Fetishizing Virginity

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

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

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

Love the Madonna, Hate the Whore

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

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

I Saw, I Conquered...Then I Came

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

A New Awakening

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

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

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

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

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

Cheesy Literotica

[description: portrait of a nude man with erection, standing with arms raised and legs spread]

Your knees buckle, and you sink to the floor at the sight of the naked body that stands before you. This beautiful creature has no shame, for there could be no shame in possessing the body of a God. There could only be shame in covering it up, and preventing the masses from basking in its radiant glory. Your eyes are transfixed by the magnificent, towering rod that throbs just inches from your face. It is pink and swollen, and arches toward the heavens, in stiffened reverence to the perfect creator who once dreamt it up, and then fashioned it out of the primordial clay.

Meekly, you reach forward and grasp it in your palm. You can feel the warm pulse of desire as you begin to stroke it. A drop of nectar glistens at its tip, and you extend your tongue for a taste. Feeling blessed, you purse your lips and press them to the divine scepter in a gesture of loving devotion. With commanding authority, it presses back firmly against your lips, pushing them slightly apart. You can scarcely breathe as the holy lance slowly pierces your mouth, lubricating itself with your saliva.

Not wanting to waste this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, you submit to an impassioned impulse: you shall drink ambrosia from God's own spigot. At once, you get to work coaxing the fragrant liquid out with your hands and your lips, keeping the staff moist with your tongue. The balls rock back and forth like heavenly spheres in orbit. A sigh escapes God's lips, and the fleshy landscape that fills your vision begins to convulse. The geyser erupts, and fills your oral cavity with gooey devotion.

The sheer force of it pushes your head back in surprise, and the lusty cannon escapes from the confines of your mouth. The stream, now liberated, fires aimlessly, leaving your face and body covered in God's love. Awash in this primal baptism, you feel born anew.

----

Man, writing erotica is hard. Let me rephrase that: writing good erotica is hard. And when I say "good", I mean by literary standards, not by porn standards. Getting somebody off is easy - even with words. You don't have to take an Honors English course in order to figure out how to get someone off.

But it occurs to me that the reason written erotica so easily devolves into cheesy puns and vomited thesauruses is that it's just not very interesting to describe the logistics of sex past a certain point. "I got hard. I stuck the cock in my mouth. I stroked it. I squeezed the balls. It came all over me." It's hot - sure. But not very interesting; and my approach towards the erotic arts has always been to apply a certain standard of quality and raise it above the level of being just smut.

And, with that in mind, all that coarse language - while effective - just doesn't sound very sophisticated. That's where the metaphors and euphemisms come into play. I'm not intentionally dancing around the issue of calling a penis a penis (or a dick or a cock) - although some authors may be, in order to circumvent the censors. I just want something more...evocative, than provocative.

But, you know, even the floweriest metaphor gets boring with repetition, and sex is nothing if not repetitious. "I pierced the quarry with my lance, then withdrew. I pierced her again. And again. And again. And again." So, you start to look for alternatives. And consistency becomes difficult. One minute you're on a foxhunt, the next, you're fishing for oysters. Your partner morphs from a goddess into a sack of meat. Your genitals have all the versatility of a weapon, a tool, and a toy wrapped up into one handy device.

Another difficulty with writing erotica is that describing a scene takes a lot longer than getting turned on. (And if the erotica you're writing doesn't turn you on, you should probably pick a different scene). I learned that a long time ago, scribbling illicit narratives into a secret notebook, extending my arousal indefinitely in hopes of finishing the story, only to inevitably end up finishing myself first. Perhaps it would be a good idea to write in multiple sessions, but I find that I rarely return to the same story twice...

Try This On For Size (Or Don't)

[description: nude fitting room selfie]

I found this intriguing dress the other day, which is actually completely see-through. I'm wearing it in the picture above. It comes from the Emperor's new clothing line. Lol! No, I'm just kidding. I did find a see-through dress, though - I'm wearing it in the picture below (for real this time). It comes with a flesh-colored slip to go underneath, which is pretty cool on its own, although of course I couldn't help trying it on with nothing underneath. I imagine a lot of women would be horrified to wear something that basically looks - at a glance - like they're naked or otherwise immodestly exposed. Obviously, that kind of thing just tickles me pink. The dress - without the modesty slip - would be perfect to wear to a formal occasion at a nudist resort. It has all the benefits of looking and feeling like you're dressed, while still being completely exposed!

The pinkish orange color of it is pretty, and blends well with the skin, but I would love to see clothes like this in other colors, too - especially green. I'm always on the lookout for the kinds of things a fantasy faerie might wear. That is, if she wears anything - like topless mermaids, naked faeries are underrepresented. In my view, one of the great things about faeries is their unselfconscious acceptance of nudity. So instead of those gaudy outfits you usually see them in (even if it is neat when they're fashioned after leaves and flowers and things), I've always preferred them to be garbed (if at all) in shimmery, glittery, translucent garments. More Oona from Legend (a movie that not only shaped my mental image of faeries, but features my favorite fantasy interpretation of the devil, in the form of Tim Curry as Lord Darkness), and less the elegantly dressed faeries of Amy Brown.

[description: fitting room selfie in a completely transparent tulle dress]

Front & Back

[description: clone shot of a nude man seen from front and back]

A few things about this picture, for those who are curious about the invisible scaffolding that goes into the production of images like this one (as opposed to those who prefer to simply look at the result and move on):

Firstly, I know I've defended my cluttered backgrounds in the past, but yeah, they're starting to drive me crazy. I should put in the work to clean them up before taking pictures, but that's one of those idealistic sorts of things that doesn't always happen in practice. In my case, photography is often a spontaneous activity, and every moment spent preparing a backdrop is a moment that could potentially interrupt my streak of inspiration.

