More-ning Sun (+ Bikini Top)

It's amazing how the light - from the same source (the sun, duh) - can have such a different personality or "flavor profile" at different times of the day.

[description: nude portraits in full, golden, morning sunlight]

I haven't had a whole lot of chances to get out and shoot in the morning before noon, so this look has a novel appeal to me. I took advantage of it to do another bikini fashion show, to settle an issue that was on my mind.

The number one problem that prevents me from wearing bikinis (or women's swimsuits in general) in public is the fact that, due to the differences in male and female anatomy, the section that covers the crotch is woefully inadequate at containing my genitalia. As such, I'm often hanging out all over the place, or the fabric of the suit does not stretch far enough to close the gap between it and my body (either along the top, or between the thighs), leading to some potentially indecent exposure.

The new low-rise swim brief I bought this year is an excellent solution because it's designed to securely hold a man's package, but the cut of it is very similar to a woman's bikini bottom, and doesn't have the characteristic "Speedo look", which tends to come up too high on the waist. It doesn't conceal my bulge (although basic black is fairly forgiving), but paired with a bikini top, especially at a glance or from a distance, it may effectively create the illusion that I'm female, as long as nobody's taking a closer look. So it may not be good for, say, a crowded pool, but at the lake, where everybody is spread out, it might prevent (as has happened recently) some confusion as to whether I'm a topless woman, or just a really feminine guy in a "Speedo".

So I tried pairing it with this really cute frilly pink top I picked up, but although I think tube tops are sexy, they don't stay in place very well (probably even more so because I don't really have breasts for them to hug), and they're not the most flattering cut for my shoulders, either. So I was wondering if I had some other bikini top I could wear this swim brief with, and that seemed like an excellent excuse to do a fashion show!

[description: video montage wearing a swim brief paired with different bikini tops]

I think I like the black string bikini top the best. I don't know if it'll stay in place any better than the tube top (I've never worn a string bikini for actual swimming), but it's worth a try!

Of course, this is my favorite way to wear a swim brief:

[description: followup video in just the swim brief, and a black mesh coverup]

This swim coverup is so cute. It's a thick mesh (so it mostly covers you up, but with a hint of exposure), with a skewed skirt that comes up high enough on one side to show some "bikini cheek", and a slit on the other side for your leg to come through. I've had a hard time taking a picture that does it justice, though.

Nudity in the Park

Sometimes you see advertisements for "music in the park", or "movies in the park", or things like that. I thought it would be fun if they had clothing optional days. I mean, I think public parks should be clothing optional by default - to provide "nude in nature" opportunities as a community service. But this would be an acceptable compromise. The same goes for pools and water parks.

[description: series of selfies enjoying nude recreation in the park]

I deliberately left my tripod at home, because I wasn't planning on taking any pictures (I had built up enough of a backlog at that point and didn't want to add to the workload), but then we ended up coming to this park and I regretted not having my tripod with me. So I had to get creative. That's why there are leaves in the foreground - I spent a lot of time finding a spot where I could perch my phone in the branches of a tree. It's a neat effect, though.

[description: further selfies sitting on a park bench naked]

It occurs to me that I haven't done much of this - getting naked out in the woods - this summer. I must be spoiled by my yard.

[description: series of selfies hiking naked in the woods]

Now, if nudism were permitted in this park, I'd be content to go naked and not engage in any "illicit" sexual activities - just as I would behave in a nudist environment. I don't think enough of a distinction is made between exhibitionism in the sense of getting naughty outdoors and in public places where such activity is taboo, and exhibitionism in the sense of wanting to be seen by other people. When I go out in the woods and get frisky, I'm enjoying the sexual charge of being outdoors and in a place where such activities are not usually expected. The act isn't "public" in the sense of being performed in front of others, but only in the sense of being performed in a public place. There is the risk of being caught, but I don't actually want to get caught - the act is still functionally private.

I don't necessarily believe we should be allowed to engage in sexual activities anywhere and in front of anyone (with or without their "consent" to view such activities), I just think that if somebody is sneaking around and being naughty, that's harmless fun and not a public menace. In other words, it's not public indecency if nobody sees you - i.e., it's not a crime as long as you don't get caught. The thing about nudist environments is that they permit nudity, while still restricting open displays of sexuality. So when I'm in a nudist environment, I can be naked, but I'm not going to do anything sexual, because that would be inappropriate. But in regular textile society, nudity is just as taboo as sexuality - so if I'm sneaking around in the park being nude, I'm doing it "privately" and not in a specifically nudist capacity. As such, there's nothing stopping me from taking the next step and entering some sexy fun into the equation.

I just wanted to explain why, for someone who enjoys both nudism and exhibitionism (again, not in the sense of "flashing" unsuspecting bystanders, but just getting naughty outdoors and in public places), they can enjoy both consecutively (or even simultaneously), while not necessarily conflating the two. It's like a Venn diagram. Nudity and sexuality are two separate concepts (as nudists will make sure you understand). But what nudists are reluctant to admit is that sometimes they can be combined. It's just a matter of having the maturity and the understanding to know in what contexts this is okay, and in what contexts it is not. Which is why I can be a nudist and behave like a nudist when it is necessary to do so, and then go out and be an exhibitionist in other situations without shame. It would be easier to just keep them always separated - and it is undoubtedly for the benefit of those who have difficulty with details that nudists promote this view - but this does not reflect reality. And if you have the mental acuity to know the difference, life is a whole lot more fun when you allow yourself to enjoy their combination. Responsibly.

