This week I'm putting together a new desk.
[description: series of portraits of a nude man putting together a computer desk]
That is, when I'm not taking a break to take pictures of me putting together a new desk. (But I knew you'd thank me :p).
[description: further portraits of a nude man lying on the floor, legs spread displaying an erection]
Some of these pictures got me thinking about an issue I have with a lot of people's attitudes towards nudity. One of the most common criticisms levied against nudism is the fact that "it's never the people you want to see naked" (which isn't strictly true, but is accurate enough in a statistical sense). Now, as any nudist will understand, this is completely missing the point of nudism. But most non-nudists haven't experienced nudism, and don't know the feeling of going nude, which is why they focus on the seeing, instead of the being. It's also a possibility that only a minority of the population is wired (or conditioned) in such a way as to be able to derive enjoyment from the practice of going casually nude. Which could, in part, explain why nudism is a minority lifestyle that the majority of the population thinks is - at best - weird.
Regardless, there is some truth to the complaint that not every body is nice to look at in the nude. In nudism, you get used to seeing people's bodies, and even getting an eyeful of the less flattering ones tends to bother you less and less. (And I would argue that this is generally a healthy thing, because you become less hung up on bodies and what they look like). But, nonetheless, nobody (barring a small minority I don't doubt exists, who are into this sort of thing) really wants to see, for example, their overweight, aging uncle bending over a desk, without any clothes on - I'm not trying to pass off an absurdist argument here. But you know what is nice? The same view, but of an attractive, twenty year old hottie.
[description: portrait of a nude man on all fours, viewed from behind]
However, sights like this are exceedingly rare in everyday life, given that we feel compelled to censor them for a variety of reasons, including fairness and equal rights (although I would argue that it's worth it to let unattractive people go nude just for the reward of seeing attractive people nude - but this is not the majority's opinion). And while the rarity of such sights might make them feel extra special, I would argue that we don't get to experience them nearly enough (call me a hedonist - although "aesthete" would be more accurate - but I want to be surrounded by beauty, not simply awarded a few furtive glances here and there, scattered throughout a long and miserable life)*.
Not all of us have the good fortune of being able to have the experience of being in an intimate relationship with a supermodel (one of the few contexts in which one might encounter - and be permitted, socially as well as legally, to encounter - this kind of sight with any regularity), and even those of us lucky few who do, tend to get to do so for only a limited period of their lives, before time (or feelings) takes its toll. There is porn, for sure, but I object to the assumption that this kind of thing has to necessarily be associated with sex (sometimes it's nice to get the view without that extra baggage and added pressure), plus it's also more visceral a treat when you get to see it in person.
But this idea that the human body is "disgusting" and offensive to look at - I'm not gonna go so far out of my way as to say that there is no truth to that statement. Sometimes nature - raw and uncensored - can be hard to stomach. And all bodies are not "beautiful" in the same visual, physical way. But you know what? Some of them are. And I don't understand why we can't celebrate that separately from the idea that the human body is taboo.
Yeah, sure, if some ugly guy takes a snapshot of his asshole, chances are it's going to be a disgusting, offensive picture that very few people are going to want to look at (much less appreciate being shown without warning - if posted, for example, anywhere other than an amateur porn site). But why is that an argument against the exhibition of a picture of a beautiful model being depicted tastefully, albeit explicitly? I understand that much of this is subjective, and there is always going to be a grey area, but why are community standards so heavily biased towards the one side? Can't we at least rule fairly on the black and white cases lying at the extremes?
Like everything else, bodies can be depicted tastefully and tastelessly, so why is it that a body tastefully depicted (and I mean being able to see the anatomy, not "tasteful" in terms of the coy, "you can't really see anything" teasing that is so popular in the mass market media) is lumped in with disgusting, distasteful depictions of human flesh? It's all treated as taboo, without distinction. But this idea that there is something fundamentally disturbing about the human body - not in the way it is shot or posed, but intrinsic to its very nature - is extremely unhealthy. Is this not obvious?
How can we go through our lives believing that our bodies - our very bodies! - are such loathful things? Is it any wonder we have serious body image issues in our culture? Not just because we hold ordinary people up to extraordinary standards, but that even the people who have beautiful bodies are made to feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with them - that if, for example, a kid were to see it, it would psychologically damage them for life. And even if it's the case that beautiful naked bodies tend to remind people of sex, why does it make sense for people to be so neurotically sensitive to that topic, which informs most of what we do as animate lifeforms crawling over the face of the planet? I think it's clear where the psychological damage can truly be found.