Plus, I live with a roommate, and as much as I'm sure she'd yell at me for taking photographic evidence of her [dis]organization skills (like anybody is going to be studying the backgrounds in my pictures, am I right? :p), I really don't like touching and moving other people's things around (no matter how many times they tell me it's okay). So, there's that.

Now, you could say, "just find a different corner of the apartment to take your pictures in!" And, on the surface, that would look like good advice. But there are only so many corners in this tiny apartment, and my choice depends largely on certain limiting factors that are more or less outside of my control. Some corners of the apartment just photograph better than others - and I'm not talking about the backdrop. I mean the lighting - a combination of the overhead lights and the natural light which comes in pretty much on only one side of the whole apartment. (I know, I need to learn how to use an off-camera flash - it's next on my list of photo upgrades). And then I have to think about where to put the camera in these cramped spaces, and what might get in the way of the foreground (like the corner of a bed, or a table, or a door frame). There are a finite number of spots in this apartment with flattering lighting and enough room to set up a camera.

Enough about the challenges of ghetto photography. The other thing I wanted to say about this photograph is that its creative genesis was pretty straightforward (which makes sense: the subject is pretty simple). Surely you're already familiar with my past experiments with coupling front and back shots of my figure together. I mean, it's a pretty obvious technique - but I'm not one to shy away from the classics. Well, I was actually thinking about it recently, and my last couple of attempts were diptychs. It occurred to me that a clone shot with two figures seemingly standing next to each other at the same time (instead of two figures in the same place but at different times) would result in a smoother image, while also emphasizing the social nature of the portrait. And that's how this image was born.

I must note that, while I think it works pretty well as it is, at least as far as creating the illusion of two figures interacting goes, they feel a little unnaturally close together. Which is the same problem I had when I tried to create a similar image [broken link] a few years back with a clothed figure and a nude one. I mean, it's not like two people can't stand that close together - especially if they're close friends (or better). But without contact or overlapping - which is tricky to do in Photoshop - and without synchronization between the two figures' body language (which is difficult to fake when the two figures are not standing there at the same time actually interacting with each other - this is one of those challenges that clone photographers have to struggle with), the closeness actually (to me, at least) sets off my 'personal space alarm' and makes the image look slightly less real.

As I said, I still think it looks great, but that's something I would play around with if I were to try this shot again (and I probably will try another variation of it sooner or later). In this case, the closeness was a symptom of me working with a new lens - a prime, with a fixed focal length. I had the camera pushed back against the far wall, and I just couldn't back up any more to get more space in the frame. I could have (and possibly should have) switched out for another lens, but really, I'm trying to get some experience using this lens since it's new, and I want to get a good feel for it, and see how the quality of the images I take while using it ultimately turn out.

Oh, one last thing: 5x7 is such an awkward aspect ratio for photography. I don't know why, but I seem to have a hard time either finding frames or getting prints in that ratio. So I try to avoid using it as much as possible, opting for either of the more popular 4x5, which is a little wider, or 4x6, which is a tad longer (compare). But I'll be honest, sometimes I'll find myself working on an image where 5x7 frames it just perfectly, and no other ratio will do.

Thanks for taking a peek behind the curtain with me!

[description: a nude man, seen from back, peaks behind a red curtain]

Screwing in a Light Bulb

Q: How many nudists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

[description: a nude man stands on a chair, reaching up to change a light bulb in the ceiling]

A: Just one. We do things like everybody else does them. We just do them naked. -_^

Sailor Stripper Moon

[description: cosplay photos in a sexy Sailor Moon outfit with knee-high red vinyl boots]

Here's a sneak peek at a cosplay I'm planning for this spring. It's in response to every sex negative prude who's ever criticized a Sailor Moon cosplayer for pairing her outfit with so-called "stripper boots", or slut-shamed any cosplayer for playing up the sex appeal (whether canonical or fan-imagined) of the character they're cosplaying. I call it "Sailor Stripper Moon". It consists of a pair of Sailor Moon-themed lingerie (bra, panties, and skirt - plus accessories) that I picked up at the con last year, along with a pair of stripper boots that I just bought with my Xmas savings. You can grumble all you want about the sexy people you encounter in the world, but know this: we aren't going anywhere. So you might as well get used to us.

Try This On For Size (New Years Edition)

[description: fitting room selfies in jacket, boots, and a pair of underwear]

If not for the coat, I'd be channeling a little bit of an early No Pants Day in this outfit - except on the top and bottom! There's an idea - Underwear Day, in which everybody goes about their daily lives in their underwear. Hey, it's not that far removed from Pajama Day! (I've never been able to properly participate in Pajama Day, however - since I sleep in the nude).

[description: fitting room selfies in different bikinis, with and without top]

Trying on some more swimsuits - because that's always fun. I put together this black ensemble on the left, and it actually looks really good on me. The bottom is a skirt-suit. It's not as skimpy as I like, but it does a better job of hiding my bulge than the one on the right, as much as I like that other style. One of the problems with me wearing bikini bottoms like these that aren't designed for a man's "hardware" is that, with the fabric stretched over my bulge, it doesn't fit snug against my body. It's too bad our society isn't as forgiving of "side-ball" cleavage as it is of side-boob cleavage. Otherwise I would totally wear a suit like this to the pool (even without a top), and look fantastic doing it. Call me a nutcase if you like, but a world where I (and others) would be permitted to do that is honestly the one I want to live in.

[description: fitting room selfie in a fluffy pink robe, open with nothing on underneath]

And I think I've found myself a new robe, to replace the ratty old one I've had for several years now! It's not quite as short as I'd like, but apparently, they're hard to find in that super-flirty length. Of course, I had to try it on like I would wear it at home - with nothing on underneath!