Allow me to illustrate (because I love making diagrams):

Allegedly, textile society believes that all nudity is sexual. At least, this is the view that nudists argue against. Certainly, compared to nudists, textiles are rarely exposed to nudity in non-sexual contexts. In order to justify the non-sexuality of their lifestyle, though, sometimes nudists go too far in distancing nudity from sexuality ("de-sexualizing" nudity), almost as if to argue that nudity is never sexual. Presumably, in this view, we get naked during sex to facilitate the unification of our genitals, and that the nudity itself should never be seen as erotic. Well, I don't agree with this view, and I feel that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Nudity is not intrinsically sexual - I have seen more than my fair share of "unsexy" nudity - but it can be. And it's awesome when it is. I have no desire to give that up, even if I could change this aspect of my psychology.

Downblouse

I have this problem with dresses sometimes...

[description: downward-angled selfie in a white dress with nipple visible]

We're in the midst of a war on voyeurism. On the receiving end, if I'm out in public, and I catch a flash of accidental nudity, it'll make my day. I probably wouldn't take a picture of it because 1) it would likely be gone before I got my camera out, and 2) people are really sensitive about having their picture taken, especially in ostensibly "compromising" situations, even though such a picture would be completely harmless in my hands. And even though I don't deny that I am a pervert at heart (and I don't think there's anything shameful about that), I still have to be concerned about my public reputation - and I don't want to be seen as a "creeper". That's a very important distinction. So although I have certain beliefs, I don't necessarily act on them (a novel concept), because I do in fact take into consideration other people's feelings. (I'm not a self-portrait photographer because I'm narcissistic, I'm a self-portrait photographer because I'm the only one whom I can know with 100% certainty - without navigating a complicated social landscape - wants to be in those pictures, and wants them to be shared in the way that I like to share them. So, you see, it's a selfless gesture, not a selfish one. Only taking pictures of myself is a punishment - what I really want to do is take pictures of other people).

I remember photographing attendees at a convention once (where everybody dresses up and takes pictures of each other's costumes). I had my camera out, and in front of me a raver was putting on a performance with a hula hoop. She dipped down, and her underwear was clearly visible beneath her neon tulle skirt. I could have snapped a picture - I probably could have even done it without raising any eyebrows. And I wanted to. But I didn't. Yet that doesn't change the fact that I want to live in a world where that sort of thing is seen as the harmless fun that it is. I pass attractive people on the street (in stores, at the beach, etc.) all the time. I want to take pictures of all of them, just to remember them by. To create a catalog of all the beauty I encounter in the world. The same way that a beautiful sunset makes me stop in my tracks and pull out my camera. But I don't want to make anyone self-conscious. I suppose I could stop them and ask them for a picture - which would be the "appropriate" course of action. But that's also very invasive. I don't want to interrupt them, I don't want to interject myself into their day - I don't want a social interaction, because unlike some people, that's not something I'm very good at. I just want a visual memory of what I've already seen with my naked eyes. What's wrong with that?

Chair Boredom

[description: feet pic with teal green "Mermaid Magic" nail polish]
Mermaid Feet

I know, it's an oxymoron. But arguably the most popular mermaid in pop culture (Ariel from The Little Mermaid) had canonical legs at one point, so there's that. I don't know if I would call myself a foot fetishist - some of that fetish porn is quite honestly beyond the pale, but then it may just be a matter of degree (of obsession) - but I do appreciate the aesthetic and sometimes even erotic appeal of an attractive foot (certainly not just any foot), provided it's not done to excess. I particularly like the curves involved, but also the psychological idea of exposure (the foot being one of the regularly covered body parts that is most frequently uncovered), especially given that your feet come into contact with your surroundings probably more than any other part of your body, except maybe your hands, which aren't typically covered. There may also be a psychological association with a person being on their back with their feet in the air (a common sexual position), one of the few times when the soles of a person's foot are readily visible. I think it's fun to psychoanalyze sexual triggers, but the bottom line is, you like what you like.

Doorways

[description: portrait of a nude man standing at the front door, viewed from inside, and from outside]

For an exhibitionist, there's something exciting about a doorway. It marks the boundary between two worlds - the private world, and the public world - beyond which certain activities may begin to pick up a taboo energy. But it's also a gateway connecting those two worlds, and so there's the implicit suggestion of conjunction and passage. Standing in a doorway is the closest you can get to the outside world, without actually leaving the relative safety (or at least comfort) of the inside world. It's like standing on the brink of a precipice, and savoring the thrill of the height, before (or even without) taking the plunge.

And for the voyeur, there's the excitement of possibility - of what you might get a glimpse of through an open doorway, peeking into that other world. It's no surprise that this theme recurs again and again in my photography.

