I am conscious of the fact that an awful lot of my pictures are similar - full body shots of me standing (often in or in front of a doorway), dressed in different things - but mostly naked. It's partly my approach to portrait photography, and partly the limitations of the places I have to shoot, but, unless I am unfairly displacing the blame, I think it has mostly to do with the limitations of self-portrait photography. As a photographer, it is unfortunate that I do not have any other models to work with, but as a model, I have often lamented - to myself if not anyone else - the fact that I do not regularly hang out with a photographer.
You can look at it either way, and as a person with experience - and interest - both as a photographer and a model, I could personally go either way (and would appreciate the opportunity to try both). As a photographer, I'd love to hang out with a beautiful model, in an everyday capacity, and take casual pictures of her, or use that everyday experience to inspire new photographic ideas. And, knowing this, I can also look at it the other way. As a model, when I'm out and about, in an everyday capacity, I often wish I had somebody around to take pictures of me - especially to document a lot of the cute and sexy outfits I wear when I'm not naked.
Not being a social butterfly, I've partly made up for this state of affairs by being (as a model) my own photographer, and (as a photographer) my own model - i.e., by practicing self-portrait photography. But it's not a perfect solution, due to the limitations intrinsic to the practice. In the first place, it's really hard to get good pictures of something you can't stand back and look at. Also, since you're not holding the camera when you take the shot, you need some kind of tripod, or some other way to set up the camera. At home, this is not such a big deal (which is why I shoot at home so much) - although it limits the kind of ready angles you can shoot from, and takes a lot of the "exploring" process of the photographer's eye out of the equation, which results in much of a "samey" feel to a lot of my pictures.
But out in public, setting up a tripod turns the whole process of getting a picture into a big production. Imagine the ease with which somebody can whip out a cellphone and quickly snap a pic of a friend in a public place, compared to some weirdo setting up a tripod and getting in people's ways, especially
considering all the paranoia about pictures and the internet and "you're not taking pictures of my kids are you?!" - even when it's pretty clear you're not. Sometimes it's just not practical (or generally permitted) to take the time to set up a tripod, and, besides, doing so really draws attention to what you're doing. As someone who easily gets self-conscious, I am just as likely to not take a picture as take the time being the center of attention to get the shot I want.
So I feel like a lot of potentially great shots are being missed, because of the way I'm sort of trapped inside my own photographic subject, and how it limits the way I see (and can shoot) myself. For example, the other day I was in the park in a really cute pair of pink shorts during a rainstorm (sheltered under a pavilion), and, naturally, as a photographer, I thought to myself that I could have gotten some great pictures of me sitting or standing out there in the middle of a storm. What I wouldn't have given for either a) a photographer companion to get some great shots of me for me, or b) a beautiful model companion to take pictures of instead. Think of all the great shots I could be taking, that I'm missing out on!
So anyway, if I had a muse, I'd be constantly checking her out, and undoubtedly getting photo ideas all day long. I know this because, whenever there are mirrors set up in my house - and I like to have lots of mirrors set up in my house - not because I'm narcissistic, but because it facilitates my craft - it's getting a glance of myself in the mirror that frequently sets off my photographic impulse. And so it was, that I was sitting at the table reading a book just after finishing breakfast, and I happened to glance over and get a glimpse of myself in the mirror and thought, that would make a great picture - and out the camera came. And see the result? Now I just wish it were easier to churn out pictures like this more often.
[description: a nude figure relaxes at a table, with morning light streaming through the window]
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Door Greeter
I've heard stories about people (especially nudists) forgetting to put clothes on before answering the door. But have you ever made the absent-minded mistake of answering the door naked with a hard-on?
[description: a nude man with an erection opens an apartment door to greet a female figure]
Okay, okay, chances are, when that happens, it's no mistake...
Greeting at the door naked is, obviously, an intriguing photo concept for me, but I realized that it would be pretty uninteresting if I didn't somehow raise the stakes and find a way to outdo my previous result (seen here). And that's how this image was born.
And now, the ensuing essay:
I've talked about this before (more than once, in fact), but I have an interesting take on exhibitionism. I'd like to believe it's not so unique, and that there are more people out there like me than the criminals and social misfits - a lot of which may not even realize the extent of their desires, or who have conformed to the stereotype in the absence of a better alternative model - but certainly my experience goes against the accepted stereotype of "the public flasher", which everyone seems to think is a sufficient representation of a person with exhibitionist impulses.
The truth is, I am very intensely turned on by the thought of being exposed - whether it's just my body, or, more specifically, engaged in sexual acts - or being so engaged in non-private places that are not usually designated for such things. (How this relates to my being a [genuine] nudist is an important but complex issue, that I have addressed elsewhere - here, and here). But here's the thing. It's almost as if people believe that if someone has a sexual desire (fetish, if you like) like this, that it's the end of the story, and he will simply get his kicks regardless of any other factors.
But isn't it true, as the BDSM community would profess, that a person with a rape fantasy, for example, is capable of withholding his urge to rape, or, probably in more cases, doesn't even have a desire to commit actual (versus fantasy) rape, because he understands all the mitigating factors that make real rape an entirely different beast from fantasy rape? There's something in there, something psychological, that makes a thing like that sexually appealing to the right person. But that's not the end of the story. We are not brainless slaves to our single-minded sexual impulses, and it does not blind us to reality and the repercussions of our actions.
In my case, there is something in the psychological concept of exposure that I find sexually appealing. I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing it just now; I'm happy simply to take advantage of it to increase the amount of pleasure in my life (without hurting anyone or breaking the law). But at the same time, I have a very strong fear of being exposed. Think about that for a second. The concept of exposure excites me, but actual exposure frightens me - because I understand the repercussions. Most people don't want to unexpectedly see that sort of thing, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that their reaction is going to be largely negative (not to mention the legal trouble you could get into).
So I don't actually want to expose myself to people. Or at least, not anyone who isn't expecting it, and I don't imagine will enjoy it. The possibility for exposure gets me excited, but were it to actually happen (and in cases where the possibility turns to imminent threat), everything changes, and I go into defense mode. So, though I may sometimes engage in nominally risky behaviors (like in remote woods, on dark streets, in front of windows), I am not a threat to society, and certainly the very conception of my behavior does not require someone to be the unsuspecting victim - that just doesn't factor into it at all.
Still, I am an exhibitionist. I learned that when I started my journey in self-portrait photography. I had to get over my inhibitions, of course, but gradually my excitement at exposing myself to a receptive and encouraging audience overtook the stress and anxiety that was indoctrinated into me by a sex negative society. I can't understand how anyone could get off on shocking and disgusting unsuspecting strangers when they could instead get their rocks off exposing themselves to people who are enthusiastic about seeing it - except, of course, that a sex negative society has a way of turning non-conformers down dark alleys by limiting and restricting the positive outlets available for non-traditional sexual desires.
Nowadays, I derive great enjoyment from the entire process of making sexy pictures (being both the subject and the director of those pictures), and sharing them with an audience who is just as excited at getting to see my exposed body, and even engaging in sexual behaviors, as I am, being the one exposed. This is what I refer to as "consensual voyeurism/exhibitionism" (since voyeurism and exhibitionism, of the consensual variety, are really just two sides of the same coin). This delights me greatly, and I've added it to my sexual repertoire, which includes masturbating to pornography, and engaging in socio-sexual contacts (i.e., actually having sex with another person) - not all of which always require orgasm, or sometimes even physical arousal, to effect a satisfactory measure of enjoyment.
And of these outlets, the exhibitionism that inspires my photography is probably the most productive, because, the way I approach it, I get to make (hopefully) lasting and worthwhile art in the process of getting my jollies. That's why I like erotic art better than both non-erotic art and non-artistic porn. It's sexy, and it's beautiful. And I don't understand these sexual conformists who believe that you should only engage in specific sexual behaviors, or that you should only have one particular kind of sexual outlet - people who believe that masturbation has no place within a marriage, or that somehow exposing yourself to (willing) strangers demeans or belittles the partners you have sexual arrangements with, despite the fact that looking is worlds away from touching! I'll let absolutely anyone look at my naked body, or even watch me having sex, if that's something they want to do (and it doesn't get me in trouble) - anyone! But I let very few people touch me. And that's just the way I like it.
[description: a nude man with an erection opens an apartment door to greet a female figure]
Okay, okay, chances are, when that happens, it's no mistake...
