Objectification by Subtraction (Instead of Addition)

The (alleged) problem of "objectification" is one of priority or degree - when the sexual qualities of a person, as perceived by another, preclude that other from treating them with basic human dignity. But the issue is always framed in terms of the sexual feelings one has for another (usually a man for a woman, rhetoricized to condemn traditional male sexuality), when the sexual feelings in question are perfectly healthy.

If there's a problem with how one person is treating another, it's not because these sexual feelings exist between them. It's because something else is lacking - namely, that basic human dignity. But the sexual feelings are assigned all of the blame for that lapse of respect, as if one could not possibly have sexual feelings without necessarily suffering from a brain fart that precludes them from simultaneously viewing the object of their affections as a human being.

This is, frankly, an offensive stereotype, that is as misandrist as the behavior is misogynist that people who bring up "objectification" are actually objecting to. And it's sex-negative, because we end up blaming people for their sexual feelings as an early warning system for shitty behavior, when all this foregone conclusion accomplishes is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because we're not even considering room for the possibility that a "dude" could like a "chick" and still treat her with respect.

So if you want to lodge a credible complaint about how one person is treating another, consider what's missing from the equation (i.e., human dignity), and don't simply take the presence of sexual feelings to be evidence that a foul has automatically been committed. Because if the conclusion is that the only way men can treat women with respect is if they all get castrated first, then not only have you already lost (this is never going to happen), but you've also given up your right to complain about being treated like an object, because you've voluntarily surrendered your own humanity.

Humanistic Rites Interview

Preface: I happened to notice today that one of the interviews I performed on the subject of nudity through one of my contacts on Twitter has vanished again. I had to relink the interview shortly after it was published due to a change of domain, and this time, the whole website is gone, and even the corresponding Twitter account has been deactivated. I don't know why that should be the case. But since I put time and effort into the interview, and am proud of the answers I came up with, and would hate to see them lost to antiquity, I'm going to repost them here from a copy I kept on my own computer.

[description: a man stands nude in the woods with arms outstretched, surrounded by fall foliage]

1. What is your perspective on the nude in today's society?

Speaking primarily to United States culture (because I know attitudes vary across the globe), I would say that the nude is largely misunderstood. Our culture is paradoxically obsessed with sex yet still heavily repressed. We accept overt displays of sexuality in our media (however implicit), yet are notoriously skittish about explicit nudity - even when that nudity is utterly devoid of sexual context. Personally, I think we place too much emphasis on human genitalia, to the point where it almost seems like the crime is knowing what they look like, despite the fact that everyone has one.

In my opinion, there are situations where nudity makes a lot of sense - like at the pool, or in a laundromat, or lounging around at home when a visitor comes knocking - and other situations where it is maybe reasonable to expect people to remain dressed. However, the fear that somebody might see a person's genitals outside of a private bedroom encounter is so severe that it doesn't matter in what context it occurs. It's to the point where - to cite a recent case - despite fighting for the right of women to breastfeed in public, a woman can still be charged with a sex offense for being topless in her own home!

2. Do you consider any difference between the current generation and the previous ones with respect to their perception of being without clothes?

I don't know that I have a proper perspective to answer this question, finding myself now in the middle of my life, not so far removed from either the older or the younger generations. When I was younger, I studied some of the counterculture attitudes of the hippie movement in the 1960s (not without a certain sense of admiration), and it seemed that they had a relatively liberal approach to both nudity and free expressions of sexuality, that I'm not sure left as much of an enduring mainstream impact as I might have hoped.

As to trends among today's youths, I do think technology makes it easier for people to explore nudity, in this age of mobile phones (as I recall my own newfound sense of freedom when I bought my first webcam at age 18, that didn't require photos taken with it to be developed by a third party). But as far as cultural perceptions of nudity go, as an outspoken activist for nudism, I see people raised today into the same narrow-minded conceptions of nudity being taboo, and something that should be kept private, that I myself was raised with and had to overcome.

[description: a nude hiker ascends a hilly trail in the woods]

3. What is the feeling that is transmitted to you without clothes?

I enjoy being without clothes for a variety of reasons (twenty-five of which I've illustrated and written about in a book I recently published, titled Why Nudism?) - both sexual and non-sexual. Sometimes, it's just more convenient not to get dressed (like when I crawl out of bed, or step out of the shower). Other times, I value the comfort of being free from restricting fabrics pressing against my skin - like coming home and taking off your shoes, but not stopping there.

But there is more to it than that. When I am naked, I feel the thrill of being unclad - my body parts free to move about at will. I delight in the transgression of society's taboo - I have been told that it is improper to go about unclothed, yet it is a delightful sensation; so why should it be denied of me? When I am outdoors - with the wind in my hair, warm sunshine on my skin, and grass under my feet - this sensation is intensified, as I am laid bare to the universe, not hidden away in shame indoors.

There is a spiritual element, that I feel most keenly when I am out in nature, dressed as naturally as the fauna around me. And, sometimes, there is a sensual element, too. Our bodies were created for pleasure; textile society tries (albeit unsuccessfully) to lock that truth away behind clothes. I do not wish to disrupt the conventions of society regarding where and when sexual activity is appropriate, but there can be a pleasant erotic charge to nudity, that is fun to indulge in under the proper circumstances.

