Happy World Naked Gardening Day! I'd tell you to go outside and do some naked gardening, but I'm a little bit bitter about the fact that - excepting the very rare minority who either live full-time at a nudist resort, or else own property with really good privacy (which becomes progressively harder to find as the population continues to grow outside all bounds of decency) - most people cannot celebrate World Naked Gardening Day in any kind of fun or exciting way, without breaking the law. Nudists can come up with as many naked holidays as they want (and the more the merrier), but it'd be nice if there were some way we all could use holidays like this one to promote our lifestyle and protest society's unreasonable taboo on nudity. Alas, I am stuck inside watering houseplants - barred from the fresh air and sunshine that I desire - and instead of a magnificent portrait of naturism demonstrating the beauty in the juxtaposition of mother nature and the naked form, you get this mediocre, backlit picture of me in my apartment that looks a lot like so many others I've taken. Enjoy!
[description: a naked man stands with a watering can in front of houseplants]
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
No Panties Day
The following picture was inspired by a photo I saw on deviantART [NSFW]. I think that the juxtaposition of being clothed and just about as fully exposed as one can be is fascinating. Call it "clothed nudity" if you will.
[description: a girl in a miniskirt crawls under a desk, exposing her nether regions to the viewer]
In the same year that I began my nude photography hobby in earnest (2008), I found out about a little known holiday called No Pants Day, which I am to understand occurs on the first Friday of every May (taking "casual Friday" to the next level!). I don't think it's a very big holiday - I've yet to come across anyone else who celebrates it. It is, also - despite being a holiday entirely up my alley - unfortunately a difficult holiday to celebrate, because it's a lot less fun going around in public without your pants on when there's the fear of being called out, kicked out (of stores), and getting in trouble with the decency police. It's one of those holidays (sadly, like Slut Day, which I created) that doesn't really work unless you've got a lot of people celebrating it - because there's strength in numbers. If there's a group of people walking around without pants on, people will think there's something to it, and be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If it's just one person walking around without pants on, people are liable to think that they must either be some kind of pervert or lunatic. So, it's been very hard for me to actually celebrate this holiday since I've discovered it, although I have liked to occasionally use it as inspiration for my photography.
This year, I was thinking about more practical alternatives to walking around without pants on, and I thought of the possibility of wearing a skirt without panties on underneath. It's a little bit more surreptitious - people probably wouldn't know to glance at you - yet it's still freeing and a little naughty. Except, the problem is, it doesn't work so well if you're a guy. Bypassing the fact that for most men, wearing a skirt itself would be a bizarre fashion movement (because for me, personally, it wouldn't be unusual), there's the fact that a man's anatomy is not designed for wearing skirts - especially without anything on underneath. Speaking from dangerous experience, if the skirt is too short, there's the trouble of your stuff hanging out below the hem. And as you're walking along without support, you're liable to flop around and make a show of yourself, even beneath the skirt. If you dare to get excited - being open to the air in public as you are - you run the risk of creating a very conspicuous bulge, and possibly even causing your skirt to lift up fully, displaying your arousal for all the world to see. While some perverts might certainly get off on this (it's a hot fantasy!), suffice to say, this is not a great way to have a good time while avoiding getting into trouble.
And so, we're back to the drawing board. If anyone knows of any way to make No Pants Day more palatable and easier to celebrate, I'm all ears. Sadly, I have the same problem with World Naked Gardening Day, which I believe is tomorrow. It's another one of those holidays that you can't really celebrate (except under very limited conditions that not everyone has access to) without worrying about having a chat with the local police. These are holidays I support and believe in, and I want to spread the word! But I'm stuck, and I can't celebrate them. Surely, there must be some other way to participate...
[description: a girl in a miniskirt crawls under a desk, exposing her nether regions to the viewer]
In the same year that I began my nude photography hobby in earnest (2008), I found out about a little known holiday called No Pants Day, which I am to understand occurs on the first Friday of every May (taking "casual Friday" to the next level!). I don't think it's a very big holiday - I've yet to come across anyone else who celebrates it. It is, also - despite being a holiday entirely up my alley - unfortunately a difficult holiday to celebrate, because it's a lot less fun going around in public without your pants on when there's the fear of being called out, kicked out (of stores), and getting in trouble with the decency police. It's one of those holidays (sadly, like Slut Day, which I created) that doesn't really work unless you've got a lot of people celebrating it - because there's strength in numbers. If there's a group of people walking around without pants on, people will think there's something to it, and be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If it's just one person walking around without pants on, people are liable to think that they must either be some kind of pervert or lunatic. So, it's been very hard for me to actually celebrate this holiday since I've discovered it, although I have liked to occasionally use it as inspiration for my photography.
