Statutory Rape

This concept seems to elude a lot of people, but the literal breakdown of the phrase "statutory rape" yields "rape by statute" - which is to say, rape as determined by statute (not sexual violation by a legal document). The implication is that this is "rape in name only". If it was literally rape, then it would just be rape. But it's not. It's statutory rape. Being that the term "rape" refers to a sexual act conducted in violation of the victim's consent, statutory rape is applied in cases of consensual sex where one or more of the participants' consent is simply not recognized by the state - technically, making it rape. This is obviously not as bad as actual rape. Technical rape only exists so that we can tell certain people that they aren't allowed to have sex (for better or worse). It has nothing to do with what those people actually want.

Now, the inevitable fallout of claiming that "statutory rape is a consensual crime" is moral outrage. People will say, "but sex is inherently damaging to kids!" But we're not talking about "child sexual abuse" here. If statutory rape was child sexual abuse, then it would be called child sexual abuse (although there are zealots out there who would like to see this happen), and there would be no statutory rape anymore. But the concept exists because it describes a distinct phenomenon - one where actual consent (as opposed to legal consent) is present. And what about these things called Romeo and Juliet exceptions? Kids of a certain age (i.e., the age of sexual maturity, not to be confused with the legal age of consent) are in some cases explicitly permitted to have sex. Their "dating" pool is just restricted to their own age range.

So let's not pretend that nature gave nubile teens raging hormones knowing that it would destroy their minds and bodies, as opposed to, you know, contributing to the propagation of the species. Statutory rape exists for two reasons - to give a youth's parents legal recourse to pressure and punish them and their peers on the subject of becoming sexually active (because we live in a very judgmental, moralist culture); and, hopefully more importantly, to protect them from the possibility of coercion, exploitation, and abuse (none of which is guaranteed as a matter of course) by more experienced authority figures. Does the concept of statutory rape serve an important role in society? Is its inclusion on the law books justified? Quite possibly. But please, when we talk about this, let's not forget the very real difference between legal consent and actual consent. Because, whatever your agenda may be, I agree with Kinsey et al., who once said "that the happiness of individual men, and the good of the total social organization, is [never] furthered by the perpetuation of ignorance."

Sexual Agency

As a sex-positive, I don't like the idea that sexual stimulation is fundamentally Wrong (with a capital 'W') under certain categorical contexts, even where all participants would disagree with such a judgment. If two (or more) people go into a bedroom of their own volition, fool around in private (without violating the bounds of a mutually agreed upon exclusive commitment), are safe, responsible, and decent to each other, and do not regret what they have done (absent external influences applied after the fact), then in my mind, they have done nothing wrong. Doesn't matter the sexes involved, the races, the positions, the number of participants, the familial connections, or the ages. The individual is the ultimate arbiter of their own sexual agency - not the government or society. The individual makes the decision - the government and society exist only to educate the individual about their options.

Now, to be fair, I don't have a problem with placing (reasonable) restrictions on specific types of sex acts - like unprotected sex, either physically or psychologically "extreme" sex, or procreative sex. People should have the privilege to choose to engage in these activities if they desire it and are of a sufficiently sound mind and body. In a completely liberated world, everyone would have the freedom to destroy themselves (but not others, without consent) sexually. But I recognize that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own stupidity (to a certain point). Failure to mitigate the spread of disease, or the risk of unprepared (whether planned or not) pregnancy, as well as coercion and physical or psychological abuse, should all be prosecuted on the word of the victim (with all the defenses of democracy in place), in a culture that encourages open conversation, and does not shame people into keeping silent about their sexual misadventures.

I just don't believe that some people should be allowed to have all kinds of sex without discrimination, and others none - that it's a binary step function, as opposed to a dimmer switch. I believe that we all should be subject to the same reasonable rules and protections. Not everyone is (physically or mentally) capable of engaging in all varieties of sex acts. But there is not a person alive who can experience sexual desire that does not have the right to some form of stimulation. And because they have this right, we owe them an education, so that they may navigate their feelings and desires, and wield their agency safely and responsibly. It is not our role to withhold information in the vain hope of keeping people from the threshold of sexual activity. It is our duty to give them the knowledge they need, so that they will be prepared whenever they decide to cross it.

I mentioned I was a nudist...

[description: a nude figure standing in a doorway confronts a clothed figure seated in a chair]

...didn't I?

Spontaneously inspired by a clever and thought-provoking image that can be found here [NSFW]. I like how it demonstrates the sexist double standard by which naked women are generally viewed more positively than naked men. I also noted, for what it's worth, the fact that when dressed, the woman is exposing a lot more skin than the man. Additionally, both figures are clearly drawn to be young and trim and (therefore) generally attractive, which ties in to the issue of using models (versus real people) to advertise nudism. A picture speaks a thousand words, indeed.