Greeting at the door naked is, obviously, an intriguing photo concept for me, but I realized that it would be pretty uninteresting if I didn't somehow raise the stakes and find a way to outdo my previous result (seen here). And that's how this image was born.
And now, the ensuing essay:
I've talked about this before (more than once, in fact), but I have an interesting take on exhibitionism. I'd like to believe it's not so unique, and that there are more people out there like me than the criminals and social misfits - a lot of which may not even realize the extent of their desires, or who have conformed to the stereotype in the absence of a better alternative model - but certainly my experience goes against the accepted stereotype of "the public flasher", which everyone seems to think is a sufficient representation of a person with exhibitionist impulses.
The truth is, I am very intensely turned on by the thought of being exposed - whether it's just my body, or, more specifically, engaged in sexual acts - or being so engaged in non-private places that are not usually designated for such things. (How this relates to my being a [genuine] nudist is an important but complex issue, that I have addressed elsewhere - here, and here). But here's the thing. It's almost as if people believe that if someone has a sexual desire (fetish, if you like) like this, that it's the end of the story, and he will simply get his kicks regardless of any other factors.
But isn't it true, as the BDSM community would profess, that a person with a rape fantasy, for example, is capable of withholding his urge to rape, or, probably in more cases, doesn't even have a desire to commit actual (versus fantasy) rape, because he understands all the mitigating factors that make real rape an entirely different beast from fantasy rape? There's something in there, something psychological, that makes a thing like that sexually appealing to the right person. But that's not the end of the story. We are not brainless slaves to our single-minded sexual impulses, and it does not blind us to reality and the repercussions of our actions.
In my case, there is something in the psychological concept of exposure that I find sexually appealing. I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing it just now; I'm happy simply to take advantage of it to increase the amount of pleasure in my life (without hurting anyone or breaking the law). But at the same time, I have a very strong fear of being exposed. Think about that for a second. The concept of exposure excites me, but actual exposure frightens me - because I understand the repercussions. Most people don't want to unexpectedly see that sort of thing, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that their reaction is going to be largely negative (not to mention the legal trouble you could get into).
So I don't actually want to expose myself to people. Or at least, not anyone who isn't expecting it, and I don't imagine will enjoy it. The possibility for exposure gets me excited, but were it to actually happen (and in cases where the possibility turns to imminent threat), everything changes, and I go into defense mode. So, though I may sometimes engage in nominally risky behaviors (like in remote woods, on dark streets, in front of windows), I am not a threat to society, and certainly the very conception of my behavior does not require someone to be the unsuspecting victim - that just doesn't factor into it at all.
Still, I am an exhibitionist. I learned that when I started my journey in self-portrait photography. I had to get over my inhibitions, of course, but gradually my excitement at exposing myself to a receptive and encouraging audience overtook the stress and anxiety that was indoctrinated into me by a sex negative society. I can't understand how anyone could get off on shocking and disgusting unsuspecting strangers when they could instead get their rocks off exposing themselves to people who are enthusiastic about seeing it - except, of course, that a sex negative society has a way of turning non-conformers down dark alleys by limiting and restricting the positive outlets available for non-traditional sexual desires.
Nowadays, I derive great enjoyment from the entire process of making sexy pictures (being both the subject and the director of those pictures), and sharing them with an audience who is just as excited at getting to see my exposed body, and even engaging in sexual behaviors, as I am, being the one exposed. This is what I refer to as "consensual voyeurism/exhibitionism" (since voyeurism and exhibitionism, of the consensual variety, are really just two sides of the same coin). This delights me greatly, and I've added it to my sexual repertoire, which includes masturbating to pornography, and engaging in socio-sexual contacts (i.e., actually having sex with another person) - not all of which always require orgasm, or sometimes even physical arousal, to effect a satisfactory measure of enjoyment.
And of these outlets, the exhibitionism that inspires my photography is probably the most productive, because, the way I approach it, I get to make (hopefully) lasting and worthwhile art in the process of getting my jollies. That's why I like erotic art better than both non-erotic art and non-artistic porn. It's sexy, and it's beautiful. And I don't understand these sexual conformists who believe that you should only engage in specific sexual behaviors, or that you should only have one particular kind of sexual outlet - people who believe that masturbation has no place within a marriage, or that somehow exposing yourself to (willing) strangers demeans or belittles the partners you have sexual arrangements with, despite the fact that looking is worlds away from touching! I'll let absolutely anyone look at my naked body, or even watch me having sex, if that's something they want to do (and it doesn't get me in trouble) - anyone! But I let very few people touch me. And that's just the way I like it.
Friday, June 13, 2014
When I'm not posing
[description: greyscale nude portrait, unposed]
Perhaps there would be some value in doing a photo study to emphasize the difference between how I look when I'm all perfectly posed for a photograph, and how I really look, with all my flaws hanging out, in everyday life. I think it's important for people to understand that idealized photographs are a selective and often manipulated cross-section of reality, and that even people who look perfect in them are not so perfect in real life. Perhaps it would also be valuable to demonstrate the fact that a person can still look beautiful, and above all, the magnetism of their personhood can shine through, even when they don't have perfect, streamlined bodies. After all, that's the goal of body acceptance is it not? And the antithesis of vanity - although maybe I'm not the best poster child for that...
[description: greyscale portrait of a nude man entering a doorway, viewed from behind]
Still, it's worth thinking about. But for now, the impetus of these two shots was simply the desire to document more naturally how I look when I'm moving about the house, in the nude, as opposed to the usual images you see of me in largely artificial positions, designed to emphasize my best features, and hide my flaws. I think it's amazing, for example, that from the right angle, in the right light, I can take pictures of myself that make it look like I have a trim, tight stomach, seeing as the extra flab around my midsection is one of my most frustrating problem areas. Of course, it's often the case that a person is their own worst critic, and that's certainly true of me at times. And everyone has different tastes, and there are other qualities beyond the surface layer that contribute to the way a person sees you, besides.
But I shoot my photography mainly to please myself. That it can please others, too, delights me enormously.
Posed, for comparison:
[description: greyscale portrait of a nude man unnaturally posed]
I like the first one, because it's more honest. I think there's more of a humanity to it, and that's definitely something I can pick up on. At the same time, as an aesthete, the lines and curves in the last image are irresistible. I don't even care if it's forced. It's still real. I think there's room in the art world - and my portfolio - for both, and there's no reason to disparage either one.
Perhaps there would be some value in doing a photo study to emphasize the difference between how I look when I'm all perfectly posed for a photograph, and how I really look, with all my flaws hanging out, in everyday life. I think it's important for people to understand that idealized photographs are a selective and often manipulated cross-section of reality, and that even people who look perfect in them are not so perfect in real life. Perhaps it would also be valuable to demonstrate the fact that a person can still look beautiful, and above all, the magnetism of their personhood can shine through, even when they don't have perfect, streamlined bodies. After all, that's the goal of body acceptance is it not? And the antithesis of vanity - although maybe I'm not the best poster child for that...
[description: greyscale portrait of a nude man entering a doorway, viewed from behind]
Still, it's worth thinking about. But for now, the impetus of these two shots was simply the desire to document more naturally how I look when I'm moving about the house, in the nude, as opposed to the usual images you see of me in largely artificial positions, designed to emphasize my best features, and hide my flaws. I think it's amazing, for example, that from the right angle, in the right light, I can take pictures of myself that make it look like I have a trim, tight stomach, seeing as the extra flab around my midsection is one of my most frustrating problem areas. Of course, it's often the case that a person is their own worst critic, and that's certainly true of me at times. And everyone has different tastes, and there are other qualities beyond the surface layer that contribute to the way a person sees you, besides.
But I shoot my photography mainly to please myself. That it can please others, too, delights me enormously.
Posed, for comparison:
[description: greyscale portrait of a nude man unnaturally posed]
I like the first one, because it's more honest. I think there's more of a humanity to it, and that's definitely something I can pick up on. At the same time, as an aesthete, the lines and curves in the last image are irresistible. I don't even care if it's forced. It's still real. I think there's room in the art world - and my portfolio - for both, and there's no reason to disparage either one.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Swimsuit Model
Hello, there. I'm trying to decide which of these swimsuits I should wear to the pool. Care to help me decide?