Clothing (Still) Optional

[description: portrait of a nudist in full sunlight, holding a "clothing optional" sign]

As discussed previously, this is a perfect example of a situation improved by direct sunlight. Sure, there are harsh shadows (especially under my chin), but look at the sunlight gleaming off my skin! I love the way that looks.

[description: triptych of a nudist holding a volleyball, in three different lighting conditions]

Compare these three different shots taken moments apart with different exposures and lighting conditions. The first is full-on direct sunlight. Some of the illuminated portions of skin are overexposed, but honestly, I think that contributes to the impression that the sunlight is very bright and warm. (Certainly, if "high key" photography - which takes this effect to a ridiculous extreme - is a legitimate technique, then my use of a few overblown highlights shouldn't be a problem).

Consider the second image, which is exposed for cloud cover. The figure has less contrast (variance from light to dark sections), and has a much cooler appearance. I do like, however, the way my pale skin looks, almost as if it were glowing from within.

The third image was taken in partial sunlight. My camera was still exposed for full sunlight, which is why the image appears so dark. But compared to the first, the highlights are no longer blown out. However, the rest of the image does appear underexposed. You almost have to strain your eyes to look at it.

I can't say that any one of these images is "right" and that the rest are "wrong" - it all depends on what kind of look you're going for.

Nudist Phone Use

[description: a naked man sitting on a cot outdoors stares at a mobile phone]

I feel like this photograph should be accompanied by a study or discussion of nudist cell phone use, but I'm not sure there's that much to say (edit: I'm about to prove myself wrong, lol). The only reason nudists treat cell phones differently than textile society is because they have cameras. And, ostensibly contrary to their openness about their bodies, nudists are paranoid about having their picture taken, for one of two reasons:

1) They want to keep their involvement in nudism a secret, to avoid work/family conflicts, or

2) they're afraid of being targeted by "gawkers" who have either a sexual or judgmental (in the sense of pointing and laughing) motivation.

The first reason is understandable, if unfortunate - personally, I believe that nudists ought to live out in the open, not necessarily in the sense of being naked in textile society (which, under certain circumstances, could be illegal, in addition to being considered eccentric), but in the sense of not hiding the fact that they participate in the lifestyle, owing to a more visible and transparent public image. But, I understand that human beings are imperfect, and not everyone is in a position to be honest and open in this cutthroat, dog-eat-dog world. C'est la vie.

I believe the second reason, however, is overblown. Cameras don't capture souls, and if somebody happens to masturbate over an image of your naked body - excuse me for having lost my sensitivity on this issue, but - big deal. I subscribe to the philosophy of "no harm, no foul".

If somebody walks up to you and starts jacking off in your face (not necessarily literally, but that, too), then by all means, ban him from the park and put his name on a blacklist. Did you hear me? I said ban him from the park and put his name on a blacklist. That kind of behavior isn't acceptable. If he's following you around taking pictures of you (regardless of the reason) and this bothers you, then he needs a stern talking to (if not by you or your protector/guardian, then by a staff member or kind stranger), and if he persists, then by all means, ban him from the park. I don't know that blacklisting is appropriate for a first offense of this sort, but let's not quibble about the details.

But if you're minding your business and somebody innocuously snaps a picture of you because they like what they see, then what's the problem? The benefit of being less anal about anyone who whips out a camera at a nudist function is that the people who are actually interested in requesting and obtaining consent (as necessary) for taking and posing in pictures (e.g., families and friends documenting their vacations, or professional photographers interested in documenting the lifestyle) will be able to go about their business without undue hassle.

I suppose it's a matter of either safe or sorry. Play it safe, and ban all cameras, so that good photography is sacrificed. Or take the permissive approach, and run the risk that somebody might abuse the house's good will and snap a surreptitious picture here or there. All I'm saying is let's do a cost-benefit analysis. Somebody takes a nonconsensual picture of you and that hurts you exactly how? If they do anything with it that does hurt you (like out you as a nudist, or make fun of your body, or "submit" you to the shame of being the target of impure thoughts), then reparative actions can be taken.

But unless you're actually losing a job or custody of a child, or something serious like that (and these are battles that need to be fought in society so that injustices can stop being done against people just for engaging in a nudist lifestyle), you brush it off and move on with your life. I understand that it's not politically correct right now to tell somebody that they're overreacting, but all this fear of somebody taking your picture against your "consent" - even if we're considering people fully dressed in full view of public and outside of any nudist environment - is ridiculous, and that's where I stand on the issue.

And all that ignores what people spend the most time doing on their phones: namely, communicating with people, surfing the net, listening to music, and playing games. The latter is what I was doing when I thought to myself, "huh, a nudist using a cell phone, how quaint - I should take a picture of this!" Imagine you're a kid growing up in the nineties, and your family spends their vacation at a resort that outlaws Gameboys, Walkmans, computers, and telephones. I know you're supposed to be there to enjoy the vacation, but we're living in an increasingly technological society, and this sort of attitude is bound to turn young people away.