* You know what, this calls for a full-on rant. But I'll save it for another post.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Monday, June 27, 2016
My Annual Speedo Rant
[description: portrait of a male torso, wearing a yellow Speedo]
Believe it or not, I recently read some comments about swimsuit standards in some parts of Europe, that actually deem "swim trunks" (i.e., the long-legged "board shorts" that are ubiquitous in the United States) unacceptable pool attire - mainly for more-or-less bogus hygiene reasons. Whether or not that's true (and it's plausible, given stereotypes of the speedo's relative acceptance in Europe), it struck me how opposite that was to what I'm used to here in the States, where instead of being pretty much mandatory, speedo-style swimsuits are not only uncommon, but sometimes even restricted! While the only reasonable swimming attire is nudity, I think the European approach makes more sense of the two, because it preserves the notion of getting undressed before going into the water. I cannot believe how prudish and puritanical our standards are here in America. It's insane!
Honestly, if this truly were a free country, then I would not encounter the restrictions against speedos that I've come across. Are speedos for everyone? Of course not! Does that mean that no one should be allowed to wear them? No! Because whether or not you like them should not dictate my decision on whether or not to wear one. Every argument you could possibly make against speedos could also be made about bikinis. But that doesn't stop bikinis from being ultra popular. The only meaningful difference stems from the fact that we live in a patriarchal society dominated by the male gaze. So while it is okay - even encouraged! - for women (and their daughters) to parade themselves around the family pool like pieces of meat, the [straight male] powers that be tend to get uncomfortable when men do the same, and thereby deem it unacceptable.
But what really amazes me is how many women go along with this state of affairs. They'll believe that any woman should be allowed to wear a bikini if she feels empowered by doing so, because of freedom and equality and self-confidence and all that, but that even fit men look ridiculous in speedos (like, really?), and should be banned from wearing them on the off chance that permitting them to do so might encourage a not-so-fit man to also wear one. (I tell you, so-called "women's issues" are not limited to women, yet feminists love ignoring half of the population's concerns). Or that somehow the mere suggestion of the shape of a penis is intrinsically traumatizing (either to children, or to women - who are considered in the victim culture to be just as weak and vulnerable as children) in a way that pointy nipples and camel toe are decidedly not.
Um, right. That's totally fair. Simply put, it is sexist discrimination for speedos to be banned anywhere that bikinis are permitted. And the fact that feminists don't even address this issue - not even as a footnote - when talking about the cultural objectification of women makes me feel not only that feminism is not on my side (which is understandable, since I was not born a woman), but also that feminism is not about equality; rather, it is about female supremacy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so allergic to a truly egalitarian approach to the issue, and they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what they perceive as a "male" perspective (in spite of it being very unconventionally so). In conclusion, you may not like speedos, but your preferences have no jurisdiction over my choice to wear them. And banning them is antithetical to equality, so long as women continue to bare nearly all in their bikinis. And if you want to ban those, too, then you're quite simply an enemy of freedom.
Believe it or not, I recently read some comments about swimsuit standards in some parts of Europe, that actually deem "swim trunks" (i.e., the long-legged "board shorts" that are ubiquitous in the United States) unacceptable pool attire - mainly for more-or-less bogus hygiene reasons. Whether or not that's true (and it's plausible, given stereotypes of the speedo's relative acceptance in Europe), it struck me how opposite that was to what I'm used to here in the States, where instead of being pretty much mandatory, speedo-style swimsuits are not only uncommon, but sometimes even restricted! While the only reasonable swimming attire is nudity, I think the European approach makes more sense of the two, because it preserves the notion of getting undressed before going into the water. I cannot believe how prudish and puritanical our standards are here in America. It's insane!
Honestly, if this truly were a free country, then I would not encounter the restrictions against speedos that I've come across. Are speedos for everyone? Of course not! Does that mean that no one should be allowed to wear them? No! Because whether or not you like them should not dictate my decision on whether or not to wear one. Every argument you could possibly make against speedos could also be made about bikinis. But that doesn't stop bikinis from being ultra popular. The only meaningful difference stems from the fact that we live in a patriarchal society dominated by the male gaze. So while it is okay - even encouraged! - for women (and their daughters) to parade themselves around the family pool like pieces of meat, the [straight male] powers that be tend to get uncomfortable when men do the same, and thereby deem it unacceptable.
But what really amazes me is how many women go along with this state of affairs. They'll believe that any woman should be allowed to wear a bikini if she feels empowered by doing so, because of freedom and equality and self-confidence and all that, but that even fit men look ridiculous in speedos (like, really?), and should be banned from wearing them on the off chance that permitting them to do so might encourage a not-so-fit man to also wear one. (I tell you, so-called "women's issues" are not limited to women, yet feminists love ignoring half of the population's concerns). Or that somehow the mere suggestion of the shape of a penis is intrinsically traumatizing (either to children, or to women - who are considered in the victim culture to be just as weak and vulnerable as children) in a way that pointy nipples and camel toe are decidedly not.