Origin: I bought this bikini at a secondhand store, because it looked so hot, and I really wanted it, mainly to wear for private photo sessions.
Pros: It's a string bikini, what more can I say? It's hot pink, really skimpy, and super sexy!
Cons: It doesn't stay on. I don't have the breasts to keep the top in place, and the material on the bottom doesn't stretch much; it is utterly incapable of keeping my package in and holding itself up.
Verdict: Cute and sexy, but not practical for public wear.
Origin: This is actually just the bottom half of a regular bikini I received as a hand-me-down (or up), but I like to wear it on its own. It's pretty comfortable.
Pros: While still being cute (it has cherries on it), the black color is a little less flashy, which I think draws less attention to my package. Also, the material does an incredible job of stretching over my package and keeping everything in place.
Cons: There's nothing, really, I dislike about this suit, but it should be kept in mind that not everyone is used to men showing off so much skin, or even just wearing styles like this.
Verdict: This is definitely a swimsuit I could wear in public, but only in places where people wouldn't freak out over a man wearing so little. (And not in pools that have sexist rules that discriminate against men).
Origin: This is one of two suits I bought online, while looking for a compromise between the bikini I'd like to wear and the board shorts men are expected to wear (my legs are one of my best features, it's not fair that I should have to cover them up just because I'm a man!). This is the more daring of the two.
Pros: It's really cute - and pink! It fits well and keeps everything in place. Plus, it hugs my ass real tight and makes it look fantastic!
Cons: Even though the legs of the shorts are super short (pro!), they have a tendency to ride up my thighs. Other than that, the way the suit grips my package is maybe not so modest, and especially between the legs there's some definite "cameltoe" action (or male equivalent) going on.
Verdict: It's cute and sexy, and more practical than the string bikini, but probably not something I would wear in public unless I was very comfortable with the people I'd be around (or, perhaps more importantly, if the people I'd be around were very comfortable with me).
Origin: This is the more modest of the two suits I bought online, and was exactly the style I was looking for as a compromise between the coverage of shorts and the exposure of "briefs".
Pros: I think the style is cute, and looks very much like a pair of short athletic shorts. The black color is modest, and my package stays in place and out of the spotlight. The pockets are really small and maybe not that practical, but I still think they're a nice touch - I could probably throw my keys in there if I'm walking across the deck, or some money for the snack bar or something.
Cons: They cover more than I'd like, and they don't show off my ass as much, but those are both things I think I'm gonna have to deal with if I want a suit that won't freak people out.
Verdict: It's more modest than my personal style would call for, but it's probably the least I could get away with (knock on wood) in any regular capacity. That having been said, for a more modest suit (I know, my standards are twisted, aren't they?), I quite like it, so I can't really complain. All that's left is to actually try it out!
Origin: I picked up this suit on the day of my birth, and I've been wearing it ever since. In fact, I absolutely refused to take it off when I was a child. I like to wear it as much as possible these days.
Pros: It's surprisingly flattering, and really as attractive as anything I could wear. There is also, of course, the sensual delight in baring it all. It also dries very fast, and doesn't cling to you when you climb out of the pool.
Cons: Aside from the fact that you could get arrested for wearing it in most public places, the only real problem with it I could foresee is that, among all the suits, it provides the least coverage in the embarrassing case that something unexpectedly gets you "excited". So some self-control is required.
Verdict: Obviously - and unfortunately - this is not a practical suit for most public environments. But in those few places where it is allowed - in private, and in clothing optional pools and swimming holes - I recommend it wholeheartedly.
The String Bikini
Origin: I bought this bikini at a secondhand store, because it looked so hot, and I really wanted it, mainly to wear for private photo sessions.
Pros: It's a string bikini, what more can I say? It's hot pink, really skimpy, and super sexy!
Cons: It doesn't stay on. I don't have the breasts to keep the top in place, and the material on the bottom doesn't stretch much; it is utterly incapable of keeping my package in and holding itself up.
Verdict: Cute and sexy, but not practical for public wear.
The "Mankini"
Origin: This is actually just the bottom half of a regular bikini I received as a hand-me-down (or up), but I like to wear it on its own. It's pretty comfortable.
Pros: While still being cute (it has cherries on it), the black color is a little less flashy, which I think draws less attention to my package. Also, the material does an incredible job of stretching over my package and keeping everything in place.
Cons: There's nothing, really, I dislike about this suit, but it should be kept in mind that not everyone is used to men showing off so much skin, or even just wearing styles like this.
Verdict: This is definitely a swimsuit I could wear in public, but only in places where people wouldn't freak out over a man wearing so little. (And not in pools that have sexist rules that discriminate against men).
The Pink Suit
Origin: This is one of two suits I bought online, while looking for a compromise between the bikini I'd like to wear and the board shorts men are expected to wear (my legs are one of my best features, it's not fair that I should have to cover them up just because I'm a man!). This is the more daring of the two.
Pros: It's really cute - and pink! It fits well and keeps everything in place. Plus, it hugs my ass real tight and makes it look fantastic!
Cons: Even though the legs of the shorts are super short (pro!), they have a tendency to ride up my thighs. Other than that, the way the suit grips my package is maybe not so modest, and especially between the legs there's some definite "cameltoe" action (or male equivalent) going on.
Verdict: It's cute and sexy, and more practical than the string bikini, but probably not something I would wear in public unless I was very comfortable with the people I'd be around (or, perhaps more importantly, if the people I'd be around were very comfortable with me).
The Black Suit
Origin: This is the more modest of the two suits I bought online, and was exactly the style I was looking for as a compromise between the coverage of shorts and the exposure of "briefs".
Pros: I think the style is cute, and looks very much like a pair of short athletic shorts. The black color is modest, and my package stays in place and out of the spotlight. The pockets are really small and maybe not that practical, but I still think they're a nice touch - I could probably throw my keys in there if I'm walking across the deck, or some money for the snack bar or something.
Cons: They cover more than I'd like, and they don't show off my ass as much, but those are both things I think I'm gonna have to deal with if I want a suit that won't freak people out.
Verdict: It's more modest than my personal style would call for, but it's probably the least I could get away with (knock on wood) in any regular capacity. That having been said, for a more modest suit (I know, my standards are twisted, aren't they?), I quite like it, so I can't really complain. All that's left is to actually try it out!
The Nude
Origin: I picked up this suit on the day of my birth, and I've been wearing it ever since. In fact, I absolutely refused to take it off when I was a child. I like to wear it as much as possible these days.
Pros: It's surprisingly flattering, and really as attractive as anything I could wear. There is also, of course, the sensual delight in baring it all. It also dries very fast, and doesn't cling to you when you climb out of the pool.
Cons: Aside from the fact that you could get arrested for wearing it in most public places, the only real problem with it I could foresee is that, among all the suits, it provides the least coverage in the embarrassing case that something unexpectedly gets you "excited". So some self-control is required.
Verdict: Obviously - and unfortunately - this is not a practical suit for most public environments. But in those few places where it is allowed - in private, and in clothing optional pools and swimming holes - I recommend it wholeheartedly.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Transgender Issues, Swimsuits, and Feminism (Part 2)
(This post is a continuation from here).
So, I say again, I think that having restrictions based on sex don't make much sense, except where they are reasonable restrictions based directly on what genitalia a person has (and places where this even matters are going to be extremely rare, I would think). I would even go so far as to call them discriminatory. And the preeminent example of this in my mind - and I hope that it doesn't seem too trivial for you, because it has been causing me no end of anxiety lately - is in the rules and expectations of swim attire and how they differ for men and women in a typical American environment (I hear Europeans are a bit more open-minded about such things, and other cultures are in an even better position not to reflect puritan and sexist American sensibilities).
I love pool culture. Thankfully, most of the time I've spent swimming in recent years has been in a nudist environment, and I feel like a lot of the usual anxiety of being transgender melts away when the clothes come off. I don't have to be overly concerned with what I'm wearing, and the signals it may be giving people, and how they might react when they find out those signals are "mixed". People can simply take a glance at me, see that I have a penis, see that I am also naturally feminine, and simply understand that this is the way I am.
