Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

[description: a nude man climbs up to peek over the top of a tall fence]

I like the irony present in this image: usually, you'd expect the one peeking over the fence to be trying to catch a glimpse of the nudist(s), and not the other way around! This is also the sort of image that tends to blur the line between voyeurism and exhibitionism - the subject is engaging in voyeurism, while appearing nude on camera renders him an exhibitionist. So it's a depiction of voyeurism, that becomes exhibitionism when it's viewed! (Quantum physics, anyone?). In my mind, they're just two sides of the same coin.

It also demonstrates my controversial point about the perfect symbiosis between voyeurism/exhibitionism and nudism: I don't see how any visual document of nudism could be produced that would be immune to the potential for an exhibitionist interpretation. Photography itself is inextricably linked to these practices. Once you're creating images of nudity for other people to view...

Of course, whether or not you interpret the nudity as sexual is a critical point. But no matter how innocent the nudity may be, there will always be someone interpreting it sexually. It's inevitable. And it's also human nature. But that doesn't bother me, because I don't actually think there's anything wrong with it. As I've said before, seeing a nude and thinking sex does not create sex in the nude. It does, however, increase the net total pleasure being experienced in the world, and that can only be a good thing.

Please Think of the Children

Yesterday I wrote a post about the appeal of nudity, and I wanted to title it "Gymnophilia", but I discovered that I'd already written a post with that title over a year ago. (It's a fairly generic title, on a subject that is central to this blog). So I reread that older post (which is something I often like to do), and was linked to yet another post, about people using the "think of the children" argument as a justification for the restriction of civil liberties. And it got my mind churning (this is one of those "you know what really grinds my gears?" topics). Here's an open letter to anyone who's ever used their children (or hypothetical children) as a gambit in the war on freedom:

[description: portrait of a nude man stepping out the front door]

Your right to construct an intentional environment for your children, limiting their exposure to things contrary to your worldview, ends at your front door (or local area network, in these increasingly digital times). You do not have the right to limit the free and public expression of ideas because you want to control what your child sees and hears. This is not a tradeoff; the very belief that you can - and even should - stunt a child's education to support your own intolerance is despicable, and inimical to a democratic mindset.

Of all the many individuals among the world population, parents have the unique opportunity (if they so accept it) to be the strongest influence in a child's life and upbringing. Is this not good enough? Children are their own people. They are independent agents. Your job is to guide them, not to make their decisions for them. Teach them how to be critical thinkers. Explain why you believe the things you do. And then let them choose for themselves whether or not to follow in lockstep behind you.

You can disagree with this, and try with all your might to enforce your will on the rest of society. But I am never going to agree that my freedom of expression should be curtailed because you'd prefer to keep your own children in the dark, or that such a barbaric act could ever sanely be considered a moral imperative. So if you don't want your children (or yourself, because that's what this is really about, isn't it?) exposed to the wonderful diversity of human culture, you'd better keep them locked up at home. And I only hope that somehow, someday, they manage to escape your tyrannical oppression.

Gymnophilia (Revisited)

I have a fascination for the human body. Not all human bodies, necessarily - but attractive ones. In a sense, I guess you could say I have a fascination for the idea of the human body - its potential as both a beautiful object and a finely tuned machine. I enjoy watching beautiful bodies perform all kinds of various tasks - from the mundane to the spectacular. So it's rather disappointing to me that our society goes to such great lengths to cover our bodies up.

I mean, sure, we're inundated with pornography. But when was the last time you saw an uncensored, naked body doing anything other than having sex, masturbating, or intentionally posing seductively? (Leave it to the Japanese to have identified this as a "fetish"). Take the sex away and what do you have? Nudism? But the fact that I still prefer the aesthetic delights of an attractive body over an "average" one seems to fly in the face of nudism's commitment to body acceptance.

[description: video of a man vacuuming a room while completely naked]

Question why athletes don't perform in the nude (as the ancient Greeks did), and you're shouted down as a pervert. But the question of whether or not I'm a pervert is less interesting to me than the issue of why this kind of not-strictly-sexual (though-maybe-a-little-bit-erotic-but-so-what-if-it-is?) admiration of the human body isn't more widespread, or at least better understood and tolerated. I blame our loss of innocence. Every artist is perceived to be a philanderer.