[desciption: a naked man stands on a rocky outcropping overlooking a lake]

4. Do you consider yourself a nudist, and if so, why?

I do consider myself a nudist, absolutely. Although I will sometimes joke that I am not one, to alleviate the pressures of conformity, or otherwise to spare the nudist community from some of my more controversial opinions. Whenever a community labels itself, there is a tendency to ascribe certain beliefs and practices to that label. This is, naturally - and intentionally - an exclusionary process to some degree. But I prefer to speak for myself, rather than let my views be represented by some collective entity. However, I do support nudism. And I most definitely practice it. So it would be folly for me not to consider myself a nudist.

5. Have you practiced naked individually or collectively?

I have practiced both. I started out individually, stripping off my clothes during adolescence, for isolated periods. Something intrinsic to my nature must have drawn me to nudity even at an age when I felt extremely self-conscious presented before others.

Years later, I learned about nudism, and ventured forth to practice recreational nudity with others - mostly strangers at the time. I have grown accustomed to that lifestyle by now. Moreover, I have spent many years as an artist modeling nude for the appreciation of strangers - something that has gone a long way towards building up my self-confidence, so that today I have no qualms at all being seen completely naked by anyone who doesn't mind the view.

My only concern is whether someone will object to that view, because I do not wish to bother anyone with my nudity (or get into trouble for it). At the same time, I do believe it is unfortunate that we live in a culture where it is assumed that you must dress (in spite of having a preference for eschewing clothes) for the benefit of others' sensibilities. In some ways, we are not as free as we like to claim.

[description: a man reaches out while hanging naked from the branch of a tree]

6. What do you think is the biggest benefit that brought you to be without clothes on a personal level?

Nudity, to me, is honest. Not just because of the symbolism of being exposed. Naked bodies are natural. The clothes we put on them are an artifice. Not that it is wrong to intentionally construct one's identity - I still engage in that practice, whether nude or absorbed in fashion. But I enjoy being nude. And it doesn't feel right to hide that fact. So to me it symbolizes not just a pragmatic approach towards comfort and convenience (which it is), but also a principle I value and live by, which is to be our authentic selves, and to seek truth and beauty outside of the narrow conventions in which society instructs us to look.

Nude Year Thoughts

When I think about ringing in the New Year nude, there's a difference between being in a room with a group of nudists and, say, streaking through a crowd of textiles. The latter is usually (and not inaccurately) labeled exhibitionism. But there's such a stigma associated with that term. I think the exhibitionist version seems more fun. When nudity is the norm, it loses a lot of its novelty. Which is great when you just want the comfort of being nude, but is there no value in the novelty of nudity as it contrasts with textilism?

The misconception I want to address is that this exhibitionist value is an essentially immoral and antisocial one. Just because I think the juxtaposition of a nude streaker in a clothed crowd seems appealing doesn't mean that I derive pleasure from bothering people, or that their "consent" (to be exposed to naked people) is beneath my concern, or less important than my happiness (on the contrary: I suppress these desires, thereby making myself suffer, on the mere chance that it might prevent the suffering of others).

I wrote about this recently, but when I imagine the scenario - e.g., of a streaker running through a crowd - I think about how happy that sight would make me. But I guess that's the difference of perspective. I assume that most people imagine the shock and horror they would experience, and therefore see the streaker's actions as selfish and reckless, where I see them as selfless and joyful.

Yet, there still remains the critical difference between somebody who thinks streaking sounds exciting, and somebody who actually does it. If you can find something intriguing, but refrain from doing it out of concern for the potentially varied perspectives of others, then I consider that evidence of an evolved maturity and humanity. It is not fair, then, to criticize people who, for example, consider themselves "exhibitionists", because of the feelings they acknowledge having, judging them for the behaviors they maybe fantasize about, instead of the behaviors they actually engage in.

Nude Dreams

I've noticed that although I sleep nude every night, I only ever have dreams in which I'm naked when the proper conditions arise (and they very rarely do) such that it's so overly warm in my room (usually due to a miscalculation with the thermostat, and the fact that my bed sits right on top of the heating vent in my room), that I end up throwing off my blankets and sleeping uncovered (though only temporarily). I lament that, under normal conditions, I am unable to sleep uncovered, because I always enjoy those naked dreams, and wish I could have them more frequently.

I had one just the other night, in which I was shopping at the mall - which is interesting inasmuch as I have not left the house in the last nine months. I was fully naked, and fully conscious of that fact; and it was not a nudist environment - where everyone is naked and nobody cares. As sometimes occurs in these dreams, the atmosphere of the scene was one which occupies a strange middle ground - a normal textile environment in which I am the only one naked, yet nobody remarks on my nudity (as they would if this had occurred in real life). Which leaves me wondering if it's actually okay for me to be naked after all, yet simultaneously preoccupied with anxiety that at any moment, somebody will notice my lack of attire and make a big deal about it. Not to the extent that it causes me to alter my behavior - e.g., tiptoeing about sheepishly, hiding my body behind racks of clothes - but more like just going about my business while waiting for the other shoe to inevitably drop (although in these dreams, it never does). It's like my brain has plopped me down naked into a regular dream, and I'm aware that I'm naked, but the rest of the dream isn't.