But there may be opportunities where I'll want to go swimming in a non-nudist environment - and certainly I feel as though I've been avoiding said opportunities for all the anxiety that thinking about them causes me. As I said, I love pool culture. Summer is my favorite time of year, and I also enjoy the water. I won't completely write off the possibility that my perspective is biased by my unashamedly perverted nature - and I'm not saying I don't understand all the anxiety that's involved with this for many people - but it seems to me fairly obvious that the pool is an opportunity for people to take off a lot of their clothes - about as much as society will permit, in any given era - and more or less strut their stuff, and appreciate what others have to show.
I know, it's horrible of me, right, treating the pool as some kind of meat market? But it's not that bad. I'm just saying, I appreciate the human body - it's a work of art (and I say that as one genuinely dedicated to art). I'm also kind of an exhibitionist - and again, there are a lot of nasty stereotypes involved with that - but it's not that I have any desire to shove my exposed genitals into a poor and unexpected stranger's face, just for the sheer joy(?) of experiencing their shocked and disgusted reaction. It's just simply a sort of preening behavior. And you can't honestly tell me that all those girls in the fashionably skimpy bikinis (obviously not everyone at the pool is doing this, but you can tell that some of them are) aren't enjoying showing it off, and you definitely can't tell me that many, if not most, of the guys are appreciating the view. It's kind of one of those under-the-radar, not-really-talked-about-but-everybody-accepts-it sort of things.
Of course, there I go, giving a very gendered description of the pool environment. But that's just the thing. It is very gendered, and that's exactly what I have a problem with. The girls are expected to wear skimpy bikinis that emphasize every contour of their bodies (that aren't outright exposed) and be looked at, and the guys are supposed to wear baggy shorts that completely cover up the shape of their body, and do all the looking. I'm in a bit of a quandary, though, because even though I enjoy very much to do the looking, I also, as one who identifies as female, have a particular desire to show off what I've got and be appreciated too. (And feminists will talk to you about how this is patriarchal oppression of women, making them think they want the objectifying gaze of horny men, but the truth, as I see it, is that this is a natural, harmless, and quite enjoyable part of the basic way that the human male and female interact - a form of mating behavior).
Now, I don't want to say that there isn't an opposite element in play, where the girls enjoy looking at the guys, but there is very clearly a different way that men and women preen, and to me it seems quite obvious that there is an imbalance - in terms of how much the women are showing off, and how much the men are showing off. If this were simply a matter of fashion - i.e., "speedos" and other "brief-type" swimwear for men being socially unpopular in American pools - that would be one thing. But to my great distress I am seeing rules explicitly outlawing the wearing of these garments by men! Is my stance really that unreasonable? A "speedo"-type swimsuit (and we're talking about the sort of mainstream swimwear here that is popular in the Olympic games, of all fucking things) seems, to me, to basically be the equivalent of the woman's bikini.
Yes, it's true, that women have to cover their breasts and men don't - and this is an example of inequality between the genders. But whether you think the female breast is indecent, or legitimately considered a sex organ, or not, that is the reasoning behind this gender disparity. And though you may not agree with this opinion, the fact that it is the justification for the rule is at least logical (if not "righteous"). And, honestly, you can't tell me that the little bit of fabric (two modestly-sized triangles in many cases) women are required to wear on the top balances out the yards of fabric that make up the ridiculously long (seriously, mid-shin?) and baggy legs of the "board short" style of swimsuits that are so ubiquitously popular among men these days.
Before you object, I'm not suggesting that every woman wears (or is required or expected to wear) a string bikini. However, the woman who chooses to wear one is fully permitted to do so - and, indeed, you can't go to the pool on a crowded day without expecting to see several women so dressed (and yet, apparently without threatening the "family friendly" atmosphere, which is sometimes the reasoning behind the speedo-ban - on the contrary, you'll not infrequently find young women, sometimes even girls, donning these fashions, and it is not unheard of for young boys in other cultures, probably the European ones, to wear speedos without alarm or incident). The man who chooses to wear a speedo, however, is nonexistent. To what extent this is due to the fact that such a man would presumably be booted from the premises, and to what extent it is due to such garments being worn by men simply being socially unacceptable (around here, a man wearing a speedo would probably be ridiculed into conformity, as sad as that is), I can't say. But either way, the effect is the same.
There is also the ever-important matter of the difference between men and women's genitalia. Men are considered to have "external" genitalia, as opposed to women's more "internal" genitalia. However, though I won't deny there is a considerable difference at play here (as I am painfully aware of, due to all the times I've wanted to wear sleek skirts and dresses, and even women's swimwear, but wasn't able to hide or contain my package), I will again say that I think too much is often made of the difference. It is not impossible for a woman's external "features" to become clearly defined by a certain type of swimsuit, particularly when wet, and the same could be said for the nipples, whose clear outline may also sometimes be considered more or less "indecent". I could reasonably understand how a form-fitting swimsuit that clearly displays the outline of the male genitalia could be considered a little more "risque" than a family-friendly waterpark would be comfortable with (note the importance of being reasonable). But I know from experience (as I own a brand-name Speedo) that some suits are specifically designed to be a bit more "modest" in that sense, but without sacrificing the amount of exposure that a brief-type swimsuit allows.
Again, this is basically the male equivalent of a bikini, and I don't see why a woman should be allowed and (often) expected to wear a swimsuit that exposes as much as possible, and clearly defines the shapes and contours of what it doesn't expose, but a man should not. That is sexual discrimination. A restriction on thong suits, as a counter-example, is both reasonable (I can understand how a thong could be considered "risque") and applies equally to both sexes. There are swimsuits - for both sexes - that go too far, and they are usually obvious, because they are designed to be. "Speedos" and "brief-style" swimwear for men do not fall into this category, in general, and a restriction against them is unreasonable and discriminatory. Am I the only one that thinks this?
I mean, think about some of those bikinis - not even the thong ones, but the regular ones - and how much they emphasize or even expose a woman's ass. The ass is like a middle ground - both sexes have them, and the differences between the sexes are not as great as those between their primary genitalia or their breasts. It's perfectly okay for women to flaunt their asses in such a way. But since "brief-style" swimsuits are not allowed for men, and the only real common fashions that are available (and widely permitted) for men are medium to ultra-long shorts, there's really no option there for a man who wants to flaunt his assets.
What's going on here? Is this some kind of war on men's sexuality? It seems to be a corollary to the patriarchal control of women's sexuality - specifically in the way that women are objectified, and expected to be objectified, by the male gaze. Men, on the other hand, are mocked and criticized for expressing any sex appeal - and this is often a function of homophobia. Which, in turn, reflects the male-dominated nature of public media. If women's perspectives were more widely considered in the media, then an expression of male sexuality wouldn't so commonly be interpreted by other men as homoerotic imagery, so much as heteroerotic imagery, but for women (hard to imagine, right, guys?). Of course, there's nothing wrong with homoerotic imagery, either, and I would hope that continually more accepting attitudes of homosexuality in the culture at large will progressively recognize that.
I think, though, that there's a very real understanding that men aren't really expected to "preen" for women. Which ties into all the sexual stereotypes, about men being the aggressors and women the "prey". There may be a very real biological basis to this behavior - and I don't have the intention to refute that - but I've never been interested in forcing people to conform to the mainstream. That it's not common or expected for men to be the meat doesn't mean that if a man has the right mentality, he shouldn't be allowed to preen, whether for females or other males. And I can't imagine any place where this scenario would be more applicable than in the transgender context - that of individuals who flout the typical gender and sexual stereotypes.
There is also another matter that my be involved, which has to do with - wait for it - more stereotypes about how the different genders approach sexual attitudes. This isn't entirely unrelated to what I discussed above. But the corollary to women being expected to preen and be submissively objectified by males is the understanding that males, with all their aggressive testosterone, are horny beasts. If a woman flaunts her body, it's because she's following the dictates of a patriarchal society, and anyway it's not so much a reflection of her sexual agency as it is her submission to the male expectation that she be a sexual object. If a man wants to flaunt his body, on the other hand, it's seen as cocky behavior (pardon the word choice). And if he wears a swimsuit that emphasizes, say, his package, then it's seen as being some kind of threatening sexual behavior. He must be a pervert, and could very well be a danger to women and children.