Um, right. That's totally fair. Simply put, it is sexist discrimination for speedos to be banned anywhere that bikinis are permitted. And the fact that feminists don't even address this issue - not even as a footnote - when talking about the cultural objectification of women makes me feel not only that feminism is not on my side (which is understandable, since I was not born a woman), but also that feminism is not about equality; rather, it is about female supremacy. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so allergic to a truly egalitarian approach to the issue, and they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what they perceive as a "male" perspective (in spite of it being very unconventionally so). In conclusion, you may not like speedos, but your preferences have no jurisdiction over my choice to wear them. And banning them is antithetical to equality, so long as women continue to bare nearly all in their bikinis. And if you want to ban those, too, then you're quite simply an enemy of freedom.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Porn Spectrum
I feel like people may be getting sick and tired of hearing about "spectrums" (spectra?) by now. First it was the sexuality spectrum - Kinsey's groundbreaking research into the shades of grey that exist between "gay" and "straight". Nowadays it's the gender spectrum - people existing at disparate points between "male" and "female" (and even living at multiple separate points simultaneously, or somewhere off of the spectrum entirely - more on that in another post). But regardless of whether anyone likes it or not (and why do people not like diversity and inclusivity?), spectrums are a useful way of looking at things. Unless you're a coin, very few things in life are legitimately black or white. Oversimplification can make things easier, but it can also obscure the full nature of reality.
In any case, I just came (that's what she said) to the realization that porn can be viewed as being on a spectrum, too. This isn't a new concept to me - I've argued in the past that most anti-porn activists are committing a logical fallacy by equating all porn with the particular kind (usually abusive) that they don't like. But using the idea of a spectrum - hey, that works great! Most people recognize the difference between hardcore and softcore porn, which is a good place to start. But unless they're trying to get off, few people actually make much of a distinction between the two. In their minds, it's all porn. But not all porn is the same. It shouldn't all be treated the same. And it shouldn't all be subject to the same rules and regulations.
For example, people frequently have a hard time determining whether something constitutes "porn", in order to be able to decide whether or not it needs to be censored - or, barring that, censured. In on-the-fence cases - like fine art nudes and nudist media - there's a wide margin for error, that often results in miscategorization. The fact of the matter is, anyone can use anything for porn. But that doesn't make it sexually explicit. If one person jerks off to a Home & Garden magazine, does that mean we should start selling it on the newsstands in an opaque sleeve, to protect innocent eyes? No, of course not! That wouldn't make sense. The FBI would have to start investigating gardeners for not getting written proof of age for the plants they've shared pictures of on Facebook.
The truth is, porn exists on a spectrum. Actually, it exists on a lot of spectrums. From softcore to hardcore, dressed to nude, non-contact to penetration, solo to group, consensual to nonconsensual, pain to pleasure, vanilla to kinky. All of these things vary in quantity and quality - and popularity. They encompass different acts with varying degrees of repercussions - physically, psychologically, and socially. Some of them are vastly different from the rest. They do not all demand the same treatment. The fact that snuff films (if they are more than just a fantasy) are unconscionable does not, for example, impugn the reputation of naked selfies. And if you like naked selfies, this can not, similarly, be construed as a tacit endorsement of snuff films. Understand?
In any case, I just came (that's what she said) to the realization that porn can be viewed as being on a spectrum, too. This isn't a new concept to me - I've argued in the past that most anti-porn activists are committing a logical fallacy by equating all porn with the particular kind (usually abusive) that they don't like. But using the idea of a spectrum - hey, that works great! Most people recognize the difference between hardcore and softcore porn, which is a good place to start. But unless they're trying to get off, few people actually make much of a distinction between the two. In their minds, it's all porn. But not all porn is the same. It shouldn't all be treated the same. And it shouldn't all be subject to the same rules and regulations.
For example, people frequently have a hard time determining whether something constitutes "porn", in order to be able to decide whether or not it needs to be censored - or, barring that, censured. In on-the-fence cases - like fine art nudes and nudist media - there's a wide margin for error, that often results in miscategorization. The fact of the matter is, anyone can use anything for porn. But that doesn't make it sexually explicit. If one person jerks off to a Home & Garden magazine, does that mean we should start selling it on the newsstands in an opaque sleeve, to protect innocent eyes? No, of course not! That wouldn't make sense. The FBI would have to start investigating gardeners for not getting written proof of age for the plants they've shared pictures of on Facebook.
The truth is, porn exists on a spectrum. Actually, it exists on a lot of spectrums. From softcore to hardcore, dressed to nude, non-contact to penetration, solo to group, consensual to nonconsensual, pain to pleasure, vanilla to kinky. All of these things vary in quantity and quality - and popularity. They encompass different acts with varying degrees of repercussions - physically, psychologically, and socially. Some of them are vastly different from the rest. They do not all demand the same treatment. The fact that snuff films (if they are more than just a fantasy) are unconscionable does not, for example, impugn the reputation of naked selfies. And if you like naked selfies, this can not, similarly, be construed as a tacit endorsement of snuff films. Understand?