Regardless of the uncertainties, it was still a fascinating experience, and one that I would enjoy repeating any time the proper conditions should again arise. I actually had another naked dream recently, and this time it was one with a more erotic bent, that ended with a nocturnal emission. In this dream (which I started out clothed), I was a student in a college environment. It started in a classroom, with (strangely) a pizza oven in the hall. But then I was in a dormitory. There was a knock on my door. A group of guys was apparently in the midst of some kind of dare (or hazing ritual - not unlike one I witnessed from my window in real life while I was in college), in which they were streaking through the halls buck naked. Naturally, I took this as a serendipitous opportunity to engage in public nudity, protected by safety in numbers. I undressed on the spot - and here, allow me to make a brief digression.

I have heard of people having difficulty running in dreams, often moving in slow motion (as cleverly depicted in one sequence in the original A Nightmare on Elm Street). I haven't often had this experience, but I do much more frequently experience difficulty undressing in my dreams (often on the way to taking a shower). I will have great trouble peeling off my clothes, almost as if they are stuck to my skin, sometimes having to take off a particular garment (usually pants or underwear) multiple times.

Anyway, I knew time was of the essence in this instance, so I was thankfully able to get my clothes off, and proceeded to run down the hallway, only to find out that a group of girls had just begun coming up the hall from the other direction. So there I was, running through their midst, and the overwhelming thought on my mind was that they were getting a peek at my throbbing erection (from the thought of going streaking, naturally) - which, let's be honest, is an impressive sight - and that's when I felt the waves of orgasm begin to wash over me. At that moment I snapped awake (as I have trained myself to do), and grabbed the towel on the floor beside my bed just in time to avoid a mess.

Two Views of Exposure

There are two ways of looking at public nudity - or generally being naked in front of anyone who's not specifically a nudist or an intimate partner, even if it happens to occur in private. People who are concerned about this behavior probably imagine the sort of person (probably not unlike themselves) who would not appreciate seeing a stranger naked - either because the stranger is not considered attractive and/or nudity offends the viewer on principle of modesty and/or they feel threatened by the encounter.

But when I think about being exposed in public and/or to strangers or non-nudist/non-intimate acquaintances, I see it differently. I imagine how delighted I would be to be on the other end and see the same thing. So, you see, exhibitionism isn't selfish. The same way that I started modeling in order to give back to the world what I appreciate in others - that is, sharing the sight of their naked bodies with the world - is how I view dressing in skimpy clothes, and how I imagine public nudity, if I had the guts and the assurance of not being charged as a criminal to do it.

Think of it like this - a sexy woman undressing in front of a window. (Obviously, this only works if you're attracted to women, but feel free to imagine a man or other circumstances altogether - I'm not judging). Who hasn't peered out of their window and wished they could see a sexy woman (or equivalent) undressing in front of a window across the block? I would love to see that. And I want to see more of it in the world. And how better to promote that outcome than to undress in front of windows myself? I follow Ghandi's advice: "be the change you wish to see in the world."

So obviously, there's a difference of perspective here - contrasted with the point of view that considers undressing in front of windows to be either distasteful (they just don't personally like it) or also immoral (there's something wrong with it). The point I would emphasize is that exhibitionists aren't actively trying to bother people - because they get some kind of sick thrill out of doing so. They just see the world differently, and are trying to spread what they perceive as joy, although others may see it otherwise.

But they're not alone in seeing things the way they see it. And besides, who gets to decide which of these opposing views takes precedence? If a woman on my street likes to undress in front of her window, why does my neighbor's disgust trump my delight, when it comes to deciding whether or not the woman should be permitted to proceed? We have a habit, in this so-called "democracy" of ours, to cater to complainers. The pursuit of happiness isn't so important to us as the avoidance of discomfort - cultivating a watered down public commons in which nobody has to feel offended. The reason I DON'T engage in a whole lot of public exposure (except in specific circumstances where I think there is an acceptably low level of being caught) is out of respect for the feelings of others.* But how often do those others respect MY feelings? This isn't an equivalent exchange, here.

*An argument could be made that I refrain from public exposure NOT out of concern for the feelings of others, but out of sheer self-interest. The fact is, I do care about others' feelings, if only because making other people feel bad makes me feel bad. I don't think this is uncommon; it's how we function as a social species. We tend to vilify selfishness and exalt selflessness to an unnatural extent, that promotes shame in the less-than-perfect (that is, all of us) at least as much as it promotes some of us to better behavior. The truth is, most people are selfless mainly for selfish reasons. And that's just fine. It's only the sociopaths that don't have that empathic connection with others that prevents them from doing harm to others, because doing so doesn't affect them the way it does the rest of us. In any case, my self-interest puts me at no lower a level than the self-interest of those who want to compel others to cover up simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I sacrifice to make others comfortable. They want others to sacrifice to make themselves comfortable. See the difference?

In the interest of fairness, we can imagine an alternate scenario in which the person undressing in front of the window is NOT someone I am attracted to. I think most people default to, "people I think are hot, I want to see naked. But if I don't think they're hot, they should cover up."** Obviously, this doesn't work when we take into account more than one person's tastes. So, again, we default to telling everybody to cover up, because taking away the joy of the people who would enjoy it is viewed as better than forcing the people who don't enjoy it to suffer.