Note how the female exhibitionist can get by thanks to expectations of women's place in society, and stereotypes of her gender, but the male exhibitionist does not fare so well by the same standards (but applied to his gender). And standing unfortunately in the middle is me, who does not have aggressive, masturbatory intentions in "showing off my body", but simply wants to fit in with the women who are simply flaunting what they've got, in sort of a more submissive - and decidedly less threatening - way. Feminists spend an awful lot of time complaining about how women are objectified and all that, and how unfair it is that they're expected to wear body-baring bikinis and let males gaze at them and whatnot. But, despite all the "power" males are supposed to have, I don't feel like I am able to similarly visit a public pool in a "body-baring" speedo. I don't think that women's choices (e.g., to wear sexy, revealing clothes) should be reduced (no matter the "feminist implications"); only that men's choices should be expanded. Because, the thing is, males only have power insofar as they behave like males are "supposed" to behave. And as a male identifying as female, I'm left out in the cold. I'm too female to play in the boys' club, but too male to run with the girls.
That's why I think we need something of a trans-feminism, or a post-feminism - something that pays more attention to the equality angle of uniting the sexes (including the non-mainstream and non-binary ones), rather than the sex-centric isms (on both sides) that seem to foster nothing but division between the sexes, by postulating the existence of just two sexes - and treating one as the hero, and the other the enemy. But that's yet another issue and this post has gone on way too fricking long already...
Goodness, a simple rule banning speedos shouldn't make a person think this much. But I simply can't accept it. And every time I start to wonder if I'm being biased and unreasonable, I think about those women in bikinis, and I just can't help feeling how incredibly imbalanced it is. If it's indecent for a man to wear a speedo, and if no man would wear one for anything but unacceptably prurient reasons, I just can't see how anyone of that mindset could, at the same time, think it's perfectly justifiable for women to do the same thing. Unless, of course, they've given leave of their reasoning faculties, and that is, unfortunately, far too common an occurrence.
So, I say again, I think that having restrictions based on sex don't make much sense, except where they are reasonable restrictions based directly on what genitalia a person has (and places where this even matters are going to be extremely rare, I would think). I would even go so far as to call them discriminatory. And the preeminent example of this in my mind - and I hope that it doesn't seem too trivial for you, because it has been causing me no end of anxiety lately - is in the rules and expectations of swim attire and how they differ for men and women in a typical American environment (I hear Europeans are a bit more open-minded about such things, and other cultures are in an even better position not to reflect puritan and sexist American sensibilities).
I love pool culture. Thankfully, most of the time I've spent swimming in recent years has been in a nudist environment, and I feel like a lot of the usual anxiety of being transgender melts away when the clothes come off. I don't have to be overly concerned with what I'm wearing, and the signals it may be giving people, and how they might react when they find out those signals are "mixed". People can simply take a glance at me, see that I have a penis, see that I am also naturally feminine, and simply understand that this is the way I am.
But there may be opportunities where I'll want to go swimming in a non-nudist environment - and certainly I feel as though I've been avoiding said opportunities for all the anxiety that thinking about them causes me. As I said, I love pool culture. Summer is my favorite time of year, and I also enjoy the water. I won't completely write off the possibility that my perspective is biased by my unashamedly perverted nature - and I'm not saying I don't understand all the anxiety that's involved with this for many people - but it seems to me fairly obvious that the pool is an opportunity for people to take off a lot of their clothes - about as much as society will permit, in any given era - and more or less strut their stuff, and appreciate what others have to show.
I know, it's horrible of me, right, treating the pool as some kind of meat market? But it's not that bad. I'm just saying, I appreciate the human body - it's a work of art (and I say that as one genuinely dedicated to art). I'm also kind of an exhibitionist - and again, there are a lot of nasty stereotypes involved with that - but it's not that I have any desire to shove my exposed genitals into a poor and unexpected stranger's face, just for the sheer joy(?) of experiencing their shocked and disgusted reaction. It's just simply a sort of preening behavior. And you can't honestly tell me that all those girls in the fashionably skimpy bikinis (obviously not everyone at the pool is doing this, but you can tell that some of them are) aren't enjoying showing it off, and you definitely can't tell me that many, if not most, of the guys are appreciating the view. It's kind of one of those under-the-radar, not-really-talked-about-but-everybody-accepts-it sort of things.
Of course, there I go, giving a very gendered description of the pool environment. But that's just the thing. It is very gendered, and that's exactly what I have a problem with. The girls are expected to wear skimpy bikinis that emphasize every contour of their bodies (that aren't outright exposed) and be looked at, and the guys are supposed to wear baggy shorts that completely cover up the shape of their body, and do all the looking. I'm in a bit of a quandary, though, because even though I enjoy very much to do the looking, I also, as one who identifies as female, have a particular desire to show off what I've got and be appreciated too. (And feminists will talk to you about how this is patriarchal oppression of women, making them think they want the objectifying gaze of horny men, but the truth, as I see it, is that this is a natural, harmless, and quite enjoyable part of the basic way that the human male and female interact - a form of mating behavior).
Now, I don't want to say that there isn't an opposite element in play, where the girls enjoy looking at the guys, but there is very clearly a different way that men and women preen, and to me it seems quite obvious that there is an imbalance - in terms of how much the women are showing off, and how much the men are showing off. If this were simply a matter of fashion - i.e., "speedos" and other "brief-type" swimwear for men being socially unpopular in American pools - that would be one thing. But to my great distress I am seeing rules explicitly outlawing the wearing of these garments by men! Is my stance really that unreasonable? A "speedo"-type swimsuit (and we're talking about the sort of mainstream swimwear here that is popular in the Olympic games, of all fucking things) seems, to me, to basically be the equivalent of the woman's bikini.
Yes, it's true, that women have to cover their breasts and men don't - and this is an example of inequality between the genders. But whether you think the female breast is indecent, or legitimately considered a sex organ, or not, that is the reasoning behind this gender disparity. And though you may not agree with this opinion, the fact that it is the justification for the rule is at least logical (if not "righteous"). And, honestly, you can't tell me that the little bit of fabric (two modestly-sized triangles in many cases) women are required to wear on the top balances out the yards of fabric that make up the ridiculously long (seriously, mid-shin?) and baggy legs of the "board short" style of swimsuits that are so ubiquitously popular among men these days.
Before you object, I'm not suggesting that every woman wears (or is required or expected to wear) a string bikini. However, the woman who chooses to wear one is fully permitted to do so - and, indeed, you can't go to the pool on a crowded day without expecting to see several women so dressed (and yet, apparently without threatening the "family friendly" atmosphere, which is sometimes the reasoning behind the speedo-ban - on the contrary, you'll not infrequently find young women, sometimes even girls, donning these fashions, and it is not unheard of for young boys in other cultures, probably the European ones, to wear speedos without alarm or incident). The man who chooses to wear a speedo, however, is nonexistent. To what extent this is due to the fact that such a man would presumably be booted from the premises, and to what extent it is due to such garments being worn by men simply being socially unacceptable (around here, a man wearing a speedo would probably be ridiculed into conformity, as sad as that is), I can't say. But either way, the effect is the same.
There is also the ever-important matter of the difference between men and women's genitalia. Men are considered to have "external" genitalia, as opposed to women's more "internal" genitalia. However, though I won't deny there is a considerable difference at play here (as I am painfully aware of, due to all the times I've wanted to wear sleek skirts and dresses, and even women's swimwear, but wasn't able to hide or contain my package), I will again say that I think too much is often made of the difference. It is not impossible for a woman's external "features" to become clearly defined by a certain type of swimsuit, particularly when wet, and the same could be said for the nipples, whose clear outline may also sometimes be considered more or less "indecent". I could reasonably understand how a form-fitting swimsuit that clearly displays the outline of the male genitalia could be considered a little more "risque" than a family-friendly waterpark would be comfortable with (note the importance of being reasonable). But I know from experience (as I own a brand-name Speedo) that some suits are specifically designed to be a bit more "modest" in that sense, but without sacrificing the amount of exposure that a brief-type swimsuit allows.
Again, this is basically the male equivalent of a bikini, and I don't see why a woman should be allowed and (often) expected to wear a swimsuit that exposes as much as possible, and clearly defines the shapes and contours of what it doesn't expose, but a man should not. That is sexual discrimination. A restriction on thong suits, as a counter-example, is both reasonable (I can understand how a thong could be considered "risque") and applies equally to both sexes. There are swimsuits - for both sexes - that go too far, and they are usually obvious, because they are designed to be. "Speedos" and "brief-style" swimwear for men do not fall into this category, in general, and a restriction against them is unreasonable and discriminatory. Am I the only one that thinks this?
