Tweets For Posterity (Volume 6)

Each time I post one of these I wonder, how long will this series go on? And, inevitably, I end up with more Tweets to share before too long. But this time, I'm taking a break from the toxic drama of social media, in order to focus instead on sharing naked, sexy, girly art with my fans on OnlyFans [NSFW]. I have a strong desire to defend myself and what I do in the court of public opinion, but sometimes it's easier to just do it and not worry about making an argument for it. Because you can construct arguments in support of erotic imagery all day long (and I have), but, as I have stated in the past, the best defense against the influence of prudishness is simply to flood the internet with more sexy pics and videos. Spread it faster than they can censor it. -_^

Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?

Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.

I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.

The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.

I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.

Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.

I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.

Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.

Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.

P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.

I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.

Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.

Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.

I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".

Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.

I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.

I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.

More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?

It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.

Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.

I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.

I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.

Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?

A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.

Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.

Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?

Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.

People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.

You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.

There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.

Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.

Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".

A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.

So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.

Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.

People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.

I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.

Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.

What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?

I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.

Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.

We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.

Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.

(Volume 7)

Exhibitionism al Dente

Straddling the Line Between Taking It Off and Showing It Off

Preface: This article is an expression of my views and the culmination of my experiences as an exhibitionist and a nude photographer interacting with the online nudist community (mainly on Twitter and Reddit) over the past two years.

What relevance does exhibitionism have to the topic of nudism? Ask a great many nudists, and they will tell you, "absolutely none!" But I believe this is an oversimplification of the issue. After all, it keeps popping up. But before we can say anything meaningful about how (or whether) exhibitionism fits into the practice of nudism, we ought to clarify just what exhibitionism is. And we can start by determining what it is not.

How Exhibitionism is Misrepresented

Everyone thinks they know what exhibitionism is, but being able to recite a medical diagnosis published in the DSM (a manual with a historically poor track record of describing human sexual diversity) is no substitute for lived experience. As a self-described exhibitionist, I am frequently confronted by people who insist that my personal feelings and experiences are less instructive than the cartoonish image in their heads of the "trench coat flasher". Yet, in over ten years of engaging in exhibitionism, I have never known such a creature to exist in real life. My image of the average exhibitionist isn't the hypothetical night prowler stalking the subways with a hard-on for unsuspecting marks; it is the increasingly visible trend of young, confident women showing off their bodies to adoring fans on the internet.

To what extent are our preconceived notions about exhibitionism truly representative of the phenomenon described by that term? Linguistically speaking, the root of exhibitionism is exhibition, which is a type of display, that we can boil down to "showing off in front of others" (presumably in an erotic context). Nothing about this implies that for the exhibition to be sexually stimulating, it must be performed in front of someone who is not expecting it, or that a negative reaction is actually desired. In fact, common sense dictates that if the audience enjoys the exhibition - even encourages it - then it will be more satisfying to the exhibitionist. Indeed, voyeurs are the perfect foil for exhibitionists; voyeurism and exhibitionism represent two sides of the same coin - people who enjoy sexual display, whether as performer or audience. Together, they form a consensual loop of mutual benefit.

Why, then, do exhibitionists sometimes act out, and perform for less than enthusiastic audiences? This is a more complex question than I am able to answer, but suffice to say, I believe it is more of a human nature question than an exhibitionist one. The trouble is that exhibitionism is disproportionately exposed to the public in the form it takes when it accompanies psychiatric distress and antisocial disruption. Good exhibitionists that behave themselves don't typically make the news. It's no wonder, then, that people cling to the DSM diagnosis. Yet, when I've tried to explain that there is more to exhibitionism than a medical diagnosis, people have shut me down, insistent that what I am describing is not technically exhibitionism - because it is not covered by the DSM diagnosis! Thus we are locked into a repeating cycle, even as things like homosexuality and "transvestism" have expanded in the public consciousness to include non-medical phenomena that are not the result of mental disorder. We live in a world where it is increasingly becoming understood that even such a thing as sexual sado-masochism (another DSM diagnosis) can be practiced in a consensual context. So why not exhibitionism?

But what about unsolicited dick pics, you ask? I understand that this is a frustrating problem for many women. My opinion as an exhibitionist is that this is actually less of an exhibitionist thing, and more like a primitive form of flirting - on a level of sophistication with cat-calling (albeit considerably more explicit). I have never sent an unsolicited dick pic, and have no desire to. I have taken many pictures of my dick - ranging from artistic to humorous to straight-up sexy - but not to spring on unsuspecting females, in the vain hope that they'll consider it an enticing invitation, but to share on image hosting platforms for appreciative voyeurs, to browse and admire at their leisure. You might be surprised by how many people out there LIKE looking at stranger's dicks - if only you would ask first.