**There are obviously other nuances to complicate the situation, such as people who only want to see hot people naked in limited circumstances, perhaps because they are uncomfortable embracing sexual thoughts outside of a private context, or people who have religious or some other kind of beliefs that prevent them from enjoying their sexual feelings at all. I think this is unfortunate, and one of the things I love most about the nudist worldview is this idea that, even if nudists don't typically view it from a sexual perspective, the exposure of people's bodies is not this private, intimate thing, but something that can be shared casually with strangers without all the baggage we normally load onto intimate encounters (including any kind of expectation of sexual activity), and devoid of the view that doing so is somehow immoral or represents a negative character flaw. Grappling with the beliefs of those who object to the nudists' casual approach to nudity is one of its most challenging obstacles to mainstream acceptance, and I don't have a solution to that problem. But I will say that I would be much happier living in a nudist-positive world than the one we currently live in, where people's bodies are shamed (whether they're attractive or not) and the sharing of visual beauty (entirely separate from any kind of sexual contact) is stigmatized to a life-defeating (in some cases literally, as we've occasionally seen with the more tragic teen sexting cases) extent.

Maybe it's not so bad from that perspective - prioritizing the avoidance of suffering over the elimination of pleasure - like letting a criminal go free rather than risking false imprisonment. But here's my argument. If you're not attracted to the person undressing in front of the window, you can just look away. Enter the nudist mindset. Most nudists I meet are not people I want or particularly enjoy seeing naked. Simply because I have particular tastes, and the percentage of the population that I view as attractive is a minority (and particularly smaller in a nudist context, where the demographic skews older and maler). But, as a nudist, seeing somebody that I don't find attractive naked doesn't bother me. And I've always maintained that looking at 99 people I find unattractive naked in order to get the privilege of seeing 1 person I do find attractive naked, that I would normally not get the chance to see naked, is more than worth it to me.

So here's the thing. Nudists posit a culture where naked bodies are not shocking, or offensive. Which is an idea that I love. To people with a limited understanding of it (which is most people, especially nudists), this should eliminate exhibitionism, which allegedly relies on shock value. Except that it doesn't, really. Taking the shock away would only improve exhibitionism, by removing a considerable obstacle to its enjoyment. Making nudity inoffensive means exhibitionists could expose themselves regularly without fanfare - getting enjoyment from the exposure without bothering anyone. EXACTLY like how exhibitionists currently get enjoyment out of strutting at the pool in string bikinis (I use this example to emphasize the gender disparity - that women are expected to show off, and that this is considered as unthreatening as milquetoast, while men who do it are quickly viewed with criminal suspicion), without offending anyone, and without this behavior involving any kind of mustache-twirlingly stereotypical depictions of sexual perversion, like masturbating on the waterslide in full view of children, or what have you (any time you mention exhibitionism to nudists, I swear, they think you're talking about public intercourse, and not just, you know, experiencing endorphins from the simple act of being seen and admired). I maintain that exhibitionism isn't a fringe fetish, but a common part of the human condition. Some of us just embrace it more fully than others.

In any case, exhibitionists and public nudity supporters (whatever their motivations might be, sexual or otherwise) should be viewed in light of their perspective on exposure being unremarkable, and not taken solely in light of current attitudes that view naked bodies akin to a deadly weapon. When somebody fantasizes about answering the door naked, they are not, largely, stroking themselves (whether literally or just figuratively) to thoughts of traumatizing strangers and forcing them to look at something that disturbs or disgusts them. No, if they are anything like me, they are imagining themselves AS THE VOYEUR, opening the door on somebody attractive, and how world-shatteringly delightful that experience would be (and how badly they wish it would happen - and that though they can't force a random attractive stranger to flash them, they CAN be the flasher in somebody else's fantasy). If some people lack the social capacity to recognize that this possibility may be rare, and that the cost of losing this particular lottery and ending up exposing oneself to somebody who does NOT appreciate it could be significant (and therefore going through with it and not keeping it in the realm of fantasy), then that is very unfortunate - and it paints an unfair portrait of exhibitionism. But it should not be mistaken for one of the foundational mechanisms of what drives the phenomenon of exhibitionism - or in the case of the nudist who simply wants more opportunities to remain undressed, without being accused of necessarily being an exhibitionist.

Naked Thoughts

(Or Skinny-Dipping in the Stream of Consciousness)

I support nonsexual nudism, but I was just thinking, do we absolutely need to designate nudism as non-sexual? Or can we just delineate a non-sexual nudism versus a sexual nudism? Could nudism not simply be the practice of nudity beyond the bounds of what textile society deems normal? Obviously, a sexual nudist isn't going to constantly be having sex. And if they only EVER get undressed for sex, then that really isn't nudism. But if they like to walk around naked, and also occasionally have sex in public, is the walking around part not still nudism?