This year, I was thinking about more practical alternatives to walking around without pants on, and I thought of the possibility of wearing a skirt without panties on underneath. It's a little bit more surreptitious - people probably wouldn't know to glance at you - yet it's still freeing and a little naughty. Except, the problem is, it doesn't work so well if you're a guy. Bypassing the fact that for most men, wearing a skirt itself would be a bizarre fashion movement (because for me, personally, it wouldn't be unusual), there's the fact that a man's anatomy is not designed for wearing skirts - especially without anything on underneath. Speaking from dangerous experience, if the skirt is too short, there's the trouble of your stuff hanging out below the hem. And as you're walking along without support, you're liable to flop around and make a show of yourself, even beneath the skirt. If you dare to get excited - being open to the air in public as you are - you run the risk of creating a very conspicuous bulge, and possibly even causing your skirt to lift up fully, displaying your arousal for all the world to see. While some perverts might certainly get off on this (it's a hot fantasy!), suffice to say, this is not a great way to have a good time while avoiding getting into trouble.
And so, we're back to the drawing board. If anyone knows of any way to make No Pants Day more palatable and easier to celebrate, I'm all ears. Sadly, I have the same problem with World Naked Gardening Day, which I believe is tomorrow. It's another one of those holidays that you can't really celebrate (except under very limited conditions that not everyone has access to) without worrying about having a chat with the local police. These are holidays I support and believe in, and I want to spread the word! But I'm stuck, and I can't celebrate them. Surely, there must be some other way to participate...
Monday, May 2, 2016
Incidental Erections
[description: a nude man with an erection sits on a couch playing video games]
I was working on some unfinished photos from last year, and this one in particular gave me an idea. While I guess I've made something of a habit of taking pictures of erections in a variety of contexts (because a little twist of sexuality makes almost anything more exciting, and also because I find the idea of involving sexuality in nonstandard situations intriguing), something about the deliberately incidental nature of the erection in this photo struck me. I'm not playing with myself. I'm not even especially posed in such a way as to emphasize the erection, or my sexuality. I could easily believe that in this picture I had simply been playing video games, and for some reason - whatever it may be: a breeze from the window, a pretty girl on the screen, a sudden awareness of my nakedness, pressure from my arm, or just random blood circulation - my genitalia began to stiffen. Which is exactly the sort of thing I've talked about both in terms of why I think erections should be ignored in nudist situations, as well as why I don't think they should count as "sexually explicit" (i.e., pornographic) from the perspective of censors.
So now I have half a mind to do a whole series of photos depicting "incidental erections" in various situations. The emphasis must not be on the erection itself - while its inclusion in the image is paramount, the subject must be involved in some other non-sexual activity. (Think of it as non-pornographic erections). The point of this would be to show that erections are a natural part of the male human anatomy, and that even though they are typically defined in sexual terms, they do not necessarily have to occur in an obviously sexual context. They are a normal part of life for most males, and are perfectly harmless when not being deliberately manipulated toward sexual purposes. This will emphasize the importance of acting versus being (which is an important nudist principle - nudity is simply a state of being, while lewdness is a form of conscious behavior), while also drawing attention to the fact that life itself is a highly sensual experience (arguably even more so when experienced in the nude). This is a fact of life, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is not necessarily an ugly truth, nor a problematic one, when considered from the perspective of giving people the freedom to choose how to lead their lives.
I was working on some unfinished photos from last year, and this one in particular gave me an idea. While I guess I've made something of a habit of taking pictures of erections in a variety of contexts (because a little twist of sexuality makes almost anything more exciting, and also because I find the idea of involving sexuality in nonstandard situations intriguing), something about the deliberately incidental nature of the erection in this photo struck me. I'm not playing with myself. I'm not even especially posed in such a way as to emphasize the erection, or my sexuality. I could easily believe that in this picture I had simply been playing video games, and for some reason - whatever it may be: a breeze from the window, a pretty girl on the screen, a sudden awareness of my nakedness, pressure from my arm, or just random blood circulation - my genitalia began to stiffen. Which is exactly the sort of thing I've talked about both in terms of why I think erections should be ignored in nudist situations, as well as why I don't think they should count as "sexually explicit" (i.e., pornographic) from the perspective of censors.
