I grew up referring to the clothes you wear to go swimming in as "bathing suits". But at a certain point in my life (and possibly inspired by Sports Illustrated), I made a conscious effort to retire that phrase, and use "swimsuits" instead. Because it's more accurate. You don't wear them to bathe in, you wear them to go swimming. And, as a nudist, I find the very concept of a "bathing suit" - something you wear while bathing (i.e., not in the pool, but the bath or shower) - offensive. I refuse to acknowledge it.
Granted, in a perfect world, there would be no such thing as swimsuits, either. People would swim naked, because that's what makes the most sense. But in this world, people do wear suits to swim in (unlike bathing, which most people - nudist or not - do naked). And I like to preserve the notion of "getting undressed" to go swimming; so I prefer swimsuits that look more like underwear than outerwear - e.g., briefs rather than shorts.
At the same time, I'm tickled by the idea of of swimsuits doubling as clothing, because I like the idea of wearing them even in contexts outside of swimming. (My fantasy is the beach resort town where everybody wears briefs and bikinis to go shopping, eat at restaurants, etc., because that's just the relaxed culture of the place). Why? Because they're skimpier than regular clothing, and I'll take any excuse to dress down in public. Obviously, adding coverage to make swimsuits more versatile completely defeats the purpose in my mind (although a sexy swim wrap that's at least partially see through is an acceptable compromise).
But people are always angling for trade-offs, because they don't want to be seen as being too permissive, too liberal, too hedonistic. It's this or that - you've gotta balance it out. You can never show too much skin. It's shorts or a crop top. Never both. But I wanna see as much skin as you're willing to show! The more the better. Is there something wrong with that? Does it make me a bad person? No. You wanna go shopping in a string bikini? You've just made my day.
Monday, May 7, 2018
Saturday, May 5, 2018
World Naked Staring Out A Window Longingly Day
So, it's World Naked Gardening Day, and I know that WNGD purports to be a non-political event - preferring to stay light-hearted and avoid weighty discussions of the law and society. But while this is a laudable approach, it's very hard to dwell on the virtues of nudism without butting up against the myriad issues that keep this lifestyle pushed to the margins. So it is that I can't help thinking about the politics of nudity and the law every time WNGD comes around, due in no small part to the fact that I don't feel, in this ostensibly "free" country, that I am actually free to participate in this holiday to the extent that I'd like.
So, as an act of protest (albeit born of necessity, I'm afraid), I am not sharing a photo of me gardening naked (indeed, I have done no naked gardening this day), because I do not currently live alone, and I may not have as sufficiently private a yard as I thought (due to a neighbor's overhanging porch), and, altogether, I do not feel that my individual liberties are sufficiently protected in this country for me to participate in this celebration today.
Consider, as a hypothetical, if it were "Doing Yard Work In A Skirt Day" instead. Although women would barely be affected, men the nation over could choose to celebrate this holiday by putting on a skirt and doing yard work, and the worst possible repercussion they'd face is social ostracization. The difference is that for nudity, people can use the law against you. So there is not only social, but very real legal discrimination at play here. And insofar as nudity is inextricably linked to sex in our cultural consciousness, there are some extremely heavy penalties possible for committing what could be construed as a "sex crime". Maybe a little public indecency charge isn't such a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it lies on the tip of a very large and threatening iceberg, and do you really want to gamble on the possibility of ending up on the Sex Offenders Registry? This is what we call "the chilling effect" in action.
---
Now, an argument could certainly be made that I've spent a lot of time on this blog blurring the line between nudism and exhibitionism. And I have no ragrets about giving voice to the grey area that separates the regions of black and white on this issue. But it took a conversation with my SO to realize something. I was lamenting the injustice of having to cover up before stepping outside, and she inquired as to whether my desire to go outside unclothed was in any way motivated by the thrill of being seen naked. And, indeed, I realized that it was not.
By way of proof, I considered whether, if I had a place where I could go outside and be naked with 100% certainty that nobody else would ever see me, would I still do it? Yes, absolutely! In fact, that's exactly what I want. Because when you introduce the possibility of being seen, it doesn't get me excited, it actually makes me nervous, because I'm afraid somebody's not going to like what I'm doing, and then that freedom will be taken away from me.