Is it a matter of motivation? That if they're walking around naked because they view it as erotic - sort of a form of foreplay - then it's exhibitionism and not nudism? But does it have to be 100% because of that exhibitionism? Or because of exhibitionism 100% of the time? Is it not possible for an exhibitionist to spend a lot of time naked, and discover through that means that being naked is enjoyable for reasons beyond the sexual? And thus become a nudist through exhibitionism? This is what I've always maintained.

But many nudists seem to be of the opinion that if there is even a single percent of your nudity tied to an exhibitionist motivation, then that invalidates the nudist component. But I don't agree. This view is informed by a sex-negative culture which stigmatizes sexuality. If sex weren't stigmatized, and viewed as an exceptional circumstance when it comes to allowing people to gather and recreate, then it wouldn't really matter whether some nudists sometimes engaged in public sex and exhibitionism, any more than it matters now if a nudist engages in an activity that doesn't carry any particular stigma, like playing a certain sport.

That's not to say that nudists necessarily SHOULD embrace public sex, but the idea that nudism and exhibitionism are intrinsically incompatible* (or that there can't be an alternative exhibitionistic nudism) stems from that sex-negative bias. You can still separate nudism from public sex acts - and still have good reason to do so - without drawing the further conclusion that nudists and exhibitionists are mutually exclusive, or that the existence of one inherently threatens the other.

*Frankly, I would have thought that people who like to be naked and people who like to be exposed would have been natural allies, but I guess it's more complicated than that.

---

What is the most basic requirement for being a nudist?

I would argue that nudism encompasses a certain attitude toward nudity. A rejection of the exposure taboo - that our bodies should remain hidden except in specific special circumstances. Although, you can be a nudist in the privacy of your own home, and still be self-conscious in front of others.

Most people in textile culture are rarely naked. They might get naked for sex (and while this is not a requirement, they will at least need to expose their genitals, which is the most guarded part of the body in textile culture). Other than that, they typically only get naked when changing clothes, bathing, or using the bathroom (and there, again, they are usually only partially undressed - the undressed portion critically being the genitals). And these things are typically done in private, or only in the presence of relations with special privileges. Occasionally, a textile might sleep naked or go skinny dipping, but these are usually rare or infrequent practices, and not the norm - the exception that proves the rule.

I think that if you are (1) nonchalant about being seen naked by others, since body shyness is hard-coded into textile culture, then that makes you a nudist. But I also think that if (2) you are private with your nudity, but engage with it more commonly than a typical textile - such as lounging about the house in the nude, even if only when you are alone, or with special company - then that can also make you a nudist. In either case, I think it comes down to comfort. Whether it's comfort in front of others, or just comfort in your own skin, being comfortable instead of neurotic and uptight about nudity is enough for me to consider you a nudist.

Now, this can occur in a sexual context - some people are highly body-conscious even while having sex. Although, I hesitate to label a person a nudist if they are ONLY ever comfortable with nudity during sex (or always interpret nudity as it relates to sex). As long as that nudity extends beyond the sexual environment, even if you are lounging around the house with your significant other (at a point when most textiles would have covered up), that still constitutes nudism to me.

Now, if your comfort with nudity around others is purely the result of an exhibitionist motivation, then I would hesitate to call that nudism, as well. However, having that exhibitionist interest doesn't preclude you from being a nudist. If you only ever expose yourself to others in the course of your sexual practices (whether with consenting others - as I would hope the case would be - or not), then that's not really nudism. But if you still like to go nude when you're not doing it for sexual reasons, then you are a nudist, even if you do think getting naked in front of others can be erotic.

Tweets For Posterity (Volume 5)

Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

On the one hand, I know of people who post images of naked strangers to celebrate nudism. And on the other, there are nudists criticizing people with particular posting habits (like if the naked people are too attractive), but I don't know where exactly the two intersect. So I can only ever speculate whether a given image would pass inspection (thereby reinforcing my own personal bias). If, for example, a photographer hires an attractive model to pose naked for a non-sexually explicit photo, can that photo represent nudism? (I think yes). Understanding that intent is only ever a guessing game, and not to pass judgment on anyone, I think it would be fascinating for a panel of nudists to interpret specific images that are shared online in terms of the extent to which they promote the true spirit of nudism.

Activists and advocates of political correctness need to understand that any label will sound like a slur coming out of your enemy's mouth, but that doesn't mean it's a slur when your advocates use it. I know language is important, and it evolves (though not all of us are quick enough to keep up), but that's precisely the reason we should take care not to police it to the extent that we scare people out of speaking up, thereby silencing the voices that need amplification the most.

When you take "yes" out of a person or a population's vocabulary, whether by stigmatization or outright restriction, you're making it harder for people to figure out which "no's" really mean "no". Consent can't be respected unless there's a free choice involved.

Nudists can be so judgmental. Sometimes I feel like it would be cathartic to revoke my membership and declare war on the lifestyle, but the truth is, I love nudism, and it wouldn't stop me from practicing it. It's just a subset of its adherents that can be insufferable sometimes.

Nudists have both the right and the responsibility to police usage of their beaches, resorts, clubs, and discussion forums. But they should refrain from judging the sexual behaviors and motivations of the wider public, especially on the porn-friendly internet.

Nudity is not porn. But by that token, a lot of porn is not porn, either. Frankly, I think we should eliminate "pornography" from our vocabulary, because it means too many different things and carries too much baggage. Its use doesn't facilitate communication, it obstructs it.

