereotypical pervert, making rude comments, harassing strangers, engaging in lewd behaviors in public. Ironically, the polite perverts go largely unnoticed, due to their great ability to control their perversion and not act out in stereotypically perverted ways. So they go ignored, and the public, seeing only the type of pervert who acts out, begins to associate perversion with acting out. Then, in their language and their policies, they begin to fight perversion when the original goal was to fight those disruptive behaviors. And the casualty is the polite pervert who does not engage in those disruptive behaviors, but who is nevertheless discriminated against in the language of the policies and attitudes that have adapted to treating perversion as if it were the causal factor triggering the sort of rude and lewd behaviors they want to abolish.
And so sex becomes an enemy, and people repress themselves, and we end up in this terrible state of affairs, overwhelmed by deception and hypocrisy, where everyone is absolutely obsessed with sex (more so because it's taboo), but too terrified to admit it because they don't want to be one of those obnoxious perverts that they and all their friends are constantly compelled to complain about (because that's the zeitgeist, and god forbid you should step out of line and refuse to conform to popular notions - then again, you've been raised with these erroneous beliefs, so you probably don't even realize how wrong you are).
It's quite a mess, isn't it? Well, I'm doing my best to right it by advocating for sexual liberation - the goal being not to induce sexual anarchy, but to encourage the polite perverts, the ones who are being overlooked, to admit to their perversion in the hope that in doing so, more people will be able to recognize that perversion doesn't have to be about indiscriminate sex orgies and all the "terrible" things god (and our politicians) warn us about.
And in the meantime, I see no reason to be alarmed by the fact that sex perverts are going to necessarily be attracted to nudism. As long as nudists continue to make it clear that nudism is not about having sex orgies, and that overtly sexual behaviors will not be permitted in nudist venues, that's all that really needs to be done. There's no point in fretting over the perverts who might have the wrong idea - they can be educated, and if this doesn't change their perverted feelings, then what more can you expect? You're never going to be able to force people to not be attracted to nudity, and you're never going to be able to stop perverts from having some interest in nudism, on account of the fact that nudity is so hard to come by in this puritan world. So you might as well stop worrying about it. You can't perfectly police the image of nudism, either - you will never get everyone in the world to have the "right" (according to your limited perspective) view of nudism, and you really shouldn't want to (think diversity), so you might as well stop losing sleep over it.
People will always be attracted to nudity. You can't change it or stop it. If that's the result that public acceptance of nudism requires, then you better think of a different strategy, because you're never going to get there. You might wonder what other strategy one could possibly have - well I've already got one. Ending the sex taboo. Prohibitionists and abolitionists (these people actually believe commercial sex work is a form of slavery) will try to convince you that embracing sex will initiate a rapid societal decline into a state akin to that of Sodom & Gomorrah. This is a lie. It's called propaganda. It's seductive because it's designed to be - it's designed to make you accept their goal (controlling sex). But it's not true.
The same argument is used about drug use, and all sorts of "vice crimes" that don't hurt anyone. Pretty much everything you've been told is wrong. Why do you trust the media and politicians? Why do you trust scientists and teachers without critically examining the evidence yourself? Everyone has an agenda, everyone stands to profit from getting other people to believe their lies. Even I do. But that's why I try so hard to emphasize skepticism, and honesty to combat hypocrisy. I don't want you to believe what I say, I just want you to consider the point of view that's being silenced. Because only after balancing the issue, and critically examining the two sides can you come to a balanced decision, and have a much greater chance of accepting what is true, instead of what is convenient (or what someone else is invested in having you believe).
Everywhere I go, I see chants of sex is bad, sex is dangerous, sex is dirty. So naturally, since I enjoy sex in a good, wholesome, healthy manner, I want to promote my perspective, which is quite contrary to the popular image, which encourages no end of discriminatory language and practices against those who engage in sex (who certainly, in most cases, don't view themselves in the same negative terms their opponents fling at them). What is your goal in this world? To make everyone else think the way you do? To force them to embrace your idea of what's good and what's evil, of what's valuable, and what's rubbish? To act and think like you? Do you want to control other people? Shame on you. My goal is freedom of choice - giving people the ability to choose to live their lives the way they want to - not the way you or the sheriff or the mayor or God wants.
Generalization is the enemy of individuality. And I caution you to avoid using it where you can. I feel guilty about using it myself against my opponents, but I'm dealing with people who hurt me and others like me, due to their narrow-mindedness. I don't think most of them are bad people, I could probably be friends with them given the chance. They might not even realize how hurtful the ideas they toss around are. But that's why I'm speaking out to raise awareness. Don't criticize people who don't live like you. Try to get to know them first - actually get to know them, not just research stereotypes and more generalizations. And in the meantime, refrain from judging them, just because they're not like you, and you maybe can't understand them through the lens of your own biased perspective (everyone has a biased perspective, even me - that's why it's important to put extra effort into being objective and thoughtful, and thinking before you speak). Not everyone has it in them to be a better kind of person, but if you do, you owe it to yourself and the rest of humanity to try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)