So now I have half a mind to do a whole series of photos depicting "incidental erections" in various situations. The emphasis must not be on the erection itself - while its inclusion in the image is paramount, the subject must be involved in some other non-sexual activity. (Think of it as non-pornographic erections). The point of this would be to show that erections are a natural part of the male human anatomy, and that even though they are typically defined in sexual terms, they do not necessarily have to occur in an obviously sexual context. They are a normal part of life for most males, and are perfectly harmless when not being deliberately manipulated toward sexual purposes. This will emphasize the importance of acting versus being (which is an important nudist principle - nudity is simply a state of being, while lewdness is a form of conscious behavior), while also drawing attention to the fact that life itself is a highly sensual experience (arguably even more so when experienced in the nude). This is a fact of life, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is not necessarily an ugly truth, nor a problematic one, when considered from the perspective of giving people the freedom to choose how to lead their lives.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?
It's always gratifying when you have that moment of epiphany in which you're able to pinpoint precisely the way in which your personal philosophy differs from so many others'. It's one thing to go about the world suffering frustration at every turn by people expressing beliefs that contradict your intuitive understanding of an issue. But being able to actually articulate where and why that difference arises - well, it brings a certain level of peace of mind, and it's also the first step in being able to explain your own position in the hope that maybe some more people will come over to your side.
Being a sexual progressive, it's incredibly frustrating for me to find frequent fault with the platform of mainstream sexual progress, because I feel that it's not progressive enough. It's one thing to be able to ally with other progressives against the common enemy of sexual repression and moral conservatism, but when your fight for sexual liberation places you at odds with even those who should be on your side, it's a very isolating and discouraging feeling. Now, it may be true that there are many out there, even among the progressive camps, who cling to the belief that sexual consent ought to indeed be considered a privilege instead of a right (rather than this simply being a semantic misunderstanding), but stating the difference is enough to create awareness of there being two different ways to approach the issue, so that in the future, progressives can dictate their stance, and other progressives who disagree with that stance can know that there is other ground to occupy, on which there may be others already standing, ready to stand with them.
(As a disclaimer, I'm not claiming to be the first person to ever consider the question of whether sexual consent should be considered a privilege or a right - although I have come to this point by independent channels of thought and reason - but I see so little support for the belief that sexual consent should be considered a right - a belief that I hold - and so much support for the other view, that I feel warranted in constructing my position rather than joining one that, as far as I can see in any direction, either does not exist, or is not visible enough to be easily found. And if the latter be the case, I hope that by adding my voice, it may become all the more visible, if even by just a little bit).
Now, to state my position:
Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?
The freedom to give consent - and, by extension, its opposite: the freedom to deny consent - to [give and/or receive, among mutually consenting parties] sexual stimulation is not a legal privilege to be granted to select populations with certain limitations. It is a fundamental human right.
Sexual progressives these days almost unanimously voice the opinion that consent is the cornerstone of positive sexuality. But while this is certainly true, they fail to make the distinction between true consent, and consent as a privilege granted by the state. To support the legal construct of sexual consent - as these "progressives" mostly do - is, in fact, a regressive approach. It is an acquiescence to the day's moral taboos. Fifty years ago, homosexuals were not permitted the privilege to consent to sexual acts with each other. Does this mean that they did not deserve the right to engage in such behaviors? Certainly not! That the law has changed since then is a victory for sexual progress, but do you think this ever would have happened without people challenging the notion that the law is the final arbiter of the validity of people's desires?
You might believe that, since the law has been more or less "corrected" for its previous glaring omission(s), we can now afford to fall back on the view that the law is sovereign. But nothing about the law's fallibility has changed. Including a disenfranchised minority under the law's protection does not change the fact (or my opinion, if you wish) that sexual consent ought to be considered a human right, and not a legal privilege. Is our work done now, or is progress a never-ending pursuit? Should we not stay vigilant against the forces of regression, lest public sentiment take another turn, and we find ourselves sliding back into old ways? Then, all our support for the new law will be easily switched over to support the newer, more regressive laws, because by putting our faith in the law, we've demonstrated that while public sentiment may change, in the end, the law has the final say.