People come to nudism from many different paths. If somebody follows a nude model because he's attracted to her, and in the process learns about nudism, then that's a net gain for nudism. There's no reason "sex sells" can't also be applied to nudism. I mean, I get it. The predominant approach is safety over liberty. Shaming healthy feelings is collateral damage in preventing deviants from slipping through the cracks. I just have different priorities - freedom, personal responsibility, and not punishing the innocent.

So many people seek happiness from the world around them, when our bodies were designed with an inborn valve to release pleasure. 100% natural. 100% healthy. It's madness not to make use of it. And cruelty to shame others for doing so.

There's a certain ableism entrenched in anti-porn/sex work positions. Yes, these resources are sometimes used as substitutes to fill the void of relationships missing from a person's life. Not always due to personal choice or personality flaw, but also for clinical reasons. But do these people not deserve sexual satisfaction, or to have the resources to tend to their sexual health, just because they're lonely, or unskilled at attracting a mate? Nor is it the crutch's fault if a man leans on it too long, at the expense of his own rehabilitation.

Libido is a storm - a force of nature that can be devastating left unchecked. But its energy can also be harnessed for good. We live in a society that cultivates destructive sexual energies. I want to change the culture to transform those energies into a more nurturing variety. The purpose of sex isn't to "smash" or "destroy" someone, to degrade and humiliate them. It's to attain bodily pleasure. To give and receive, not inflict. It's not an extreme sport. It doesn't rely on vigorous penetration. It's the physical manifestation of desire and admiration.

Whenever there's a sex scandal, we shame people's sexual behaviors, thinking this will prevent another scandal from happening in the future. What we don't realize is that it's this shame that is causing these scandals in the first place. People are more likely to misbehave sexually when they don't have an appropriate outlet for their sexual desires. And making a scandal out of healthy behaviors - like taking sexy pics with your phone - makes the problem seem worse than it is.

Here's what I don't get. Whether you're a celebrity or a normal person, if you have reason to suspect that a lot of people would enjoy seeing pictures of you naked and/or engaged in sexual activities, then what exactly is wrong with giving the people what they want? It doesn't make you somehow noble or virtuous to withhold that from them. Yet we condemn anyone who dares to serve this human need - even when they're not themselves responsible! (e.g., getting hacked) But we have control over that as a population, and it needs to stop. I just don't understand that mentality. I know that people want to see me naked; that they enjoy it. I would feel like a psychopath to withhold that from them. It brings me joy and satisfaction to know that I can give them something of myself to make them feel good. And I'm not saying demand is the sole arbiter; willingness should always be the prime consideration. But when we place a moral price on the satisfaction of this desire, we're scaring people away who might otherwise be willing, thereby artificially reducing the supply. And make no mistake - this is deliberate. But without proper supply, frustration mounts, and people act out. Sexual repression is the number one cause of antisocial sexual behaviors. Well, I'm here to tell you that there is nothing immoral about sexual pleasure.

Some sites, like Instagram and Facebook, don't have a good reputation for tolerating nudity. Now, I understand - and even support - the desire to go to these sites to make a stand. What I don't understand is the shock and horror when the inevitable predictably happens. I've been sharing my nude/erotic photography online for over a decade. I've had a few snafus, as we all do, because this is not an exact science, but I've never lost an account. The first thing you have to do is make sure you understand the rules better than the staff does. It's just like if you're out hiking in the woods - you should know the law better than the local authorities do. And sometimes, you'll still get harassed. Other times, it'll be a matter of differing interpretation. But at least know what you're getting yourself into.

I sell fantasy, not opportunity. I'm not a slut. I just play one on the internet.

Do not judge the sexual intentions of the gentle and empathetic by the actions of the predatory and aggressive. Too much of our sexuality is stunted because so many misbehave. But I don't take this to be an inevitability, I take it to be an opportunity for improvement.

I think people often don't have free choice. Because choices aren't made in vacuums. And when a culture systematically obliterates the legitimacy of one option in favor of another, then it's not really a free choice. It's compelled speech. And most people don't even realize it.

As an alternative to "shirts and skins" I propose "nudes and prudes". One team gets naked, and the other stays dressed.

If there is demand in the world for seeing naked people (and there is), then what's wrong with people that are comfortable being seen naked indulging it? I call that synergy. I feel like nudists are held to a certain standard indicative of professional organizations - "when you wear the uniform, you reflect the ideals of the organization." But not everything a nudist does when he's naked has to reflect the non-sexuality of nudism; the fact that nudism is non-sexual doesn't mean that nudists have to eschew anything that "sexualizes" nudity. If it's true that a nudist is a nudist through and through, even when he's clothed and not practicing nudism, then he's a nudist even while he's having sex. And nudists don't have to live every moment in the public eye like they're unendingly engaged in wholesome nudism.

This is a fundamental truth I've learned from experience, though it remains well suppressed. The worst treatment you experience in life will be at the hands of prudes. Yet it's the perverts we're warned about. (I know pervs - they're good people). The world is backwards.

I like to open people's minds to new possibilities outside their limited exposure to the mainstream. But dealing with close-minded people is exhausting, and hazardous to one's health. I can't force anyone's eyes open, but oh, the sights I can show those who are willing to look...

