White Water

I recently visited a state park I'd never been to before, and had an opportunity to take a quick, impromptu photoshoot in front of an impressive series of waterfalls. As a naturist and a photographer, few things excite me more than the opportunity to shoot nudes against stunning natural backdrops. Unfortunately, this isn't always an easy thing to do on account of society's irrational taboo on nudity. These photos give the illusion of being able to simply wander the park in the buff, but the reality is not so pleasant. If you ask me, all state and national parks in this country should be clothing optional as a rule (explicitly indicated), so that nature's beauty can be enjoyed the way it was intended - in the buff.

[description: portrait of a nude man standing on the edge of a rock adjacent to a raging waterfall]

Instead, unlike the hiker or the fisher or the tourist, I have to go about my business in a surreptitious sort of way, feeling all the while like a criminal trying to get away with something. Is art photography that onerous that it warrants such caution? Are the results not beautiful enough to offset the possibility that some unsuspecting passerby might get a glimpse (shock, horror!) of a naked human being? And why must my serious artistic intentions be lumped in with the drunken revelers who expose themselves without thinking about the consequences? Surely, taking my clothes off for a few pictures here and there does less damage than the party-goers who leave crushed beer cans behind littering the natural landscape...

[description: nude portrait, from the back, of a man standing in front of a raging waterfall]

As it is, the care I am obliged to exercise limits when and where I can take these sorts of pictures, and reduces the amount of time and concentration I can spend composing and then posing for a good shot. You could consider this part of the challenge of outdoor nude photography - to see what you can accomplish under the restrictions - but frankly, I'd prefer less anxiety about getting caught, and I can't help thinking about all the shots I've had to miss - not for lack of opportunity, but due to unreasonable social conventions. In the image below, for example, I wanted to pose standing on the rock at the right edge of the frame, but it was a little too exposed, so I had to satisfy myself with a simple landscape, rather than a portrait.

[description: landscape photo of a raging river with turquoise water and a rocky, tree-lined bank]

It's also kind of frustrating to me that, as a self-portrait artist, I can't actually act as the photographer when taking these pictures. I didn't have my tripod with me (and I'm not sure I'd have had the time to set it up even if I did), so I had to coax the friend I was with into helping me out, and - by her own admission - she doesn't have the talent or the experience (or the inclination, I would add) as a photographer that I have. To her credit, though, it was her impetus and inspiration that led to the following series of images. I've seen countless shots of female models climbing nude on tree branches in the past, and I was very excited to have the opportunity to be that model for once. It's just too bad the shoot had to be so rushed.

[description: series of nude portraits climbing on a tree limb beside a rocky riverbank]

Internet fandom aside, sometimes I feel very alone as a nude/erotic photographer. I wish I were part of some organized group. I feel like I'm out on the fringe, making things up as I go along. I know there are other people out there who do what I do - I've seen the results online. I just wish there was more of a sense of camaraderie between us. It amazes me that I'm not able to find even a single other person interested in this kind of modeling, though it doesn't help that due to the stigma of what I do, I don't feel comfortable mentioning it to everyone I meet. I know there are girls out there who are into posing nude for serious photographers. Why can't I find them?

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

[description: fashion selfie in a t-shirt and short shorts with flip flops]

I apologize if some of my outfits are repetitive - I am, after all, a creature of habit, and I have to balance my interest in clothes with the fact that I am a nudist, and I prefer not to spend an hour getting dressed. I like wearing dresses and skirts and things like that, but my easy, go-to outfit is a pair of shorts (I have a few; this one is my current favorite), a cute t-shirt, and one of my many pairs of flip flops. Interestingly, that's not very different, structurally, from my dressing habits when I presented as male (shorts/pants + t-shirt + tennis shoes), but it's amazing the difference that simply picking girly styles (tighter, shorter, cuter, skimpier) can make!

Outfit of the Day (#ootd)

You know it's summer (or close enough) when I pull out my pink pool coverup/dress. Shoppers were given a rare treat when I wore it with my hair down to the store yesterday.

[description: triptych of fashion selfies in a pink minidress with flowing hair]

Everyone's been in that position where you start making dinner only to find out that you don't have a key ingredient you thought you had. Luckily, we have a store just down the block from our apartment building, so I threw on this dress to go pick up some spaghetti sauce. I had recently gotten out of the shower, and my hair was still slightly damp, but since it was a scorcher of a day, with temperatures breaking 90 degrees, I decided to leave it as is and let the sun finish drying it out on my walk to the store.

I don't actually let my hair down very often. I'd like to, since it's so pretty, but I just don't find it to be very practical. It doesn't stay perfectly in place - it's always going everywhere and getting in the way. And while it looks great just out of the shower, after a while it tends to get a little strung out; it just makes more sense to keep it contained in a braid or [usually] a ponytail (at least both of those options still look cute!). But as I said, it was a rare treat for those shoppers who got a glimpse of me in total supermodel mode, in my hot pink minidress. -_^

Sexual Gratification and Her Pictures

I've spent a lot of time over the years on photo-sharing websites. I tend to seek out pretty models. And more often than not, they are of the perspective that there's something despicable about anyone using their images for sexual purposes. Here, for a change, is a woman who espouses the sex-positive view that I've taken, that there is nothing wrong or disturbing about somebody having a sexual response to an image you've taken and shared with the world:

Sexual Gratification and My Pictures [broken link]

"Once I give my creation to the world I relinquish my control and regardless of my purpose or intent, your interpretation is yours and yours alone."