Rather, I think it is more righteous to acknowledge an adherence to the law only insofar as doing so contributes to the social order, and not to the extent of letting the law dictate our personal philosophies. For if laws may change through time (as they most assuredly do), then there must be a greater purpose guiding them, and I believe that purpose is human conscience. And rather than a legal privilege - like operating a motor vehicle - it is my belief that the ability to grant or deny consent to engage in sexually stimulating activities is one of those inalienable rights upon the recognition of which the dignity of human life depends. Furthermore, I consider this a fundamental tenet of true sex-positivity.
Being a sexual progressive, it's incredibly frustrating for me to find frequent fault with the platform of mainstream sexual progress, because I feel that it's not progressive enough. It's one thing to be able to ally with other progressives against the common enemy of sexual repression and moral conservatism, but when your fight for sexual liberation places you at odds with even those who should be on your side, it's a very isolating and discouraging feeling. Now, it may be true that there are many out there, even among the progressive camps, who cling to the belief that sexual consent ought to indeed be considered a privilege instead of a right (rather than this simply being a semantic misunderstanding), but stating the difference is enough to create awareness of there being two different ways to approach the issue, so that in the future, progressives can dictate their stance, and other progressives who disagree with that stance can know that there is other ground to occupy, on which there may be others already standing, ready to stand with them.
(As a disclaimer, I'm not claiming to be the first person to ever consider the question of whether sexual consent should be considered a privilege or a right - although I have come to this point by independent channels of thought and reason - but I see so little support for the belief that sexual consent should be considered a right - a belief that I hold - and so much support for the other view, that I feel warranted in constructing my position rather than joining one that, as far as I can see in any direction, either does not exist, or is not visible enough to be easily found. And if the latter be the case, I hope that by adding my voice, it may become all the more visible, if even by just a little bit).
Now, to state my position:
Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?
The freedom to give consent - and, by extension, its opposite: the freedom to deny consent - to [give and/or receive, among mutually consenting parties] sexual stimulation is not a legal privilege to be granted to select populations with certain limitations. It is a fundamental human right.
Sexual progressives these days almost unanimously voice the opinion that consent is the cornerstone of positive sexuality. But while this is certainly true, they fail to make the distinction between true consent, and consent as a privilege granted by the state. To support the legal construct of sexual consent - as these "progressives" mostly do - is, in fact, a regressive approach. It is an acquiescence to the day's moral taboos. Fifty years ago, homosexuals were not permitted the privilege to consent to sexual acts with each other. Does this mean that they did not deserve the right to engage in such behaviors? Certainly not! That the law has changed since then is a victory for sexual progress, but do you think this ever would have happened without people challenging the notion that the law is the final arbiter of the validity of people's desires?
You might believe that, since the law has been more or less "corrected" for its previous glaring omission(s), we can now afford to fall back on the view that the law is sovereign. But nothing about the law's fallibility has changed. Including a disenfranchised minority under the law's protection does not change the fact (or my opinion, if you wish) that sexual consent ought to be considered a human right, and not a legal privilege. Is our work done now, or is progress a never-ending pursuit? Should we not stay vigilant against the forces of regression, lest public sentiment take another turn, and we find ourselves sliding back into old ways? Then, all our support for the new law will be easily switched over to support the newer, more regressive laws, because by putting our faith in the law, we've demonstrated that while public sentiment may change, in the end, the law has the final say.
Rather, I think it is more righteous to acknowledge an adherence to the law only insofar as doing so contributes to the social order, and not to the extent of letting the law dictate our personal philosophies. For if laws may change through time (as they most assuredly do), then there must be a greater purpose guiding them, and I believe that purpose is human conscience. And rather than a legal privilege - like operating a motor vehicle - it is my belief that the ability to grant or deny consent to engage in sexually stimulating activities is one of those inalienable rights upon the recognition of which the dignity of human life depends. Furthermore, I consider this a fundamental tenet of true sex-positivity.
Friday, April 22, 2016
A Crime To Hide
I'm (finally, I know) looking over the photos I took over the course of 2015, and I came across one that I really like, that I don't think I ever posted - here, or anywhere else. And I just thought to myself, it's a crime not to let the world see this picture. (Which, incidentally, is a similar thought process to the one that led me to start sharing my nude self-portraits all the way back in 2008). Sadly, I don't have any kind of fame as an artist, and I can't even post images like this one on most photo-sharing sites where I like to present my photography to an audience, because they generally don't allow "pornography" which includes the most artistic erotica, so long as it includes certain types of content, including erections. And though I could post an image like this one on any number of amateur porn sites, I honestly don't believe that a bunch of perverts primarily looking to get off would be able to fully appreciate it. But, just look at this picture:
[description: backlit portrait of a trim male with long hair, in the kitchen, nude with erection]
At the risk of sounding like Narcissus, it's gorgeous! (The truth is, I would be just as enthusiastic if this were a picture I'd taken of someone else - or even if it had been a picture someone else had taken. To reiterate what I've explained before, I don't shoot self-portraits out of any kind of excessive self-obsession, but mainly due to a combination of convenience, anxiety, and the limitations imposed by certain modern taboos. In a perfect world, I would prefer to be shooting other people as gorgeous as this; I actually consider having only myself to work with a frustrating obstacle, and I've merely done the best I can with the material I've been given).