As for what does motivate me to want to engage in nude recreation, I've just spent the better part of the last year exploring the myriad potential reasons. In this case, what motivates me on a fine, summer-like day to want to go outside clad only in the sky tends toward the spiritual - being at one with nature, and feeling closer to the Earth. There is something psychological about the nude state - it is raw, it is taboo, it is forbidden and can be beautiful. There is a thrill to it, no doubt. But it's not necessarily sexual, and it's not necessarily the thrill of being seen, so much as the thrill of simply being - the way we were intended to be, unfiltered by the at-times arbitrary and counterintuitive mandates of a man-made society.
---
Now, I'm not denying that there is a potential thrill in being seen naked - even a sexual one. But context is key. I don't want to force my nudity on random strangers, because I don't know if they'll like it, and I have no desire to shock or offend anyone. But I do know for a fact that there are people out there who do like seeing people naked (especially when those people are attractive). I know - because I'm one of them. And that's why a lot of my naked alone time involves taking pictures. It's not because the only joy I get out of being naked is the thought of being seen. It's because I know that being seen can be an additional joy, and that by pursuing this pleasure through photography I can not only apply an artistic touch, but share that joy selectively with those whom I know are likely to appreciate it.
Now, I might argue that I should be allowed to go naked in front of random strangers (surely, I do argue this from time to time?). But it's not because I'm dying to be seen by them (and admired, I suppose). It's because being naked feels good to me, and I'd prefer to be able to practice it more regularly, and under less isolated circumstances. What I'm really arguing for is not the freedom to shock and offend unsuspecting passersby (even if this is ultimately what it boils down to). Rather, I'm arguing for a higher standard of humanity - that is, people who recognize, like me, that naked bodies are not worth getting worked up over, and who have the maturity to simply look away if they see something they don't like, understanding that in a free country, not everybody is going to look and act the same way.
---
Allow me to make one last point. I would argue that nudity is the natural state of being, and that I am more "normal" (as nebulous as that word is) than the majority of the population (at least in this one respect). But I understand the nature of our society, and that one cannot simply go around nude, just because one sees it as natural (even if it's true). Yet, even discarding the rational basis for my preferred state of dress, and if we were to assume that my desire to go nude is some unnatural, fringe inclination, it is still an inclination I possess, and one that I take much pleasure in. Whatever your opinion of it, it is harmless to me, and I cannot see any reasonable argument against my participation in it - at the very least, in private.
I'm not asking the world to join me in this activity. I invite the world to join me, but I will not force them to, if they'd rather not. All I require, at a bare minimum, is enough space and privacy to enjoy my nudity - alone if need be - on a regular basis (indoors and out). I don't believe that I am necessarily entitled to have this - that the government or somebody owes it to me - but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to want it, either. Because it means enough to me in my life that I want to pursue it, as an integral part of what I consider to be my happiness. And I'm willing to make it a priority. But opportunities are limited.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm willing to come to a compromise. I don't demand to be able to walk down the street naked (even if I think this should be a guaranteed freedom in any enlightened culture). It's when designated nudist spaces are constantly under threat from the pressures of "community standards", and above all when I can't go naked on my own property, because somebody who doesn't like it could find out, just by looking - and god forbid anyone should visibly engage in an alternative lifestyle that's not approved by the mainstream, inappropriately flaunting their individual liberty in the faces of well-behaved, conforming citizens - I say, it's these situations that raise my hackles. And not unduly, I hope.
So, as an act of protest (albeit born of necessity, I'm afraid), I am not sharing a photo of me gardening naked (indeed, I have done no naked gardening this day), because I do not currently live alone, and I may not have as sufficiently private a yard as I thought (due to a neighbor's overhanging porch), and, altogether, I do not feel that my individual liberties are sufficiently protected in this country for me to participate in this celebration today.
[description: a naked man stands staring out a window, with hands on hips]
I hereby designate this day, instead, to be
World Naked Staring Out A Window Longingly Day
I hereby designate this day, instead, to be
World Naked Staring Out A Window Longingly Day
Consider, as a hypothetical, if it were "Doing Yard Work In A Skirt Day" instead. Although women would barely be affected, men the nation over could choose to celebrate this holiday by putting on a skirt and doing yard work, and the worst possible repercussion they'd face is social ostracization. The difference is that for nudity, people can use the law against you. So there is not only social, but very real legal discrimination at play here. And insofar as nudity is inextricably linked to sex in our cultural consciousness, there are some extremely heavy penalties possible for committing what could be construed as a "sex crime". Maybe a little public indecency charge isn't such a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it lies on the tip of a very large and threatening iceberg, and do you really want to gamble on the possibility of ending up on the Sex Offenders Registry? This is what we call "the chilling effect" in action.