[description: sexting photo of a nude male torso]
Social evil? Or wholesome fun?
Social evil? Or wholesome fun?
Saturday, June 18, 2016
"Gay" and "Straight" are Cis-sexist Terms
As a person with transgender experience, I find the terms "homo-" and "hetero-sexual" (and their colloquial equivalents - "gay" and "straight") to be problematic, because it is not clear whether they are referring to a person's physical sex or mental gender. And the cultural stereotype of the transsexual experience is a person born in the wrong body - whose gender doesn't match their sex, and who must embark on a journey to acquire conformity between their sex and gender. Which is ironically cis-sexist, because it presupposes that sex and gender must align in a stable individual. That, for example, a female-gendered person can't exist comfortably in a male body or vice-versa. Which has not been my experience.
Non-op transgendered individuals surely exist, but their experience is not part of the mainstream consciousness. And anyway, it complicates these terms - "gay" and "straight" - because without indicating whether they are referring strictly to physical sex or mental gender, they presuppose that the two are the same. Imagine that a woman born in a man's body identifies as female. Let's say she is attracted to men. Is she gay, or straight? In her mind, possessing the body she was meant to have - a female body - she would be straight. But let's say that while she still possesses the body of a man, she has a sexual experience with a man she is attracted to. Is the sex they have gay or straight? In the transwoman's mind, it may be straight, but to any outsider (as well as the man who is sexually engaging with a penis), it is a sexual experience between two individuals who each have a penis. How can that be anything other than gay? (I have to credit Liz Taylor from American Horror Story: Hotel for presenting me with this conundrum).
Granted, the transwoman's gender identity makes it more complicated than a straightforward cis-sexual experience - because the mind, and the gender identity of the participants, is an important aspect of a sexual experience. That's one reason why some people are specifically attracted to transgendered and transsexual individuals. You can be sexually oriented towards one sex and another gender. Some people may describe it as being attracted either to tomboys or girly men. In that case, what determines whether you describe a person's sexual orientation as gay or straight? Does it depend on the target of attraction's physical sex, or gender identity (or expression)? And is the answer to that question something that we would all be able to agree on, so that we can use consistent language? I would argue that these terms are simply not adequate to use in a trans-friendly framework - one that presupposes the possibility of a disparity between one's sex and gender.
I've created this graphic to illustrate my point. For the moment, we are ignoring the intersexed, in order to keep things relatively simple. On the left, we have what I call the "cis-framework", because it does not differentiate between sex and gender; they are presumed to be the same. As such, there are only males and females. A male/female pair is defined as being "straight", while a male/male pair is called "gay", and the female/female equivalent is termed "lesbian".
On the right, we have the "trans-framework", which differentiates between sex and gender. The symbol indicates physical sex, while the color refers to mental gender (we are assuming a binary gender, although the reality may be even more complicated than this). Thus, a blue male symbol refers to a cis-male (who identifies as the male gender), and a pink female symbol likewise refers to a cis-female. The previous pairings that are defined as being traditionally straight, gay, and lesbian are duplicated, this time with the matching genders filled in.
But now, you'll notice that we have the addition of transgendered individuals - a male symbol colored in as the female gender, and vice versa. These may be pre-op transsexuals in the midst of transitioning, so as to align their physical sex with their mental gender (and thus satisfy cis-sexual standards), or they could be non-op transgendered individuals who are comfortable having a sex and gender that do not match. Either way, when we start pairing them up with other individuals (whether cisgendered or transgendered), the terms "gay" and "straight" break down.
For example, try to define the pairings listed in the lower right corner. If two people who both identify as female have penis-in-vagina intercourse, is this gay or straight? What about two people who both identify as male? Is it still straight if the one with the penis identifies as female, and the one with the vagina identifies as male? What if they exclusively have anal sex with a strap-on, and never penis-in-vagina intercourse? Is that gay or straight? Is it any different if this same situation occurs between a cis-male and a cis-female? Is it gay if one member of a couple lives as a man, and the other as a woman, but they both have penises? Is it lesbian if they both have vaginas? Do they have to identify that way, even though doing so might "out" the transgendered partner who is trying to pass? Two men with vaginas could get by calling themselves gay, but are two women with penises allowed to identify as lesbian? Can you be "straight by day, but gay by night"? And if so, how does one differentiate this situation from that of a family man who secretly visits gay bars? Should the terms we use refer to romantic pairings or sex acts, since they cannot consistently be applied to both? Can two gay people have straight sex together, or vice versa?
I hope you see by now that when we include transgender individuals, our cis-sexual framework for sexual couplings falls apart. My solution to this problem would be to redefine our terminology for sexual orientation by referring only to who we are attracted to (e.g., man-attracted, woman-attracted), while indicating our own sex and gender separately. I call this SGO Notation (for sex, gender, orientation). But I'll have more to say about that in a future post.