I mean, think about some of those bikinis - not even the thong ones, but the regular ones - and how much they emphasize or even expose a woman's ass. The ass is like a middle ground - both sexes have them, and the differences between the sexes are not as great as those between their primary genitalia or their breasts. It's perfectly okay for women to flaunt their asses in such a way. But since "brief-style" swimsuits are not allowed for men, and the only real common fashions that are available (and widely permitted) for men are medium to ultra-long shorts, there's really no option there for a man who wants to flaunt his assets.
What's going on here? Is this some kind of war on men's sexuality? It seems to be a corollary to the patriarchal control of women's sexuality - specifically in the way that women are objectified, and expected to be objectified, by the male gaze. Men, on the other hand, are mocked and criticized for expressing any sex appeal - and this is often a function of homophobia. Which, in turn, reflects the male-dominated nature of public media. If women's perspectives were more widely considered in the media, then an expression of male sexuality wouldn't so commonly be interpreted by other men as homoerotic imagery, so much as heteroerotic imagery, but for women (hard to imagine, right, guys?). Of course, there's nothing wrong with homoerotic imagery, either, and I would hope that continually more accepting attitudes of homosexuality in the culture at large will progressively recognize that.
I think, though, that there's a very real understanding that men aren't really expected to "preen" for women. Which ties into all the sexual stereotypes, about men being the aggressors and women the "prey". There may be a very real biological basis to this behavior - and I don't have the intention to refute that - but I've never been interested in forcing people to conform to the mainstream. That it's not common or expected for men to be the meat doesn't mean that if a man has the right mentality, he shouldn't be allowed to preen, whether for females or other males. And I can't imagine any place where this scenario would be more applicable than in the transgender context - that of individuals who flout the typical gender and sexual stereotypes.
There is also another matter that my be involved, which has to do with - wait for it - more stereotypes about how the different genders approach sexual attitudes. This isn't entirely unrelated to what I discussed above. But the corollary to women being expected to preen and be submissively objectified by males is the understanding that males, with all their aggressive testosterone, are horny beasts. If a woman flaunts her body, it's because she's following the dictates of a patriarchal society, and anyway it's not so much a reflection of her sexual agency as it is her submission to the male expectation that she be a sexual object. If a man wants to flaunt his body, on the other hand, it's seen as cocky behavior (pardon the word choice). And if he wears a swimsuit that emphasizes, say, his package, then it's seen as being some kind of threatening sexual behavior. He must be a pervert, and could very well be a danger to women and children.
Note how the female exhibitionist can get by thanks to expectations of women's place in society, and stereotypes of her gender, but the male exhibitionist does not fare so well by the same standards (but applied to his gender). And standing unfortunately in the middle is me, who does not have aggressive, masturbatory intentions in "showing off my body", but simply wants to fit in with the women who are simply flaunting what they've got, in sort of a more submissive - and decidedly less threatening - way. Feminists spend an awful lot of time complaining about how women are objectified and all that, and how unfair it is that they're expected to wear body-baring bikinis and let males gaze at them and whatnot. But, despite all the "power" males are supposed to have, I don't feel like I am able to similarly visit a public pool in a "body-baring" speedo. I don't think that women's choices (e.g., to wear sexy, revealing clothes) should be reduced (no matter the "feminist implications"); only that men's choices should be expanded. Because, the thing is, males only have power insofar as they behave like males are "supposed" to behave. And as a male identifying as female, I'm left out in the cold. I'm too female to play in the boys' club, but too male to run with the girls.
That's why I think we need something of a trans-feminism, or a post-feminism - something that pays more attention to the equality angle of uniting the sexes (including the non-mainstream and non-binary ones), rather than the sex-centric isms (on both sides) that seem to foster nothing but division between the sexes, by postulating the existence of just two sexes - and treating one as the hero, and the other the enemy. But that's yet another issue and this post has gone on way too fricking long already...
Goodness, a simple rule banning speedos shouldn't make a person think this much. But I simply can't accept it. And every time I start to wonder if I'm being biased and unreasonable, I think about those women in bikinis, and I just can't help feeling how incredibly imbalanced it is. If it's indecent for a man to wear a speedo, and if no man would wear one for anything but unacceptably prurient reasons, I just can't see how anyone of that mindset could, at the same time, think it's perfectly justifiable for women to do the same thing. Unless, of course, they've given leave of their reasoning faculties, and that is, unfortunately, far too common an occurrence.
Transgender Issues, Swimsuits, and Feminism (Part 1)
Preamble: I sincerely apologize for the length of this post (in fact, I'm splitting it in two). But this is what it's like to be me. Welcome to the inside of my mind. I've been sitting here at this computer typing for... well over two hours, quite nearly nonstop. I've been told (often) that I think too much. It's a blessing, but it can also be a curse. Certainly, I believe it has much to do with the pervasive anxiety I feel that limits much of what I am possible of doing. But I am taken to understand that I am fairly smart, and I've been told that I am fairly eloquent (when I have the time to choose my words), so it's my hope that maybe I can apply my overworking mind to the occasional issue of social significance, and maybe, hopefully, make some valuable insights now and then. Let's begin.
I still have no clear idea exactly what criteria must be met for a person to be considered "transgender". It's strange, given how comfortable I am thinking of myself as female, and how frequently I dress as such, and how often I "pass" in public situations where strangers often refer to me (usually in the company of my BFF) as "ladies" (although the doubting part of me in the back of my mind questions whether I am actually passing, or if the people speaking to me are just so forward-thinking as to pick up on the fact that though I may be a man, I'm "trying" to be a woman - even though the passing angle is by far the simpler and probably more likely scenario), but I still have times when I question whether I truly get to label my identity and experience as "transgender".
But - and this is all related - to the extent that I do consider myself transgender, I guess I have something of a unique perspective because, like in so many things, I don't fit the stereotype. I didn't grow up knowing I was born with the wrong body. Even now, and even to the extent that I regret the parts of me that are masculine (like my deep voice, and my broad shoulders), I don't have any real strong desire to fuck with my body chemistry, or go under the knife and endure radical surgery (say what you want, but I can't envision taking a penis and a pair of testicles and fashioning it into a vagina being anything short of "radical") to force my body to align with my mental gender.
In any case, I'm already a very feminine male. Indeed, it's the fact that I'm already so feminine that has largely encouraged me to reconsider my gender identity in the first place. I don't so much need chemicals and surgery to make me more feminine - I already am feminine. I just happen to have a penis, and maybe some other masculine qualities. But choosing to present as female - rehauling my wardrobe, and making certain preparations, like shaving excess facial/body hair - has gone a long way in changing the way I present. I mean, that's one of those confusing things about being transgender. What parts of it are mental and what parts physical? Is it possible to have a male body that nevertheless possesses many feminine traits, and what impact does that have on your gender identity? Do many transgender people (of the MtF variety, only because that's what I have personal experience with), on the other hand, have very masculine bodies, but know inside that they are female, and are thus driven more strongly to turn to science to right their physiological situation?
I don't have the answers to these questions. But another thing that makes my situation a bit...different...is my sexual orientation. I don't want to generalize, and I bring this up precisely because it is a stereotype, but it seems to me that a lot of people make presumptions about transpersons' sexuality, and the stereotype is that they're sexually attracted to their own pre-op gender, so in the case of MtF, the male transitions to female, to end up in ostensibly "straight" relationships with males, or in the case of those insensitive individuals who consider them "still male", they're basically gay but with the added complication of the sex change. On the contrary, in my case, my sexual orientation yields no pressure to transition, since I am sexually attracted to the gender I identify with. Indeed, if anything, it makes me want to keep my penis because it makes it so much easier for me to pair up, sexually, with females (the majority of which are probably predominantly straight). In that sense, without transitioning, I am a normal straight male. But with transition, I would become a lesbian female - although I imagine there would be some number of "true" lesbians who don't consider "transwomen" "real women", and feel that I am just a man trying to infiltrate one of the purest "women's spaces" - that of genetic women sexually attracted to other genetic women.