---
Now, an argument could certainly be made that I've spent a lot of time on this blog blurring the line between nudism and exhibitionism. And I have no ragrets about giving voice to the grey area that separates the regions of black and white on this issue. But it took a conversation with my SO to realize something. I was lamenting the injustice of having to cover up before stepping outside, and she inquired as to whether my desire to go outside unclothed was in any way motivated by the thrill of being seen naked. And, indeed, I realized that it was not.
By way of proof, I considered whether, if I had a place where I could go outside and be naked with 100% certainty that nobody else would ever see me, would I still do it? Yes, absolutely! In fact, that's exactly what I want. Because when you introduce the possibility of being seen, it doesn't get me excited, it actually makes me nervous, because I'm afraid somebody's not going to like what I'm doing, and then that freedom will be taken away from me.
As for what does motivate me to want to engage in nude recreation, I've just spent the better part of the last year exploring the myriad potential reasons. In this case, what motivates me on a fine, summer-like day to want to go outside clad only in the sky tends toward the spiritual - being at one with nature, and feeling closer to the Earth. There is something psychological about the nude state - it is raw, it is taboo, it is forbidden and can be beautiful. There is a thrill to it, no doubt. But it's not necessarily sexual, and it's not necessarily the thrill of being seen, so much as the thrill of simply being - the way we were intended to be, unfiltered by the at-times arbitrary and counterintuitive mandates of a man-made society.
---
Now, I'm not denying that there is a potential thrill in being seen naked - even a sexual one. But context is key. I don't want to force my nudity on random strangers, because I don't know if they'll like it, and I have no desire to shock or offend anyone. But I do know for a fact that there are people out there who do like seeing people naked (especially when those people are attractive). I know - because I'm one of them. And that's why a lot of my naked alone time involves taking pictures. It's not because the only joy I get out of being naked is the thought of being seen. It's because I know that being seen can be an additional joy, and that by pursuing this pleasure through photography I can not only apply an artistic touch, but share that joy selectively with those whom I know are likely to appreciate it.
Now, I might argue that I should be allowed to go naked in front of random strangers (surely, I do argue this from time to time?). But it's not because I'm dying to be seen by them (and admired, I suppose). It's because being naked feels good to me, and I'd prefer to be able to practice it more regularly, and under less isolated circumstances. What I'm really arguing for is not the freedom to shock and offend unsuspecting passersby (even if this is ultimately what it boils down to). Rather, I'm arguing for a higher standard of humanity - that is, people who recognize, like me, that naked bodies are not worth getting worked up over, and who have the maturity to simply look away if they see something they don't like, understanding that in a free country, not everybody is going to look and act the same way.
---
Allow me to make one last point. I would argue that nudity is the natural state of being, and that I am more "normal" (as nebulous as that word is) than the majority of the population (at least in this one respect). But I understand the nature of our society, and that one cannot simply go around nude, just because one sees it as natural (even if it's true). Yet, even discarding the rational basis for my preferred state of dress, and if we were to assume that my desire to go nude is some unnatural, fringe inclination, it is still an inclination I possess, and one that I take much pleasure in. Whatever your opinion of it, it is harmless to me, and I cannot see any reasonable argument against my participation in it - at the very least, in private.
I'm not asking the world to join me in this activity. I invite the world to join me, but I will not force them to, if they'd rather not. All I require, at a bare minimum, is enough space and privacy to enjoy my nudity - alone if need be - on a regular basis (indoors and out). I don't believe that I am necessarily entitled to have this - that the government or somebody owes it to me - but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to want it, either. Because it means enough to me in my life that I want to pursue it, as an integral part of what I consider to be my happiness. And I'm willing to make it a priority. But opportunities are limited.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm willing to come to a compromise. I don't demand to be able to walk down the street naked (even if I think this should be a guaranteed freedom in any enlightened culture). It's when designated nudist spaces are constantly under threat from the pressures of "community standards", and above all when I can't go naked on my own property, because somebody who doesn't like it could find out, just by looking - and god forbid anyone should visibly engage in an alternative lifestyle that's not approved by the mainstream, inappropriately flaunting their individual liberty in the faces of well-behaved, conforming citizens - I say, it's these situations that raise my hackles. And not unduly, I hope.