But to whatever extent that exhibitionism may be involved in behavior that targets unsuspecting victims, I believe it is an imbalance of priorities or a misjudgment of interests - the exhibitionist mistakenly considers his own enjoyment of exposure as representative of a more general psychology, and therefore expects a positive response, rather than deriving pleasure from the anticipation of a negative response. In my understanding, the thrill in the risk of getting caught is distinct from any possible thrill of ACTUALLY getting caught, and the exhibitionist fantasy of getting caught usually hinges on the exploration of a more open sexuality (the thrill of being seen), than the sadistic pleasure of ruining another person's day. Regardless, whatever one finds desirable in fantasy, this is a separate issue from what behaviors one chooses to engage in; a person should be judged by their own decisions, not by the decisions of others who may have shared a similar fantasy.

Having covered what I believe exhibitionism is not, what does it mean, then, to be an exhibitionist? In my opinion, exhibitionism is about appreciating the visual aspect of eroticism, having confidence in one's appearance, and reveling in the feeling of being admired, independent from the source of that admiration, as well as any strict requirement for intimate physical contact. It dovetails excellently with an artistic mindset (via the aesthetic appreciation of erotic beauty), and, when pursued for its own sake - as the purest exhibitionists do - and not simply as a means to an end (i.e., foreplay), presents a potential opportunity for sexual stimulation that is contact-free and thus 100% safe from the transmission of disease, as well as unplanned pregnancy. I believe it should be viewed as a more wholesome form of eroticism than many physically and psychologically messier alternatives, and yet it (along with its partner, voyeurism) remains one of the few forms of sexual desire that is still viewed with paranoia and disdain even among sexual progressives, due to the stigma generated from unrepresentative stereotypes.

A Sex-Positive Detour

Hold that image of wholesome exhibitionism in your mind; we're going to return to it in a bit. But first, before we examine how exhibitionism fits into nudism, I'd like to clear up another misconception. Whenever I mention sex-positive nudism, there are invariably some who think I am talking about nudists having sex out in the open. This is not the case. "Sex-positive" is not just a word that perverts use to demonstrate how much they love sex; it is a social movement with a history and ties to feminism. What it represents is not a libertine, "anything goes" philosophy. It represents a positive attitude toward human sexuality, distinguished by its opposition to a sex-negative culture that regularly shames and stigmatizes what are natural and healthy sexual feelings and behaviors. Sex-positivity challenges the premise that our fundamental sexual nature is an organic flaw, a moral failing, or a sin; and invites us to revel in and celebrate the joy of sexual pleasure. It is NOT a synonym for sexual obsession, addiction, or total sexual abandon. A positive approach to sex must necessarily honor the desires - and therefore, the consent - of any and all participants. Therefore, sex-positivity must still navigate the social and personal boundaries we construct around sex.

So when I say that we need a more sex-positive nudism, I am not asking nudism to embrace public sexual behavior. Rather, I am asking nudism to confront its own sex-negative assumptions, just as sex-positivity positions itself as an alternative to a sex-negative culture. These assumptions are the result of an antagonism that has developed between nudism and sex. As many nudists will cite, the wider culture rarely encounters nudity outside of a sexual context, and so has been conditioned to necessarily associate the one with the other. There is also an additional stigma placed on anything to do with sex - including legal and economic restrictions on who can engage in it and where. So, the institution of nudism suffers unnecessarily from the misinterpretation that it is a sexual lifestyle. Nudists attempt to rectify this state of affairs by reminding people - loudly and frequently - that nudism is nonsexual, and that not all nudity carries a sexual context.

All of this is true, and a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is when this antagonism grows out of bounds, and nudists become akin to soldiers in a crusade against sexual expression, or any sexual interpretation of nudity whatsoever. The desire to illustrate a nonsexual context for nudity becomes a fervor to eliminate any possible sexual connotation (lest it confuse some hypothetical third party about the relationship between nudity and sex), and nudists begin to sound like religious fundamentalists decrying the moral corruption of a sexually obsessed culture. I believe this is a distraction from, and not a fundamental tenet of, what nudism stands for - which is an honest and open approach to the human body. I do not view sex-positivity as contradicting that, and I do not think it is constructive to make sex-positive individuals feel unwelcome within the lifestyle, and so I resent the conception of a nudism built upon a framework of sex-negativity. This is what I mean when I say that nudism needs sex-positivity, and it is in no way incompatible with the belief that sexually explicit behavior does not belong within nudism.