Non-op transgendered individuals surely exist, but their experience is not part of the mainstream consciousness. And anyway, it complicates these terms - "gay" and "straight" - because without indicating whether they are referring strictly to physical sex or mental gender, they presuppose that the two are the same. Imagine that a woman born in a man's body identifies as female. Let's say she is attracted to men. Is she gay, or straight? In her mind, possessing the body she was meant to have - a female body - she would be straight. But let's say that while she still possesses the body of a man, she has a sexual experience with a man she is attracted to. Is the sex they have gay or straight? In the transwoman's mind, it may be straight, but to any outsider (as well as the man who is sexually engaging with a penis), it is a sexual experience between two individuals who each have a penis. How can that be anything other than gay? (I have to credit Liz Taylor from American Horror Story: Hotel for presenting me with this conundrum).
Granted, the transwoman's gender identity makes it more complicated than a straightforward cis-sexual experience - because the mind, and the gender identity of the participants, is an important aspect of a sexual experience. That's one reason why some people are specifically attracted to transgendered and transsexual individuals. You can be sexually oriented towards one sex and another gender. Some people may describe it as being attracted either to tomboys or girly men. In that case, what determines whether you describe a person's sexual orientation as gay or straight? Does it depend on the target of attraction's physical sex, or gender identity (or expression)? And is the answer to that question something that we would all be able to agree on, so that we can use consistent language? I would argue that these terms are simply not adequate to use in a trans-friendly framework - one that presupposes the possibility of a disparity between one's sex and gender.
I've created this graphic to illustrate my point. For the moment, we are ignoring the intersexed, in order to keep things relatively simple. On the left, we have what I call the "cis-framework", because it does not differentiate between sex and gender; they are presumed to be the same. As such, there are only males and females. A male/female pair is defined as being "straight", while a male/male pair is called "gay", and the female/female equivalent is termed "lesbian".
On the right, we have the "trans-framework", which differentiates between sex and gender. The symbol indicates physical sex, while the color refers to mental gender (we are assuming a binary gender, although the reality may be even more complicated than this). Thus, a blue male symbol refers to a cis-male (who identifies as the male gender), and a pink female symbol likewise refers to a cis-female. The previous pairings that are defined as being traditionally straight, gay, and lesbian are duplicated, this time with the matching genders filled in.
But now, you'll notice that we have the addition of transgendered individuals - a male symbol colored in as the female gender, and vice versa. These may be pre-op transsexuals in the midst of transitioning, so as to align their physical sex with their mental gender (and thus satisfy cis-sexual standards), or they could be non-op transgendered individuals who are comfortable having a sex and gender that do not match. Either way, when we start pairing them up with other individuals (whether cisgendered or transgendered), the terms "gay" and "straight" break down.
For example, try to define the pairings listed in the lower right corner. If two people who both identify as female have penis-in-vagina intercourse, is this gay or straight? What about two people who both identify as male? Is it still straight if the one with the penis identifies as female, and the one with the vagina identifies as male? What if they exclusively have anal sex with a strap-on, and never penis-in-vagina intercourse? Is that gay or straight? Is it any different if this same situation occurs between a cis-male and a cis-female? Is it gay if one member of a couple lives as a man, and the other as a woman, but they both have penises? Is it lesbian if they both have vaginas? Do they have to identify that way, even though doing so might "out" the transgendered partner who is trying to pass? Two men with vaginas could get by calling themselves gay, but are two women with penises allowed to identify as lesbian? Can you be "straight by day, but gay by night"? And if so, how does one differentiate this situation from that of a family man who secretly visits gay bars? Should the terms we use refer to romantic pairings or sex acts, since they cannot consistently be applied to both? Can two gay people have straight sex together, or vice versa?
I hope you see by now that when we include transgender individuals, our cis-sexual framework for sexual couplings falls apart. My solution to this problem would be to redefine our terminology for sexual orientation by referring only to who we are attracted to (e.g., man-attracted, woman-attracted), while indicating our own sex and gender separately. I call this SGO Notation (for sex, gender, orientation). But I'll have more to say about that in a future post.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Try This On For Size (Topfree Edition)
[description: fitting room selfie in a casual yellow sundress]
Welcome to another edition of Try This On For Size, in which I try on a series of bikini bottoms. Why just the bottoms? Honestly, because sometimes I feel like a prepubescent girl - bras and bikini tops serve no purpose on my relatively flat chest. In all seriousness, I did try on a few tops, but I didn't find any I absolutely loved, and none of them actually matched the bottoms I had picked up (it was a real mix-and-match crap shoot). Plus - who am I kidding? - the topless look is closer to being naked, and thus much sexier!