Friday, May 4, 2018
No Pant(ie)s Day
I suppose you could accuse me of trying to "cheat" my way through No Pants Day - wearing dresses and skirts and substituting "no pants" for "no panties" - but it's only because I really like the concept and want to celebrate the day, but I don't feel like I could really get away with celebrating it straight. If you have a whole group participating, people will think it's a thing - strength in numbers, and all that. But when it's just one person, well, then it's just one weirdo in public without pants on. Anyway, it's still fun having an excuse to try to find ways to technically go without pants, and feeling justified in pushing the boundaries maybe just a little bit more than you would usually allow yourself to do.
I really think people get too uptight about "upskirts", "panty flashes", and things like that. I mean, yeah, technically this could be considered indecent exposure, but the difference is, you're not puttin' it all out there - you're still covered up; there's just a few chinks in the armor here and there. If somebody gets a flash, big deal. The world's not going to end if somebody sees your underwear (or even what's under it). We bend over backwards to do things like put shorts inside skirts and it's ridiculous. It's anhedonic and erotophobic. It's like banning candy bars because they're unhealthy, with no consideration to the pleasure they can bring, to those who are capable of indulging in them responsibly.
I really think people get too uptight about "upskirts", "panty flashes", and things like that. I mean, yeah, technically this could be considered indecent exposure, but the difference is, you're not puttin' it all out there - you're still covered up; there's just a few chinks in the armor here and there. If somebody gets a flash, big deal. The world's not going to end if somebody sees your underwear (or even what's under it). We bend over backwards to do things like put shorts inside skirts and it's ridiculous. It's anhedonic and erotophobic. It's like banning candy bars because they're unhealthy, with no consideration to the pleasure they can bring, to those who are capable of indulging in them responsibly.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Innocent or Prurient
I grow bored of trying to figure out (let alone argue in defense) whether it's prurient or perfectly innocent, but I take delight in any opportunity to strip completely naked outside of the house, especially in the midst of a public environment - even if I am doing so in a private booth, albeit with the hustle and the bustle of the marketplace all around me.
Fitting rooms and family restrooms are ideal for this, although I have to admit to occasionally eyeing those photo booths you see at the mall longingly, with their flimsy curtains and dangerous vulnerability (and photo evidence to take home with you!).
Most people get dressed before leaving the home, remain dressed all day, and only disrobe after returning home. To mix up that continuity by getting naked at any point during the day, outside of the home, is exciting, in a way. I guess whether that feeling is motivated by prurient or innocent intent is a moot point, after all - because as long it's done behind a door or a curtain, it's completely harmless either way.
Fitting rooms and family restrooms are ideal for this, although I have to admit to occasionally eyeing those photo booths you see at the mall longingly, with their flimsy curtains and dangerous vulnerability (and photo evidence to take home with you!).
Most people get dressed before leaving the home, remain dressed all day, and only disrobe after returning home. To mix up that continuity by getting naked at any point during the day, outside of the home, is exciting, in a way. I guess whether that feeling is motivated by prurient or innocent intent is a moot point, after all - because as long it's done behind a door or a curtain, it's completely harmless either way.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Hiatus
You may have noticed lately - what with the belated posting times, relatively uninspired photos, and lack of writing to accompany them - that I am struggling with this daily project. I was out of town all last week on short notice (that is, without enough time to prepare a week's worth of quality material), and that's just the tip of the iceberg. So, though I have some great photos from my travels I am looking forward to sharing, the truth is, my basic living conditions - that had previously facilitated this project so well - have changed, and I don't have the freedom I had planned on having to cater to my artistic whims. I can't even guarantee being able to celebrate all the holidays I wanted to celebrate (beginning with an absentee St. Patrick's Day, and continuing through a lackluster Easter).
Instead of struggling to stay afloat, I think it'd be better to take the pressure off and just focus on making the best pictures I can when I can actually manage to do it. This isn't the project I wanted to present to the world, but there are some things in life you just can't control. I have a hard time committing to defeat (especially because it's not my desire to give this project up, but the inaccessibility of the conditions I need to complete it), so I'll continue posting as long as I have something to post, even though I've already become very lenient on deadlines. But if service becomes intermittent at any point, or you encounter a hiatus, well, at least now you won't be surprised.
Instead of struggling to stay afloat, I think it'd be better to take the pressure off and just focus on making the best pictures I can when I can actually manage to do it. This isn't the project I wanted to present to the world, but there are some things in life you just can't control. I have a hard time committing to defeat (especially because it's not my desire to give this project up, but the inaccessibility of the conditions I need to complete it), so I'll continue posting as long as I have something to post, even though I've already become very lenient on deadlines. But if service becomes intermittent at any point, or you encounter a hiatus, well, at least now you won't be surprised.