Fitting Exhibitionism Into Nudism

How, then, does exhibitionism fit into nudism, if that doesn't mean people having sex in public? Remember the wholesome image of exhibitionism I invoked above. Now imagine if it were non-sexually explicit. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with groups of people who enjoy having sex in front of each other, or with each other, or outdoors, or what have you - all within a consensual context. But this is not nudism. And this is not the sort of exhibitionism that underlies nudism. That sort is the same kind of exhibitionism that underlies much of human socialization, even while we're dressed. It is not sexually explicit, but it is about showing off in front of others, and it may contain erotic connotations even while it remains "family friendly". It happens when a young woman struts on the beach in her new bikini, or a young man rushes to lift a heavy object in order to show off the muscles he's been working on at the gym. This, too, is a form of exhibitionism.

It is also a form of flirting, but one that need not be accompanied by actual physical sexual arousal. Nor is it a display that is usually considered inappropriate to be conducted before the eyes of children. There is no reason this behavior would not, or should not, carry over into the world of nudism. For many people, part of the appeal of social nudity is the opportunity to show off one's body, or appreciate the bodies of others, with no more or less of a sexual connotation than it carries in a textile environment (just like everything else a nudist does - simply without clothes). While this form of display is certainly not what every nudist hopes to get out of nudism, and may offend the sensibilities of some who rely on nudism to be a safe space from physical judgment (these judgments need not be vocalized), it would be unnatural to exclude this one element of human behavior from any social gathering, and disingenuous to suggest that it does not go on, regardless of anyone's objections.

Further, the presence of exhibitionists within nudism reinforces many of the points I made about the nature of exhibitionism above. The fact that an exhibitionist would find nudism appealing at all - a lifestyle in which full exposure is unremarkable, and the sight of the human body is neither shocking nor offensive - only lends evidence to the view that exhibitionists enjoy exposure in front of consenting audiences (with consent, in this case, referring to the nudity, and not the addition of any sexually explicit behavior). And though some may misunderstand the nonsexual nature of nudism, surely many will be aware of it, as nudists spare no opportunity to remind the world - demonstrating that explicit sexual activity is not a fundamental requisite of exhibitionism. Those who do mistake nudism as a convenient forum for public acts of so-called indecency are undoubtedly ill-informed, and probably inexperienced in organized social nudism (as they are, in my understanding, handily dealt with by local nudists whenever such a situation arises). I suspect they constitute a larger problem for the public image of nudism online, which presents its own unique set of challenges.

The Myopia of Online Nudist Advocacy

Occasionally, those who have no direct experience of nudism will come to the conclusion that, since they never seem to encounter nudists in their everyday life (an inevitable result of society's intolerance towards nudity, requiring nudists to limit their nude recreation to private spaces, and leading many nudists to keep their lifestyle a secret), they must exist somewhere out of view, in an isolated pocket of society - the proverbial "nudist colony" or commune - where they never have to wear clothes. The truth is, nudists are all around us. They may spend nights, weekends, and/or vacations recreating nude with other like minds, but they still have to go to work or school, do their shopping, and visit friends and family in textile society like the rest of us - wearing clothes. Maybe not by choice, but by necessity. Nudists spend a lot more time wearing clothes than textiles spend naked. Yet, when was the last time you saw a dedicated nudist account on social media post an image of people wearing clothes? Nudist accounts online often myopically restrict their vision to spreading the message of nudism, with everything not related to that message considered at best a distraction, and at worst, an outright obstruction to that goal.

Maybe this is a result of the taboo surrounding nudity - in society, as well as on social media. Many nudists feel that they cannot freely post about their nudist activities, so they must create alternate accounts. They still have an outlet for their other interests, so the alt account becomes a dumping ground for nudist topics. Yet, I believe it would be beneficial for nudists to integrate their nudist activities into their regular accounts, for the visibility of nudism, as well as to demonstrate that their lives aren't utterly consumed by this one interest (contributing to the stereotype that nudists live in a microcosm of society where they never wear clothes). However, a stigma is generated among nudists themselves when those interests include tangential subjects that are related to nudity, yet viewed as conflicting with nudist principles (usually due to the presence of a sexual context).