When someone talks about self-respect - as in, others lacking it - it's usually a cover for their inability to show basic human respect to others. It's just easier to blame the victim, and convince yourself they don't deserve respect, than face up to your own infirmity.

What if the hazards of sex work are not intrinsic to the work, but are manufactured by an intolerant society in order to prove a point? Then, any attempt to mitigate those hazards would be obstructed in favor of an abolitionist approach. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I've been at war for too long. And I never wanted to be a soldier. But society isn't content to just let people have their sexy fun, without everyone offering their own opinions and judgment on what is right and proper, in an unprotected orgy of shame and loathing. If you ask me, that's the only true perversion. And the only sex crime is a violation of consent (including consent to access information), the only victim being one whose consent has been violated - not the moral character of law or society or an uninvolved third party. So if a woman consents to pose nude for a magazine cover (especially if she is compensated for it), you can just fuck right off with your moralistic notion of "objectification". I've never heard of a pervert campaigning against your freedom to form a bridge club.

You don't have to like exhibitionists. You don't even have to accept them into the fold. But people don't even try to understand them. That's what gets to me. They just write exhibitionists off as antisocial perverts with no conscience. But guess what? We're human, like you. We understand personal boundaries, and social conventions. We can't be boiled down to an ignorant stereotype. And we have feelings, too. Try talking to us sometimes, and asking us questions; instead of just assuming our motives and shutting us out of the conversation. Nor are exhibitionists a monolithic entity, reducible to a DSM diagnosis (like transvestites and homosexuals). We're diverse individuals. Do you let what others do define who you are as a nudist? Then nothing anyone else has done defines who I am as an exhibitionist.

I know how it sounds, but I'm not advocating for skeevy creeps to be given the benefit of the doubt. I'm advocating for decent people to be able to accept their sexual feelings without shame, and for sexual creativity not to be relegated to the realm of "vice". It's nothing short of a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about human sexuality. And I realize that's a lot to ask, but it wouldn't be right to demand anything less. I've never been happy with the way things are. I want them to be better. And I think they can.

Porn isn't always about gaping orifices. Sometimes it's about beautiful bodies. And you can't argue that beautiful bodies constitute porn, and then treat them like you would gaping orifices. Sometimes porn is tasteful, artistic, even nudist-positive.

Our culture segregates everything to do with sex from the rest of our lives. But every stripper, every cam girl, every escort, every pornographer...is also a human being. With friends, family, kids, parents, hobbies, pastimes, sometimes even day jobs. I'm not saying the sexual element has to be integrated into dinner party conversation, but we shouldn't punish people for having this other side. Strippers can become teachers - embracing the erotic element of living as a sexual organism isn't a character flaw, or a vice. I don't support the illusion that these are distinct worlds that must never collide. A person can be two things simultaneously without their work or play sexualizing everything they do or say. There's no reason a known pornographer can't lend public support to nudism. True objectification is telling these people that, in the course of maintaining their erotic personality, they must never hint at any interests, or display evidence of having a life outside of the erotic services they are rendering.

There's an increased anxiety when I go out dressed as a woman. And it's not fear of sexual attention from men. I've experienced that. Sometimes it's annoying (for the love of God, don't honk at pedestrians please); most of the times it's just mildly flattering. No, it's the fear of not passing - not being seen as a woman, but being seen as an impostor. I'm sure men do horrible things to women. But what do they do to "men" that inadvertently "trick" them into experiencing what is retroactively revealed to be "gay thoughts"? It's not just men, though. The women's restroom is far from a safe space. God forbid I should be identified as a pervert and assigned sordid intentions. I'm sorry, but restrooms aren't the least bit sexy to me. I just want to do my business in peace and get out of there.

Re: "All bodies are beautiful." I don't want anyone to think that I'm defending judgment and insensitivity; I'm not. But honesty is important, too. Nudists prop up an unattainable fantasy whereby visual evaluation goes out the window, and it's inhuman. Nobody can live up to it. I support body acceptance. People have different opinions, and acceptance can be found in their mix - that there is not one monolithic idea of beauty. But that's different than expecting an individual to see every body exactly the same. And still, seeing bodies differently doesn't justify treating them differently. Your visual appraisal of another person's body means little to nothing - THAT's the naturist lesson. Not that you aren't allowed to have preferences in the first place. I know the very concept that some people's bodies could be viewed as "less than" others is heartbreaking. But we can't just ditch something because we don't like it. Maybe if we could change human nature first, but I'm not sure we even should. Democracy does not mean everybody is perfectly equal. It means we strive for equity - equal opportunity - and that everyone has the same fundamental rights. Exceptionalism is a phenomenon in life that makes experiences better for people when they're rare. Relative value judgments exist because the extraordinary becomes exceptional in contrast to the ordinary. Not that I would be opposed to an experiment in which the extraordinary becomes ordinary. But even then, judging what's extraordinary involves excluding the ordinary. It'd be great if you were so wired as to see everybody you meet as extraordinary, but that's just not reality.* Maybe "true" naturists lack a certain fundamental capacity to evaluate others' appearance. Maybe that's an adaptive improvement. But expecting everyone to be able to meet that standard (in order to be a nudist) is unrealistic. What of the rest of us? You're asking us to attain brain states we don't have, essentially reaching some kind of level of transformative enlightenment. I will say it again. The lesson is learning to put your judgments in context, and treat people fairly in spite of them - this is the miracle of kindness. It requires maturity, instead of self-deception and adherence to an unattainable social requirement.