In fact, everything is interpreted in a sexual light these days, and the moral battlefield has become polarized. For every manner in which the progressives embrace sexual liberty, the conservatives find a new reason to suspect people's motives. The conjunction of these two perspectives is devastating - anything can be erotic, but eroticism is evil. So, everything that's not unwaveringly pure is evil. There's no middle ground.

Which is concerning to me, because I live on that middle ground.

What if Orientation is just a Preference?

I had a radical thought today - what if sexual orientation is just another form of sexual preference? I feel like, in this increasingly sexually fluid culture, preference for one sex over another is merely the most common form of distinguishing one's sexual interests, and, moreover, is an aging relic of a conservative conception of human sexuality that is overly focused on procreation.

After all, it's possible for a straight man to receive sexual pleasure from another man - without necessarily wanting it or seeking it out, or particularly enjoying it from anything other than a purely physical standpoint. The potential for a sexual response exists; the differentiating factor is our psychology. Why, then, should a preference for a particular form of sexual anatomy be held sacred above other discerning factors, like body type, nationality, profession, et cetera?

[description: suggestive image of a peeled banana and a halved apple]

I'm not saying that, in a sexual utopia, everybody would freely be having sex with just anybody, because, hey, it's all the same - people would still have their preferences. I'm just saying that if your preference is for one sex or another, that doesn't make you any more "special" than somebody who has more discerning tastes. (I've long maintained that though I am preferentially attracted to females, I am not automatically attracted to every human being with a vagina. In fact, I do not doubt that there exist beautiful men with whom I would sooner have sex than the world's ugliest women).

Nowadays, in the political realm, it seems like the distinction between "preference" and "orientation" is being wielded like a weapon to justify some sexual preferences (the common and most accepted ones), while vilifying others (so-called "fetishes" and "fringe desires"). In other words, a sexual orientation is just a sexual preference for which you can't legally be discriminated against. Well, I reject this strategy. The only thing more vile than religious devotion is political affiliation. If religion is the antithesis of reason, then politics is the natural enemy of truth. "Anything to bolster the cause."

Playboy Outtakes

It's that time of year! I'm going through my last year's worth of photography, picking out some of my best shots. Every so often I'll come across something I didn't post that I think is worth sharing. Contrary to the commercial practice of releasing dozens of images that vary only slightly in pose (I tried that once, wasn't too thrilled with it), when I have a concept in mind, I prefer to have just one or a few good shots to exemplify what I'm going for. That means some otherwise good shots that just don't make the cut occasionally fall by the wayside. Which is why outtake posts are still fun to do. But sometimes I have to put some distance between me and the shoot before I'm ready to share them, because I don't want to siphon too much attention away from the "poster" image.

Without further ado, here are some outtakes from my Playboy shoot from last winter. (No, I wasn't in Playboy - unfortunately - I just posed with one of their magazines :-p).

[description: series of portraits posing nude with a Playboy magazine]

Why Nudism? (Part 17)

[description: b/w portrait of a statuesque, nude figure standing on a pedestal]
Because the human body is a work of art.

Visit any community of amateur artists, and eventually you will encounter a heated debate about the merit of nudity in art. And while its detractors are motivated by the existence of a thriving modern pornography industry, they seem to have forgotten that nudity has been a staple of fine art going back to the ancients. Because we are sexual organisms, we cannot help reading the potential for erotic attraction into the human form, especially unclothed (which is one of the reasons so many people misinterpret nudism as a sexual lifestyle). But should this prevent us from appreciating the human body as an amazing machine, and a true work of art?

To be fair, there is no intrinsic relationship between nudism and fine art, but who is in a better position to admire art that depicts the human body than those devoid of hangups about it? I daresay you'd be more likely to find nude paintings, photo prints, and sculptures decorating the homes and gardens of nudists than you would textiles. And it is not at all uncommon for nudists, or nudists-in-training (who are in the process of discovering their interest in nudism), to volunteer to model for nude life drawing sessions.

Streaking in a Winter Wonderland

Every year around the holidays it's my dream to ring in the new year by going streaking. But streaking is a lost art. You have to have the right audience for it - somebody (or, ideally, a group of somebodies) who will be surprised, but able to appreciate the fun of it, without freaking out. That's why you can't really go streaking at a nudist resort; and these days, doing it in front of a public audience runs too many risks of somebody getting offended and/or calling the cops. (You don't want to alienate your friends, family, or neighbors over something like this, and you definitely don't want to end up in jail). Still, it's my dream to someday find the right opportunity, and if I have to limit myself to running around in circles in my back yard in the meantime...well, that's fun, too!