It becomes that much more complicated when I opt to keep my male genitalia - although if you think that makes it easy for me to simply remain a "straight male", how many women, honestly, do you know are sexually attracted to men who identify, present, and pass as women? Certainly, there are some - I've had the good fortune to meet one - but I don't think it's the norm. In spite of what women might say about wishing men were more like them, the cold, hard truth is that women are biologically attracted to certain features men have that make them distinct from women - otherwise wouldn't they just be attracted to other women? Truthfully, I often wonder if I should play up some more of my masculine qualities (or potential qualities), for the sake of attracting more women - seeing as I get way more attention from straight men (who think I'm a woman) and gay men (who "realize" I'm a "man", but still appreciate me for my feminine qualities) - in both cases men, who I am not sexually attracted to (leastwise - being true to Kinsey's findings on the vast spectrum of sexualities - not enough to consider pursuing anything). But the problem with that is that I don't truly feel like myself when I'm presenting as a man. Although there are a lot of anxieties that go along with presenting as a woman (chiefly among them the fear of being found out by someone who doesn't think kindly of those who flout the rules about gender stereotypes), the fact that I still do it and gain some significant measure of satisfaction from doing it ought to mean something.
But that's not even the whole story, because, at this point, we're still beholden to a binary framework for the sexes (or to the legitimacy of gender stereotypes). There's a bit of logical confusion that settles in here, depending on how you define how sex relates to gender. If the genitalia determines the gender, then a person with a penis who wears a frilly dress to the prom is a man. And if the gender stereotypes determine gender, then it's enough for a man to wear a frilly dress to the prom (because he feels right in it, and not for any trivial reason, like to fulfill a dare) to be considered a woman. But the truth is, both of these views are held simultaneously by modern society (see how the "man who wears a skirt" is treated on the basketball court, and then see how contrarily the same "woman with a penis" is treated when he goes to the ladies' restroom - is he a woman, or a man? - he is treated as either and both, but depending only on which one allows the rest of society to mock and ridicule him, not on which allows him to feel more comfortable and accepted), yet if the genitalia and the gender stereotypes determine gender, then there's this whole swath of people whose genitalia don't match the gender stereotypes they are expressing who are being ignored and made invisible, and treated expectedly with confusion and incredulity whenever and wherever they make themselves known (whether intentionally or not).
The point I am trying laboriously to whittle toward is this: does it even matter if I am a man or a woman or a transperson of any stripe? Should it matter? If I have a problem with my physiology it's one thing. But if my problem is primarily with the social construction of gender - what I wear, how I look, to some extent my mannerisms and personality traits - does it even matter? If I want to wear a skirt on the basketball court, why does it matter whether I have a penis or a vagina under that skirt? And is it anyone's business in the first place? Restrooms may be a thornier matter, because they do have some direct relation to what kind of plumbing a person has (although, honestly, I think too much is made of the differences between the way men and women use the bathroom - I sit down to pee 99% of the time anyway). But you can make reasonable restrictions based on a person's genitalia that don't bring gender into play at all.
Another thing that complicates matters, which is getting back to the limitations of the gender binary, is - why do people even have to be male or female, man or woman, in the first place? What about those people who are androgynous, or gender fluid, who either exist in some place between (treating gender as a spectrum), or who freely move between either of the end points? If a person is presenting as male today, does he have to adhere to male-based restrictions when he is presenting as a female tomorrow? Why does anyone have to pick just one or the other? This kind of thinking really brings into question the merit of any kind of restrictions that are based on rigid gender stereotypes, and the idea that there are two distinct kinds of people in this world - male, and female - and that every person is either one or the other and never changes throughout the course of their life, or if they do, as in the case of the stereotypical transperson, it is this one momentous change that is supposed to "fix" an "error" of birth that happens at one particular point in their life (usually during the time of surgery), before which they are the one sex/gender, and after which they are the other. This picture just doesn't adequately reflect the reality of the matter, and, as I suggested before, marginalizes, if not completely ignores, a wide swath (even if they do only constitute a minority) of very unique and fabulous people.
(This post continues here).
I still have no clear idea exactly what criteria must be met for a person to be considered "transgender". It's strange, given how comfortable I am thinking of myself as female, and how frequently I dress as such, and how often I "pass" in public situations where strangers often refer to me (usually in the company of my BFF) as "ladies" (although the doubting part of me in the back of my mind questions whether I am actually passing, or if the people speaking to me are just so forward-thinking as to pick up on the fact that though I may be a man, I'm "trying" to be a woman - even though the passing angle is by far the simpler and probably more likely scenario), but I still have times when I question whether I truly get to label my identity and experience as "transgender".
But - and this is all related - to the extent that I do consider myself transgender, I guess I have something of a unique perspective because, like in so many things, I don't fit the stereotype. I didn't grow up knowing I was born with the wrong body. Even now, and even to the extent that I regret the parts of me that are masculine (like my deep voice, and my broad shoulders), I don't have any real strong desire to fuck with my body chemistry, or go under the knife and endure radical surgery (say what you want, but I can't envision taking a penis and a pair of testicles and fashioning it into a vagina being anything short of "radical") to force my body to align with my mental gender.
In any case, I'm already a very feminine male. Indeed, it's the fact that I'm already so feminine that has largely encouraged me to reconsider my gender identity in the first place. I don't so much need chemicals and surgery to make me more feminine - I already am feminine. I just happen to have a penis, and maybe some other masculine qualities. But choosing to present as female - rehauling my wardrobe, and making certain preparations, like shaving excess facial/body hair - has gone a long way in changing the way I present. I mean, that's one of those confusing things about being transgender. What parts of it are mental and what parts physical? Is it possible to have a male body that nevertheless possesses many feminine traits, and what impact does that have on your gender identity? Do many transgender people (of the MtF variety, only because that's what I have personal experience with), on the other hand, have very masculine bodies, but know inside that they are female, and are thus driven more strongly to turn to science to right their physiological situation?
I don't have the answers to these questions. But another thing that makes my situation a bit...different...is my sexual orientation. I don't want to generalize, and I bring this up precisely because it is a stereotype, but it seems to me that a lot of people make presumptions about transpersons' sexuality, and the stereotype is that they're sexually attracted to their own pre-op gender, so in the case of MtF, the male transitions to female, to end up in ostensibly "straight" relationships with males, or in the case of those insensitive individuals who consider them "still male", they're basically gay but with the added complication of the sex change. On the contrary, in my case, my sexual orientation yields no pressure to transition, since I am sexually attracted to the gender I identify with. Indeed, if anything, it makes me want to keep my penis because it makes it so much easier for me to pair up, sexually, with females (the majority of which are probably predominantly straight). In that sense, without transitioning, I am a normal straight male. But with transition, I would become a lesbian female - although I imagine there would be some number of "true" lesbians who don't consider "transwomen" "real women", and feel that I am just a man trying to infiltrate one of the purest "women's spaces" - that of genetic women sexually attracted to other genetic women.
It becomes that much more complicated when I opt to keep my male genitalia - although if you think that makes it easy for me to simply remain a "straight male", how many women, honestly, do you know are sexually attracted to men who identify, present, and pass as women? Certainly, there are some - I've had the good fortune to meet one - but I don't think it's the norm. In spite of what women might say about wishing men were more like them, the cold, hard truth is that women are biologically attracted to certain features men have that make them distinct from women - otherwise wouldn't they just be attracted to other women? Truthfully, I often wonder if I should play up some more of my masculine qualities (or potential qualities), for the sake of attracting more women - seeing as I get way more attention from straight men (who think I'm a woman) and gay men (who "realize" I'm a "man", but still appreciate me for my feminine qualities) - in both cases men, who I am not sexually attracted to (leastwise - being true to Kinsey's findings on the vast spectrum of sexualities - not enough to consider pursuing anything). But the problem with that is that I don't truly feel like myself when I'm presenting as a man. Although there are a lot of anxieties that go along with presenting as a woman (chiefly among them the fear of being found out by someone who doesn't think kindly of those who flout the rules about gender stereotypes), the fact that I still do it and gain some significant measure of satisfaction from doing it ought to mean something.