When I look at this picture, I just think about how unfortunate it is that the world will largely not get a chance to see it. There are forces out there - the forces of chastity - that want to keep images like this one hidden behind barriers that only immoral perverts would ever dare cross. Why? Would seeing an image like this one destroy a person's soul? I don't believe that knowledge of the human sexual condition is in and of itself ruinous. This image is beauty incarnate, and I want the whole world to have access to it. I honestly think it transcends the genre of "pornography" and manages to accomplish my personal goal and mission statement of creating erotic works that rise to the level of fine art. I want to say that you needn't be someone who enjoys the erotic appeal of the male form to recognize the beauty in this image. If people didn't behave so weirdly when confronted with the human body and its sexual functions, I would absolutely support plastering this image on the walls of art galleries and above fireplace mantels the world over. I lament that, again, due to the weirdness with which people approach these issues, I can't show this image (and the many others I take) to my own family, to demonstrate what talent I have, and what I've been doing with my life, where I've been applying my passions. Some (perhaps many) of my images, admittedly, are more for fun and the unbridled pursuit of eroticism. But because the censors are blind, I cannot even take pride in the best works I am able to accomplish, due to blanket prohibitions against certain sights that are part and parcel of most people's lives (every man views a penis on the regular, and an erection on occasion if not more frequently, and many women have similar viewing privileges, although there is no reason why even those who don't should not have access to such fundamental knowledge of human anatomy).
To go even further (and I may be pushing it already, but I'm not going to stop halfway), it seems to me a crime that sights like this aren't allowed to be displayed in person, in full public view. It's kind of a joke how many times people (some of them I've lived with, others I've interacted with online) have told me that it should be a crime to cover up my body with clothes. And I agree, wholeheartedly - but yet, there is the law. That's partly the reason I am a nudist. An advocate of public nudity. And one with a lax opinion on the subject of public displays of so-called indecency (including something as innocuous as an isolated erection). Granted, not everyone is equally "beautiful" (a subjective thing to start with), and we live in a democracy, so it wouldn't be fair to let "beautiful" people (but by whose judgment?) walk around naked and have sex in public while the rest of the population are discriminated against for their lack of fitness or lucky genes. Still, as I've said before, I'd be willing to put up with giving everyone the freedom to go nude and engage in acts of reasonable sensuality in public, just for the (probably rare) privilege of being able to witness those beautiful specimens with whom we occasionally cross paths.
Alas, it seems that it was not meant to be. And why? Because we live in a rape culture, where the slightest hint of naked flesh, accompanied by an unasked-for feeling of titillation, imbues us with a sense of entitlement? I'd be more than happy to extricate these brutish animals from the rest of us more civilized creatures, but perhaps the fact that it hasn't happened yet is because they constitute too large a percentage of the population. I feel as though I am the member of some secret society, who may only practice its rituals under cloak and dagger in unhallowed halls accessed by secret passages. Except that there isn't much of a society around me, and it isn't as much fun without community. Nudism is only a vague approximation of some but not all of my ideals. I am a lone wolf without a tribe. An alien stranded on an unfamiliar planet, with no knowledge of where my home is, let alone how to get back there.
[description: backlit portrait of a trim male with long hair, in the kitchen, nude with erection]
At the risk of sounding like Narcissus, it's gorgeous! (The truth is, I would be just as enthusiastic if this were a picture I'd taken of someone else - or even if it had been a picture someone else had taken. To reiterate what I've explained before, I don't shoot self-portraits out of any kind of excessive self-obsession, but mainly due to a combination of convenience, anxiety, and the limitations imposed by certain modern taboos. In a perfect world, I would prefer to be shooting other people as gorgeous as this; I actually consider having only myself to work with a frustrating obstacle, and I've merely done the best I can with the material I've been given).