[description: topless fitting room selfies in assorted bikini bottoms]
File these under "utterly impractical". Not that they aren't workable (and they certainly look great on me), but modern society is having a hard enough time dealing with a man in a fully contained speedo, let alone a cute pair of bikini bottoms that only mostly holds him in. (Why are only women allowed to put their bodies on display like pieces of meat)? My friend is trying to convince me that I have an addiction to buying clothes I will never have an opportunity to wear. But can you blame me? What kind of world do we live in that I have no outlet - nowhere to go - where I can dress up to look super fricking hot? Without worrying about standards of decency, and adhering to gender stereotypes? I mean, would that be so terrible? I think we need more of that in this world, and not less. Are you with me or against me?
[description: nude fitting room selfies from front and back]
Welcome to another edition of Try This On For Size, in which I try on a series of bikini bottoms. Why just the bottoms? Honestly, because sometimes I feel like a prepubescent girl - bras and bikini tops serve no purpose on my relatively flat chest. In all seriousness, I did try on a few tops, but I didn't find any I absolutely loved, and none of them actually matched the bottoms I had picked up (it was a real mix-and-match crap shoot). Plus - who am I kidding? - the topless look is closer to being naked, and thus much sexier!
[description: topless fitting room selfies in assorted bikini bottoms]
File these under "utterly impractical". Not that they aren't workable (and they certainly look great on me), but modern society is having a hard enough time dealing with a man in a fully contained speedo, let alone a cute pair of bikini bottoms that only mostly holds him in. (Why are only women allowed to put their bodies on display like pieces of meat)? My friend is trying to convince me that I have an addiction to buying clothes I will never have an opportunity to wear. But can you blame me? What kind of world do we live in that I have no outlet - nowhere to go - where I can dress up to look super fricking hot? Without worrying about standards of decency, and adhering to gender stereotypes? I mean, would that be so terrible? I think we need more of that in this world, and not less. Are you with me or against me?
[description: nude fitting room selfies from front and back]
Thursday, June 16, 2016
How You Look vs. How You Feel
We currently live in a very politically correct culture. PC culture is one of the bylanes on the highway to Hell - the kind that are paved with nothing but good intentions, but still generally lead you toward misery and suffering. Don't get me wrong. As a highly sensitive person, I don't think we should go around swinging slurs and insulting people, just because we have the freedom to do so. That's not an argument I'm making - that's not who I am. Sensitivity is wonderful. But there is a point where being politically correct can go too far. Where it runs the risk of limiting our freedom of speech, hampering our ability to speak honestly and express genuine feelings, and, as a result, stands in the way of spreading the truth.
Case in point, if you've ever read any kind of fashion guides or magazines (or articles online), you've probably come across a feature that explains how to dress to your body shape. Generally, there are certain kinds of clothes - styles, cuts, and patterns - that look good (from a communally accepted viewpoint derived by professionals, despite the fact that much of this is subjective) on certain body types and not others. This can be helpful advice to those looking to improve their image and learn how to dress in a way that flatters their natural assets (and obscures their biggest flaws). Obviously, this can also serve to make people feel bad about their bodies, because it puts a lot of emphasis on their superficial qualities, and tacitly implies that how you look is critically important.
My perspective on these kinds of things is that they're just a guide. And there is some validity to them (although individual results will always vary). I've learned, just in my own experience, that there are some clothes that look better on me than others. I have incredible legs - so I like to wear things that emphasize and show off my legs. One thing I've learned is that, while I love tank tops - since they actually cover up less of your body - I look better in sleeved shirts (even if the sleeves are very small). The reason for that is because the sleeves de-emphasize my broad shoulders, which works against the image I'm usually going for, which is femininity (note that another person who finds broad shoulders attractive might come to a different conclusion than I have). In the swimsuit realm, I've learned to avoid the bandeau-style tops (even though I love them), in favor of the stringed triangle tops, because the latter "break up" my shoulders better, the broadness of which is just emphasized by the "straight across" approach of the former.
[description: fitting room selfie in a loud-patterned pink bikini]
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I have a "bikini body" at all - although that's a hollow victory, because, mainly due to my anatomical equipment, I cannot realistically wear a bikini anywhere except maybe some kind of a fetish ball where having a very noticeable bulge, if not my genitalia hanging completely out, would not be a problem. But that's another thing. There's a movement - one which I wholeheartedly support, in intention, if not technical terms - that tries to claim that there is no such thing as a "bikini body". Anyone can wear a bikini to the beach (or pool, or waterpark, or whatever). And this is true. If you like bikinis, or for any reason want to wear a bikini, my view is that you should. But that doesn't change the fact that some bodies look better in bikinis than others.