But that's not even the whole story, because, at this point, we're still beholden to a binary framework for the sexes (or to the legitimacy of gender stereotypes). There's a bit of logical confusion that settles in here, depending on how you define how sex relates to gender. If the genitalia determines the gender, then a person with a penis who wears a frilly dress to the prom is a man. And if the gender stereotypes determine gender, then it's enough for a man to wear a frilly dress to the prom (because he feels right in it, and not for any trivial reason, like to fulfill a dare) to be considered a woman. But the truth is, both of these views are held simultaneously by modern society (see how the "man who wears a skirt" is treated on the basketball court, and then see how contrarily the same "woman with a penis" is treated when he goes to the ladies' restroom - is he a woman, or a man? - he is treated as either and both, but depending only on which one allows the rest of society to mock and ridicule him, not on which allows him to feel more comfortable and accepted), yet if the genitalia and the gender stereotypes determine gender, then there's this whole swath of people whose genitalia don't match the gender stereotypes they are expressing who are being ignored and made invisible, and treated expectedly with confusion and incredulity whenever and wherever they make themselves known (whether intentionally or not).
The point I am trying laboriously to whittle toward is this: does it even matter if I am a man or a woman or a transperson of any stripe? Should it matter? If I have a problem with my physiology it's one thing. But if my problem is primarily with the social construction of gender - what I wear, how I look, to some extent my mannerisms and personality traits - does it even matter? If I want to wear a skirt on the basketball court, why does it matter whether I have a penis or a vagina under that skirt? And is it anyone's business in the first place? Restrooms may be a thornier matter, because they do have some direct relation to what kind of plumbing a person has (although, honestly, I think too much is made of the differences between the way men and women use the bathroom - I sit down to pee 99% of the time anyway). But you can make reasonable restrictions based on a person's genitalia that don't bring gender into play at all.
Another thing that complicates matters, which is getting back to the limitations of the gender binary, is - why do people even have to be male or female, man or woman, in the first place? What about those people who are androgynous, or gender fluid, who either exist in some place between (treating gender as a spectrum), or who freely move between either of the end points? If a person is presenting as male today, does he have to adhere to male-based restrictions when he is presenting as a female tomorrow? Why does anyone have to pick just one or the other? This kind of thinking really brings into question the merit of any kind of restrictions that are based on rigid gender stereotypes, and the idea that there are two distinct kinds of people in this world - male, and female - and that every person is either one or the other and never changes throughout the course of their life, or if they do, as in the case of the stereotypical transperson, it is this one momentous change that is supposed to "fix" an "error" of birth that happens at one particular point in their life (usually during the time of surgery), before which they are the one sex/gender, and after which they are the other. This picture just doesn't adequately reflect the reality of the matter, and, as I suggested before, marginalizes, if not completely ignores, a wide swath (even if they do only constitute a minority) of very unique and fabulous people.
(This post continues here).
Monday, June 2, 2014
Kinsey, History, and Patriarchy
Kinsey reflects that much of the ancient codes restricting human sexual behavior hinges on the property rights of the male to the female he is wedded to. This also manifests in the enduring belief that although promiscuous men are seen to be "accomplished" males, similarly promiscuous women are viewed poorly. It occurs to me that the whole idea of the male "owning" the sexual rights of the female is incredibly "patriarchal" and oppressive of women, in a straightforward way that none of the nebulous claims feminists make about modern institutions of our culture can be.
The fact that in Kinsey's findings, most women's sexual activity is guided by the greater interest of the male - both in her adolescent, pre-marital experiences, and in her frequencies of marital intercourse - suggest that, at least on the average, the view of women as the "gatekeepers" of sex and men as providing the demand is not wholly off. So the idea of men owning the "property" rights of the female, especially in the sexual realm, would seem to cater both to women's lesser interest in sex (punishing her for expressing an independent sexual agency), and to men's need for control of the vessel by which they can achieve sexual satisfaction.
Again, this is very oppressive and patriarchal, and even if it is true that, on average, women are less interested in sex than men, that is not justification for men owning and controlling (and shaming when they don't behave the way men want them to) women's sexual agency. However, I'm left wondering whether, in antiquity, this state of affairs arose because of men's actual greater interest in sex than women, and thus men enslaving women for the sake of satisfying their libido? Or was it simply a matter of men already having more power than women, and therefore being in a position to subdue women's natural sexuality in order to suit men?
It seems (to me) ironic that men would try to subdue women's sexuality in order to improve their sexual experiences - I think a sexually confident woman is a much better sexual partner - but I suppose from a less egalitarian mindset, the desire to control the object of one's affections, and dictate just when and how she performs her duties, may seem more desirable, especially considering the fact that a subdued woman will be less likely to go off and give her "gift" to other men, in effect stealing that experience from the woman's "owner". Crazy twists of logic, right?
In any case, what I'd love to be able to know, is how much of women's expressed sexuality is a product of biology, and how much is cultivated by longstanding social traditions that originate (or at least were propagated through) earlier times when women were more obviously subjugated to men than to whatever extent they are today. Another thing that Kinsey references on occasion is the different way that adolescent males and females are treated. The female's potential sexual adventures are more closely controlled by her parents and society, and she is more harshly admonished than males who engage in activities frequently encouraged by his peers and the reigning culture, which are more often overlooked even by adults and authority figures.
This seems to me a reflection of the age old tradition of controlling women's sexuality, and especially of valuing a woman's virginity upon marriage. Telling the adolescent girl not to experiment with her sexuality is, in essence, another way of saying that her sexual experience belongs to the man she will eventually marry, even if it's not clear who that will be for a number of years yet. And though virginity is an important quality for males, too, from the religiously-influenced, abstinence-positive position, males are not shamed for their sexual activity nearly as often, or as harshly, as females - even by other females.
I just wonder how our sexual politics would change if we could start fresh, from a blank slate, and just let men and women behave the way their bodies and minds are naturally inclined toward, free from centuries - millenia, even - of social conditioning. I guess it's too much to ask, but it frequently depresses me, all the negative ways I see evidence that a selfish, greedy, spiteful, vindictive culture has influenced the way we are as people. I want us to be better.
The fact that in Kinsey's findings, most women's sexual activity is guided by the greater interest of the male - both in her adolescent, pre-marital experiences, and in her frequencies of marital intercourse - suggest that, at least on the average, the view of women as the "gatekeepers" of sex and men as providing the demand is not wholly off. So the idea of men owning the "property" rights of the female, especially in the sexual realm, would seem to cater both to women's lesser interest in sex (punishing her for expressing an independent sexual agency), and to men's need for control of the vessel by which they can achieve sexual satisfaction.
Again, this is very oppressive and patriarchal, and even if it is true that, on average, women are less interested in sex than men, that is not justification for men owning and controlling (and shaming when they don't behave the way men want them to) women's sexual agency. However, I'm left wondering whether, in antiquity, this state of affairs arose because of men's actual greater interest in sex than women, and thus men enslaving women for the sake of satisfying their libido? Or was it simply a matter of men already having more power than women, and therefore being in a position to subdue women's natural sexuality in order to suit men?
It seems (to me) ironic that men would try to subdue women's sexuality in order to improve their sexual experiences - I think a sexually confident woman is a much better sexual partner - but I suppose from a less egalitarian mindset, the desire to control the object of one's affections, and dictate just when and how she performs her duties, may seem more desirable, especially considering the fact that a subdued woman will be less likely to go off and give her "gift" to other men, in effect stealing that experience from the woman's "owner". Crazy twists of logic, right?
In any case, what I'd love to be able to know, is how much of women's expressed sexuality is a product of biology, and how much is cultivated by longstanding social traditions that originate (or at least were propagated through) earlier times when women were more obviously subjugated to men than to whatever extent they are today. Another thing that Kinsey references on occasion is the different way that adolescent males and females are treated. The female's potential sexual adventures are more closely controlled by her parents and society, and she is more harshly admonished than males who engage in activities frequently encouraged by his peers and the reigning culture, which are more often overlooked even by adults and authority figures.
This seems to me a reflection of the age old tradition of controlling women's sexuality, and especially of valuing a woman's virginity upon marriage. Telling the adolescent girl not to experiment with her sexuality is, in essence, another way of saying that her sexual experience belongs to the man she will eventually marry, even if it's not clear who that will be for a number of years yet. And though virginity is an important quality for males, too, from the religiously-influenced, abstinence-positive position, males are not shamed for their sexual activity nearly as often, or as harshly, as females - even by other females.
I just wonder how our sexual politics would change if we could start fresh, from a blank slate, and just let men and women behave the way their bodies and minds are naturally inclined toward, free from centuries - millenia, even - of social conditioning. I guess it's too much to ask, but it frequently depresses me, all the negative ways I see evidence that a selfish, greedy, spiteful, vindictive culture has influenced the way we are as people. I want us to be better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)