When I look at this picture, I just think about how unfortunate it is that the world will largely not get a chance to see it. There are forces out there - the forces of chastity - that want to keep images like this one hidden behind barriers that only immoral perverts would ever dare cross. Why? Would seeing an image like this one destroy a person's soul? I don't believe that knowledge of the human sexual condition is in and of itself ruinous. This image is beauty incarnate, and I want the whole world to have access to it. I honestly think it transcends the genre of "pornography" and manages to accomplish my personal goal and mission statement of creating erotic works that rise to the level of fine art. I want to say that you needn't be someone who enjoys the erotic appeal of the male form to recognize the beauty in this image. If people didn't behave so weirdly when confronted with the human body and its sexual functions, I would absolutely support plastering this image on the walls of art galleries and above fireplace mantels the world over. I lament that, again, due to the weirdness with which people approach these issues, I can't show this image (and the many others I take) to my own family, to demonstrate what talent I have, and what I've been doing with my life, where I've been applying my passions. Some (perhaps many) of my images, admittedly, are more for fun and the unbridled pursuit of eroticism. But because the censors are blind, I cannot even take pride in the best works I am able to accomplish, due to blanket prohibitions against certain sights that are part and parcel of most people's lives (every man views a penis on the regular, and an erection on occasion if not more frequently, and many women have similar viewing privileges, although there is no reason why even those who don't should not have access to such fundamental knowledge of human anatomy).
To go even further (and I may be pushing it already, but I'm not going to stop halfway), it seems to me a crime that sights like this aren't allowed to be displayed in person, in full public view. It's kind of a joke how many times people (some of them I've lived with, others I've interacted with online) have told me that it should be a crime to cover up my body with clothes. And I agree, wholeheartedly - but yet, there is the law. That's partly the reason I am a nudist. An advocate of public nudity. And one with a lax opinion on the subject of public displays of so-called indecency (including something as innocuous as an isolated erection). Granted, not everyone is equally "beautiful" (a subjective thing to start with), and we live in a democracy, so it wouldn't be fair to let "beautiful" people (but by whose judgment?) walk around naked and have sex in public while the rest of the population are discriminated against for their lack of fitness or lucky genes. Still, as I've said before, I'd be willing to put up with giving everyone the freedom to go nude and engage in acts of reasonable sensuality in public, just for the (probably rare) privilege of being able to witness those beautiful specimens with whom we occasionally cross paths.
Alas, it seems that it was not meant to be. And why? Because we live in a rape culture, where the slightest hint of naked flesh, accompanied by an unasked-for feeling of titillation, imbues us with a sense of entitlement? I'd be more than happy to extricate these brutish animals from the rest of us more civilized creatures, but perhaps the fact that it hasn't happened yet is because they constitute too large a percentage of the population. I feel as though I am the member of some secret society, who may only practice its rituals under cloak and dagger in unhallowed halls accessed by secret passages. Except that there isn't much of a society around me, and it isn't as much fun without community. Nudism is only a vague approximation of some but not all of my ideals. I am a lone wolf without a tribe. An alien stranded on an unfamiliar planet, with no knowledge of where my home is, let alone how to get back there.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Springtime of Youth
It is not a sickness to prefer the flowering trees in the springtime to the full foliage of the summer. It is one thing to admire the buds before they've begun to bloom, but flowers are a naturally beautiful expression of sexual nubility. They attract your attention for a very good reason - the reason we are all here in the first place. So let us not forsake this splendorous phenomenon.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Monster Cock
The erect phallus is the most potent symbol of desire in mankind's lexicon. The male sex organ becomes aroused with the promise of pleasure and satisfaction, the stiffness of its rigidity a throbbing gauge of carnal appetite. But one of the saddest cruel ironies of fate (and evidence that if there is a God, he's a sadistic bastard) is the fact that in this life, what we want is so rarely what we get. This tool was clearly made for drilling. But in my life experience - both on the internet and off - I've found that those who want my cock are almost exclusively not those whom my cock wants, and that those for whom my cock literally drips with desire, are almost exclusively not those who yearn to be filled up by it. Intelligent design? More like fiendish machinations. I feel like Tantalus in Hell, tempted by the beauty of frollicking nymphs, only to be regularly served up on a platter to the drunken satyrs of Dionysus' retinue instead. Except that I don't know what I've done to deserve such punishment - it just seems to be the way things are. As if there truly were a madman at the wheel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)