If a man strips in the woods...

Here's a philosophical question for you:

If a man strips in the woods, and nobody is around to see it, is it public indecency?

[description: portrait of a nude man in the woods, with a pile of clothes on the ground]

Classically, this question is moot, since if nobody sees it, then there's nobody to report it. But in this day and age of photographic evidence (oops!), when it's a trivial matter to hide cameras in trees (are we paranoid yet?), it makes you wonder.

I don't believe public "exposure" is that harmful in the first place, and I think some people have a valid desire to be nude among nature - and they don't always have ready access to the proper nudist facilities to do so.

So my approach has always been, if a person takes reasonable precautions to avoid being caught - thus proving that they're not simply pests trying to shock unsuspecting passersby - then it should be considered "no harm no foul". As outliers in the social construct, they deserve at least a little bit of leeway to pursue happiness in their own quirky but altogether harmless way.

And I really believe that. But mainstream opinion is not so tolerant, and this causes me a lot of anxiety - I feel like a fugitive criminal when I engage in these kinds of behaviors. People commit minor crimes on a daily basis (e.g., littering, jaywalking, speeding) and it's no big deal, even if you get caught. But those kinds of things don't have the same stigma as anything that involves nudity or - heaven forbid - sexual stimulation.

[description: portrait of a nude man in the woods, stroking an erection]

Oh noes!!!!!!!111

Brazil to sue Facebook for censoring nudity

This story here [broken link] is interesting. It's a rare inversion of the usual concern websites have about censoring nudity in order to respect conservative cultures who are offended by it. This is a case where nudity (at least in this particular context) is part of the culture in question, and it's Facebook's conservative censorship that is what's offensive (which, if you ask me, should be the default case).

What these huge online corporations try to disguise as cultural sensitivity is really a conservative streak, and they should just be honest and own up to that. You're never going to be able to satisfy everyone. And conservative cultures are not the ones deserving of our respect. The developed world is supposed to be based on principles of freedom - freedom of choice, freedom of expression. We need to stop catering to the sensibilities of our less evolved neighbors.

Nudism, not Prudism

Nudists don't like to associate themselves with exhibitionism for obvious reasons (e.g., it harms their public image, and attracts undesirable attention). Is nudism really just exhibitionism in disguise? No. Is there some overlap between what occurs in nudism and what exhibitionists seek? Yes, of course. Admitting that is just being honest. Nudists and exhibitionists both like to take their clothes off in front of other people. That the two do it for largely different reasons is relevant and important information, for sure, but it doesn't change the truth of the previous statement.

It is a natural fact that exhibitionists are going to be superficially drawn to nudism. So-called "true" nudists can't be entirely faulted for resenting this kind of negative attention (and I call it negative because, as alluded to above, it has a tendency to interfere with the relaxed and family-friendly atmosphere of non-sexual nude recreation, and indirectly affects the image of nudism on a larger scale). But I don't think the exhibitionists should be disparaged for their all-too-human error in thinking nudism could be an outlet for their interests. They simply need to be educated. Because the truth is, an exhibitionist can gain a lot from nudism if he simply learns the boundaries, and is capable of behaving himself.

It would be naive to believe that there aren't exhibitionists already doing this. Now, I don't think every nudist is secretly an exhibitionist. But surely some nudists, if not many of them, are not unfamiliar with the exhibitionist thrill of being naked in a public setting. It would be more accurate to say that nudists are simply the exhibitionists who know how to behave themselves (because, typically, those that don't are quickly ejected from the premises of an official nudist resort). And for those that can behave themselves, I don't see anything in the world that's wrong with such a thrill being part and parcel of the motivation and the experience of nudist recreation.

Of course, where I and most of the rest of the population differ is in my truly sex-positive outlook. I think that if the worst case scenario is somebody engaging in some kind of sexual act in view of non-consenting others, then that's really not so bad anyway. I'm not saying you aren't justified in discouraging and even punishing that kind of behavior [in places not designated for that sort of activity, where the inclusion of that activity could legitimately harm the atmosphere of the resort]. I'm just saying that if it does happen, it shouldn't be treated like a capital offense. Nobody's going to be "traumatized for life" (no, not even your kids), unless you wig out and make a big deal about it.

Furthermore, in this alarmingly litigious society (nigh bordering on being a police state), where the most bloated and life-scarring punishment is reserved for so-called "sex offenders", I think we should exercise restraint before potentially ruining a person's life over a harmless case of bad judgment, where the worst damage incurred is on the level of "offense". Obviously, I am not talking about truly serious crimes like rape, but merely daring to transgress against the socially-imposed agreement that we pretend we're not all sexual organisms constantly driven by an overpowering desire to mate (who decided this in the first place, anyway?). Can we just get real for once?

sex offender (noun)
def: a person whose sexual practices offend someone else (i.e., the entire human population)
note: the vast majority of sex offenders are unregistered