Here's where sensitivity rubs up against truth in an uncomfortable way. The truth is that you may or may not look good in that bikini. But the bottom line is that if you want to wear it, for reasons other than "looking good" in some external, narrowly-defined way (including your subjective opinion that you do look good in it, despite what any pop culture fashion designer wants to claim), then you shouldn't be discouraged from wearing it. If wearing it makes you feel good (e.g., "fuck it, I'm wearing a bikini!"), then that's good enough. I want to see you at that beach owning that bikini!
[description: infographic emphasizing the importance of wearing what you like]
The conceptual problem here, I think, is that we assume that looks have more importance than they really do. And looks are important. But they're not the only thing that's important, and they're not even necessarily the thing that's most important - even when we're talking about clothes. How important that is is entirely up to you. These people telling you what you can and can't wear - looks are very important to them. But that doesn't mean they have to be important to you. I mean, there are professionals you can pay to have them tell you what colors you look good in. If you really care about your looks, then maybe that's something that would be worth doing. But if, on the other hand, you really like that outfit, then for the love of all that's holy, you should wear it and feel good in it, no matter what anyone else's opinion is!
[description: closeup of a torso in the fitting room wearing a loud-patterned teal bikini]
It's how you look and how you feel, and anyone who has ever criticized your looks is missing part of the equation. That doesn't mean that all this looks business is bogus - it's just that it's only part of the equation. So try to keep that in mind. We do not need to go around preventing people from giving advice (to those who care) about how they can improve the way they look (according to this or that narrowly-defined standard), just because we happen to have a terrible body image problem in this culture. Body image problems stem from believing that image is more important than it really is. The solution is not deluding ourselves into believing that image is meaningless - lies take a lot of work to maintain, and hamper our ability to judge reality. The solution is to simply place more emphasis on the fact that looks are not the end of the story. If you feel good, then what difference does it make how you look?
That's something I've learned as a nudist - not to judge people by how they look. Some people look good, and they're fun to look at. But that's not the end of the story. That doesn't determine that person's worth as a human being. If you're a looker, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine, too, because there are a million other good things you can be, like a friend, a companion, fun, funny, smart, insightful, athletic. And none of that depends on how you look or what you're wearing. So don't let your looks be the sole determinant of your self-worth. There's more to life than that.
tl;dr - it's not a bad thing to care about how you look, and want to improve your image. But there's a point at which caring about it too much becomes unhealthy. And you shouldn't convince yourself that you have to wait until you have the perfect body until you can start enjoying life. Looks are just the cherry on top of life. Do they make it better? Yeah. But you can still have a sundae without them!
Case in point, if you've ever read any kind of fashion guides or magazines (or articles online), you've probably come across a feature that explains how to dress to your body shape. Generally, there are certain kinds of clothes - styles, cuts, and patterns - that look good (from a communally accepted viewpoint derived by professionals, despite the fact that much of this is subjective) on certain body types and not others. This can be helpful advice to those looking to improve their image and learn how to dress in a way that flatters their natural assets (and obscures their biggest flaws). Obviously, this can also serve to make people feel bad about their bodies, because it puts a lot of emphasis on their superficial qualities, and tacitly implies that how you look is critically important.
My perspective on these kinds of things is that they're just a guide. And there is some validity to them (although individual results will always vary). I've learned, just in my own experience, that there are some clothes that look better on me than others. I have incredible legs - so I like to wear things that emphasize and show off my legs. One thing I've learned is that, while I love tank tops - since they actually cover up less of your body - I look better in sleeved shirts (even if the sleeves are very small). The reason for that is because the sleeves de-emphasize my broad shoulders, which works against the image I'm usually going for, which is femininity (note that another person who finds broad shoulders attractive might come to a different conclusion than I have). In the swimsuit realm, I've learned to avoid the bandeau-style tops (even though I love them), in favor of the stringed triangle tops, because the latter "break up" my shoulders better, the broadness of which is just emphasized by the "straight across" approach of the former.
[description: fitting room selfie in a loud-patterned pink bikini]
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I have a "bikini body" at all - although that's a hollow victory, because, mainly due to my anatomical equipment, I cannot realistically wear a bikini anywhere except maybe some kind of a fetish ball where having a very noticeable bulge, if not my genitalia hanging completely out, would not be a problem. But that's another thing. There's a movement - one which I wholeheartedly support, in intention, if not technical terms - that tries to claim that there is no such thing as a "bikini body". Anyone can wear a bikini to the beach (or pool, or waterpark, or whatever). And this is true. If you like bikinis, or for any reason want to wear a bikini, my view is that you should. But that doesn't change the fact that some bodies look better in bikinis than others.
Here's where sensitivity rubs up against truth in an uncomfortable way. The truth is that you may or may not look good in that bikini. But the bottom line is that if you want to wear it, for reasons other than "looking good" in some external, narrowly-defined way (including your subjective opinion that you do look good in it, despite what any pop culture fashion designer wants to claim), then you shouldn't be discouraged from wearing it. If wearing it makes you feel good (e.g., "fuck it, I'm wearing a bikini!"), then that's good enough. I want to see you at that beach owning that bikini!