Friday, April 6, 2018
Covered
As anyone who's ever drafted a public indecency law has surely learned, delineating which patches of skin should be considered "indecent" (when neighboring patches less than an inch adjacent may be deemed perfectly acceptable for public exposure) is an exercise in arbitrariness. That's why these things often focus on landmarks like nipples/areolas, pubic hair, and the genitals themselves (e.g., penis, scrotum, labia, anus). After all, how should one measure the curvature of a breast, or a pair of buttocks?
[description: portrait of a hairless nude torso, with hand covering the genital area]
As it is, though, removing one's pubic hair limits the amount of real estate that must absolutely be covered, giving you some measure of leeway - who's to say if that particular patch of skin lies within the "pubic area" if it is just as hairless as any other? The imagination thrills at the possibilities!
[description: portrait of a hairless nude torso, with hand covering the genital area]
As it is, though, removing one's pubic hair limits the amount of real estate that must absolutely be covered, giving you some measure of leeway - who's to say if that particular patch of skin lies within the "pubic area" if it is just as hairless as any other? The imagination thrills at the possibilities!
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Living Deliciously
[description: fashion selfie in a Satanic t-shirt and tight jeans with erection peeking out]
When I stumbled upon this t-shirt online, I had to have it. It commemorates my favorite scene from The Witch - in my opinion, one of the greatest horror movies of this millennium (not to overhype it, lol). In this scene, the last survivor of a Puritan family living on the outskirts of colonial America, after being rewarded for their divine fervor with the unrelenting torment of an indifferent universe, is given a tantalizing offer by the devil, who asks, "wouldst thou like to live deliciously?" It's not that he's asking her to sell her soul (although it could be interpreted that way), but more that he's giving her permission to enjoy the good things in life (like frolicking naked in the woods, and relishing the pleasure of sexual ecstasy), something her Puritan ideology forbade, and for what? Unending suffering. So why not try the alternative? God wants you to suffer. The devil just wants you to have a good time.
Now let's get real. Blind faith is not a virtue. It is a handicap. Just because I question the authority of men who claim to speak for God, does not make me evil. If I do not believe in a God, it does not mean that I do not believe in goodness. And if I relish antagonism against the church, it's because I rail against the bureaucracy of spirituality, which is a perversion of the divine. God does not dwell in houses made by human hands. Lucifer is the protagonist of the Bible, a courageous rebel standing up to an authoritarian (and genocidal) ruler. Satanism is virtuous in the sense of its original etymology - not as a form of worshiping darkness (a Hollywood fantasy), but standing in the role of God's accuser, demanding justice for wrongdoings. If God is evil, then Satan is our salvation. Consider that the devil is stereotypically depicted using imagery of pagan gods - a literal case of demonizing foreign cultures, committed wholesale by Christian imperialists. The truth is more complex than those who would whitewash history for their own benefit want you to believe.
When I stumbled upon this t-shirt online, I had to have it. It commemorates my favorite scene from The Witch - in my opinion, one of the greatest horror movies of this millennium (not to overhype it, lol). In this scene, the last survivor of a Puritan family living on the outskirts of colonial America, after being rewarded for their divine fervor with the unrelenting torment of an indifferent universe, is given a tantalizing offer by the devil, who asks, "wouldst thou like to live deliciously?" It's not that he's asking her to sell her soul (although it could be interpreted that way), but more that he's giving her permission to enjoy the good things in life (like frolicking naked in the woods, and relishing the pleasure of sexual ecstasy), something her Puritan ideology forbade, and for what? Unending suffering. So why not try the alternative? God wants you to suffer. The devil just wants you to have a good time.
Now let's get real. Blind faith is not a virtue. It is a handicap. Just because I question the authority of men who claim to speak for God, does not make me evil. If I do not believe in a God, it does not mean that I do not believe in goodness. And if I relish antagonism against the church, it's because I rail against the bureaucracy of spirituality, which is a perversion of the divine. God does not dwell in houses made by human hands. Lucifer is the protagonist of the Bible, a courageous rebel standing up to an authoritarian (and genocidal) ruler. Satanism is virtuous in the sense of its original etymology - not as a form of worshiping darkness (a Hollywood fantasy), but standing in the role of God's accuser, demanding justice for wrongdoings. If God is evil, then Satan is our salvation. Consider that the devil is stereotypically depicted using imagery of pagan gods - a literal case of demonizing foreign cultures, committed wholesale by Christian imperialists. The truth is more complex than those who would whitewash history for their own benefit want you to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)