Narcissism?

You might believe that I became a model because I am reasonably attractive. And that might be true - because I likely wouldn't have gotten the encouragement I needed if I wasn't. But it's also true that I never thought of myself as attractive until I became a model, and realized how many other people thought that way about me. I don't have an over-inflated sense of my own appearance. As a photographer, I know the tricks that go into creating beautiful portraits. I think I look goofy in spontaneous snapshots just like everybody else. But I'm not interested in selling myself short, either. Our commercialist culture exerts way too much effort - and is way too invested - into making people feel inadequate. I'm not perfect. I have "bad hair days". And there are things about my body that I don't like. But if I believe that I am beautiful, that's not just narcissism talking. It's a positive assessment of the facts.

[description: screen cap from the 2016 film The Neon Demon, starring Elle Fanning]
"I know what I look like.
What's wrong with that, anyway?"

The Best of 2016

Happy Friday the 13th! If you're superstitious, take this into consideration: today I'm unveiling the photographic highlights of the past year, on my home site as usual (Part A and Part B) [very NSFW]. Not so bad, eh? I think I'll let the photos speak for themselves - except to say that, as ever, my skills are improving as I continue to put more and more experience under my belt. Looking back, I usually use this post to summarize my accomplishments from the year, present a statement of my current web presence, and speculate about what's to come in the future. I feel like keeping this relatively short.

As it has been for several years now (since I left flickr), this here blog is the front line for my photography and essays, so if you're reading this, I'd like to commend you for being ahead of the pack. I'm also still posting selfies over at tumblr [defunct] ("the place for porn") - they may be a year or two old, but many of them haven't been posted anywhere else. And for my hornier fans, my amateur profile on XTube [defunct] is still live. Although explicit pornography continues to be not my first priority, the video content you can see there (for a modest price) is unlike anything you'll find anywhere else (except, maybe, the occasional video here on this blog).

That's all you really need to know at this time. I've got a profile over at deviantART [NSFW], too, but I have to be honest, the immaturity that pervades the forums is spoiling my enthusiasm for the site, and I haven't posted anything in months. Looking ahead to the future, only the crystal ball knows what's in store, but as I've alluded to recently, I'm hungry to try something new. I'm also becoming more and more eager to cross over into some kind of "mainstream" exposure, but it remains difficult to navigate the controversial themes that inspire me to pick up the camera in the first place. Stay tuned as that story continues to unfold.

Ballerina

[description: series of portraits of a man with hair in a bun posing in a pink tutu]

Disclaimer: I'm not actually a ballerina.
I just play one in my fantasies.

Is it possible to be a male, and want to be a ballerina, but not to be a male ballerina? (Ballerino?). I mean, there are ballet parts for men and for women, but they're typically very different. The moves are different (and this is where the physical differences between men and women probably come into play), and the costumes are different. There is a place for men in ballet, but it's not the same place that women have in ballet. So what if you are a man, but you want to be in the women's place? I'm more feminine than most men, but I think I would look a whole lot more ridiculous in a male ballet costume than in this pink tutu, which I think looks pretty good on me. (Or is that because I feel fantastic wearing it?).

This reminds me of Revolutionary Girl Utena's desire not to be rescued by a prince, but to be the prince (and not a princess). But, obviously, in the other direction. It's still more acceptable for women to want to be like men than it is for men to want to be like women. Because wanting to be rescued is considered a weakness. Not that this is an illogical view, but we can't all be the rescuer, or there'd be no one to rescue! There can't be any value in rescuing unless there is some value in needing to be rescued. Feminism: "girls can be just like guys", instead of "girls are okay, too". You know, just the way they are. Pretty princesses and everything.

Aside: As I feared (although this might not be a bad thing), with my new iPhone, the line between my selfie photography and my "real" photography is already beginning to blur.

Progress

[description: a man with hair in a bun poses gracefully in a pink tutu]

It's hard, sometimes, feeling like the world doesn't accept you for who you are. But when even appeals to logic and compassion fall on closed ears, I take comfort in the knowledge that my existence alone can frustrate those who oppose progress. In those cases, it feels good to make people uncomfortable (I believe they referred to it in the sixties as "freaking out squares"). Because you can talk all you want about what's to be done with people like me. But I'm not going to change, and I'm not going anywhere - whether you like it or not. It happened with homosexuality, and it's happening with the transgender community. And believe me when I say that it doesn't stop there. (No matter where you stand, if you think it stops there, you're going to be surprised when you get passed by). So you can either join the inexorable march of progress, or cling to your antiquated notions and be trampled underfoot. The only question you have to ask yourself is: where will your name be written in the annals of history?