[description: infographic emphasizing the importance of wearing what you like]
The conceptual problem here, I think, is that we assume that looks have more importance than they really do. And looks are important. But they're not the only thing that's important, and they're not even necessarily the thing that's most important - even when we're talking about clothes. How important that is is entirely up to you. These people telling you what you can and can't wear - looks are very important to them. But that doesn't mean they have to be important to you. I mean, there are professionals you can pay to have them tell you what colors you look good in. If you really care about your looks, then maybe that's something that would be worth doing. But if, on the other hand, you really like that outfit, then for the love of all that's holy, you should wear it and feel good in it, no matter what anyone else's opinion is!
[description: closeup of a torso in the fitting room wearing a loud-patterned teal bikini]
It's how you look and how you feel, and anyone who has ever criticized your looks is missing part of the equation. That doesn't mean that all this looks business is bogus - it's just that it's only part of the equation. So try to keep that in mind. We do not need to go around preventing people from giving advice (to those who care) about how they can improve the way they look (according to this or that narrowly-defined standard), just because we happen to have a terrible body image problem in this culture. Body image problems stem from believing that image is more important than it really is. The solution is not deluding ourselves into believing that image is meaningless - lies take a lot of work to maintain, and hamper our ability to judge reality. The solution is to simply place more emphasis on the fact that looks are not the end of the story. If you feel good, then what difference does it make how you look?
That's something I've learned as a nudist - not to judge people by how they look. Some people look good, and they're fun to look at. But that's not the end of the story. That doesn't determine that person's worth as a human being. If you're a looker, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine, too, because there are a million other good things you can be, like a friend, a companion, fun, funny, smart, insightful, athletic. And none of that depends on how you look or what you're wearing. So don't let your looks be the sole determinant of your self-worth. There's more to life than that.
tl;dr - it's not a bad thing to care about how you look, and want to improve your image. But there's a point at which caring about it too much becomes unhealthy. And you shouldn't convince yourself that you have to wait until you have the perfect body until you can start enjoying life. Looks are just the cherry on top of life. Do they make it better? Yeah. But you can still have a sundae without them!
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Oral Fixation
[description: a face, tongue outstretched, approaches the genitalia of a nude torso]
Chalk this one up to an experiment in clone mischief. And the fact that, ever since I joined deviantART, I've been fascinated with the limits of permitted eroticism on that website. You can't post anything explicitly "pornographic", but a perusal of some of the on-the-edge works that go undeleted is like a crash course in pushing the boundaries, including not a few semi-erect penises, mouths positioned suspiciously close to another person's genitals, and, surprisingly, even a few hands-on demonstrations. By sight, this looks like a failure of the rules to prevent sexual images from surfacing, but in reality, it's a glowing success for the near-magical power of suggestion. If you permit images of genitals, and you permit images of tongues, you can restrict images of tongues on genitals, but that doesn't cover images that happen to contain tongues and genitals, not necessarily in contact with one another. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to post a harmless picture of a naked man sticking his tongue out. You might not like this state of affairs, but I call it a victory for the human imagination.
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue about to touch the tip of a penis]
I had to try one myself. This last one would never be permitted on deviantART, however. God forbid, because a little bit of tumescent tissue makes it a completely different picture, doesn't it? Yeah, right. What kind of puritans are running the show that expressions of physical pleasure are considered an affront to common decency? Miserable penises are fine, but happy ones are unacceptable? Why?
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue reaching for the balls at the base of an erect penis]
Chalk this one up to an experiment in clone mischief. And the fact that, ever since I joined deviantART, I've been fascinated with the limits of permitted eroticism on that website. You can't post anything explicitly "pornographic", but a perusal of some of the on-the-edge works that go undeleted is like a crash course in pushing the boundaries, including not a few semi-erect penises, mouths positioned suspiciously close to another person's genitals, and, surprisingly, even a few hands-on demonstrations. By sight, this looks like a failure of the rules to prevent sexual images from surfacing, but in reality, it's a glowing success for the near-magical power of suggestion. If you permit images of genitals, and you permit images of tongues, you can restrict images of tongues on genitals, but that doesn't cover images that happen to contain tongues and genitals, not necessarily in contact with one another. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to post a harmless picture of a naked man sticking his tongue out. You might not like this state of affairs, but I call it a victory for the human imagination.
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue about to touch the tip of a penis]
I had to try one myself. This last one would never be permitted on deviantART, however. God forbid, because a little bit of tumescent tissue makes it a completely different picture, doesn't it? Yeah, right. What kind of puritans are running the show that expressions of physical pleasure are considered an affront to common decency? Miserable penises are fine, but happy ones are unacceptable? Why?
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue reaching for the balls at the base of an erect penis]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)