*In other words, pretending the ordinary is extraordinary is not the same as changing the ordinary into the extraordinary - that is, saying beer bellies are hot versus giving everyone a six pack (abs, I mean).

The "nudism vs. naturism" debate is elitist at its core. Yes, there are different kinds of nudists, and some take it more seriously than others, but there are more than two kinds, and their differences are not designated by the terms "nudist" and "naturist". It would be easy to look at the two terms and jump to conclusions: that "nudism" is superficially about getting naked, while "naturism" connotes a deeper philosophy. But this does a disservice to the multitudes who use the terms interchangeably, as colloquial variations. Nudists are in no way "less than" naturists. A "nudist" may be principled and enjoy nature, while a "naturist" may be a recreational day tripper. But are these even really two different things? The beliefs of "nudists" and the activities of "naturists" largely overlap. Indeed, there is no functional difference between the two; the idea that there is is a myth. Even at their most distinct, they are still just two facets of the same thing: nude recreation, and its ideology. And to accuse a "nudist" of lacking ideology is elitist ignorance.

If I can be accused of being a nudist and NOT being a nudist by two different people for the SAME reason - insufficient ideological devotion/purity - because the second person believes nudism is what the first person believes naturism is, then we have a terminology problem.

I sympathize with and support the notion that nudism is not about looking (although this message is better transmitted by those who are not what some might call "lookers"), but it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that looking is ANTI-nudist. It's not.

I thought nudists were supposed to accept people as they are. All they ever seem to do is judge me by impossible, superhuman standards. I've never advocated for the mixing of sex with nudism, only the freedom to be a nudist and still have a public sex life. Being a nudist doesn't require a shame-fueled, guilt-ridden, sex-negative mindset. I've been treated by nudists as an idiot and a nuisance and an impostor because I celebrate the erotic appeal of the human body. I've never been treated that poorly by a pervert. I've never once had a pervert view my stream and tell me, "you support nudism? You're not a TRUE pervert!" If even perverts know that not everything a person does is sexual, then why can't nudists understand that not everything a nudist does is part of the lifestyle? Nudists, take heed: you are actively contributing to body shame. Lying to yourself and pretending everyone is a supermodel, while every impure thought in your head generates self-loathing, is not the route to well-being. Let's make nudism truly a judgment-free zone.

I don't share erotic self-portraits out of some unrepressed urge to impose my sexuality on others. I do it because I admire the art form, and I've had the privilege through years of sharing my work to connect with others that appreciate what I do. So if you don't like them, just move along. You're not my audience, and I have no use for your judgment.

There's a certain comfort with the human body that comes from being a nudist. It may not be immediate, and it may never be complete, but if you're going to spend time naked, especially with other people, you're gonna learn not to let certain things bother you. Most people don't want to see their friends naked. They don't want to know how they groom their pubic hair. They don't want to hear the reasons why we sit on towels. They don't want to talk about what happens when men get erections and women get periods. If you're a nudist, you're going to encounter these things (in discussion if not in person). And I can't help feeling that you can't BE a nudist without gaining a certain level of comfort with that other activity our bodies were designed for - sex. What people can't seem to wrap their minds around is that this can be true, and it can also still be true that nudism is non-sexual. That sex acts can still be verboten, but that the topic may come up and we can all be a little bit more mature about it. We're never going to make nudism look perfectly kosher to an established textile. It's always going to be about the human body unfiltered, and people who are uncomfortable with that are going to take issue with it. Disavowing the primacy of our sex drive won't change that.

I see nudists committing the same mistakes and fallacies about sex that they criticize people for making about nudity. "Sex-positive" is an attitude, not an act. It's not code for "public sex is a-ok". "Sex-positive nudism" is NOT just another term for "swinging". I don't want people to have sex in nudist spaces. I don't want people to openly display porn in nudist spaces. I don't appreciate it, either, when people assume that nudity is only ever about sex, and then treat it the same way they treat porn. But I also don't appreciate it when nudists assume anything sex-Y or sex-UAL - or erotic, if you will - is explicit sex, and treat it as such. Or presuppose that an oppositional stance to expressions of human sexuality is a requirement for being a nudist. That's what I mean by "sex-positive". I'm not against porn. I don't resent the *implicit* daily eroticism of living. And I don't appreciate nudists thinking they can shit on me because I choose not to hide the fact that I am simultaneously a nudist and a sexual organism. Because that's NOT the same thing as saying I think I should be allowed to have sex whenever and wherever I want. I'm not advocating for sex at Bare Buns Resort any more than in McDonald's. I'm just sick of nudists not treating me with respect because I also make erotic art.

The only requirement for being a nudist is engaging in nudity for any nonsexual reason outside of the context in which a textile would normally be nude (e.g., taking a shower). Everything beyond that is joining a cult.

(Volume 6)