When I visit a nudist resort, I'm there to practice nudism. I know the rules, and I abide by them. I'm there as a nudist, because I enjoy nudism, whatever other interests I may have. I refrain from inappropriate behavior, just as I do in a textile environment. But the internet is more complicated. I came to nudism online through my interest in nude photography. And nude photography, like nudity in general, encompasses a wide range of contexts, from casual nudist portraits to fine art nudes to sexually suggestive (or even explicit) erotica. As an artist, I am fascinated by nudity, whether for its symbolism, its aesthetic beauty, or its sex appeal. These are all different things, but they are united by a single thread (or rather, lack of thread) - the unclothed human body. And it's not always straightforward for me to distinguish, say, a nudist image from an exhibitionist one, when that meaning often times depends on the viewer's individual interpretation.

Some nudists would argue that you cannot be a nudist and an exhibitionist - but my existence proves them wrong. Just because nudism and exhibitionism are different things doesn't mean that one negates the other, and that a person can't genuinely appreciate both. Other nudists will acknowledge this, and yet still argue that one should not mix nudism and exhibitionism on a single account. I understand the justification for this view - the need to oversimplify the issue of nudity, to prevent confusion over the distinction between sex and nudism. But nudity is often complex. There are plenty of accounts that stress the nonsexual nature of nudism. Is there no value whatsoever in hearing alternative opinions on nudism from the perspectives of people engaged in sex-related (or sex-adjacent) fields? Because the fact - however inconvenient it may be - is that these interests often coincide.

A fascination for nudity and an openness toward the human body in one form can lead to a fascination and openness in other forms. But instead of reaching out as allies in the fight against the taboo surrounding the human body, nudists view sex-positive advocates as enemies, responsible for "sexualizing" the human body, even as sex-positives themselves may genuinely respect and support the nonsexual aims of nudism - having, in the course of embracing human sexuality, acquired a level of comfort with the human body above and beyond what is typical of textiles, and learned a corresponding truth about the value of casual, not-necessarily-sexual nudity. There is a reason for the imbalance evident in the fact that people who embrace sexuality are more likely to be nudists, than nudists are likely to embrace sexuality - because the culture of nudism is inherently biased against sexuality in a way that sex-positive advocacy is not against nonsexual nudity. Which leaves us with a lot of so-called perverts who may have much to say in support of nudism, but whose voices are not welcome within the lifestyle due to the enduring stigma of sex.

I try very hard to be clear about what nudism is and isn't in all my communications, and never ascribe the label "nudism" or "nudist" to anything that blatantly opposes what I believe nudism to stand for (which excludes anything sexually explicit), but without limiting my ability to also say things about nudity that aren't nudist in nature. I have never claimed that everything I do or say reflects on nudism. Yet this is the overwhelming pressure that nudists apply to nudist advocates online. It's as if you are their employee, and your birthday suit is the company uniform, and anything you do or say while wearing it reflects on the company.

Let's face it. Nudism is about nudity, but not all nudity is about nudism. Nudists don't own the subject of nudity, yet they often try (futilely) to own the conversation on nudity, especially online. Non-nudist expressions of nudity are not merely non sequiturs, they are framed as threats to the existence of nudism. When, in reality, people interested in one facet of nudity may be interested in another. But this natural kinship is being destroyed. We hurt ourselves more by fighting amongst one another, than we would if we banded together (no matter the different flags we fly), in support of greater acceptance and respect for the human body, in conjunction with a dedication to sexual liberty within the confines of consent - which has never included environments in which people engage in nonsexual nudist recreation. Let's stop judging people by how their superficial appearance affects the public image of nudism, and start judging them by the actual principles they believe and support. Nudity is complex. And so are people.

Naked Exceptionalism

On the subject of offense, indecency, and community standards - as they pertain to public nudity - a lot of people (unfortunately, many nudists included) make the mistake of confusing the way things are for the way they ought to be, just because it's familiar to them.

Although society is about getting along with one another, an important part of that is respecting individual differences. Generally speaking, if somebody is smelly, or you don't like their clothes, or the music they're playing in their car, you don't have much recourse to improve the situation. You can ask politely, but you don't really have any authority to demand their compliance, nor forcibly remove them from your presence. Your last line of defense is simply to leave - go someplace else.

And while compromises should try to be made when you have to share space with someone (e.g., if you're living or working together), the fact that these arguments do commonly arise just goes to show that we do not live in a society where you can dictate somebody else's choices or behaviors just because you don't like them.

And even if you could, how would we decide who gets to be the boss in any given dispute? Or would we live in some strange mirror-society, where people would get to micro-manage the lives of others, but couldn't make any decisions for themselves? It seems fair to me that if I'm not allowed to demand that you undress, then you shouldn't be allowed to demand that I cover up. The only reason these two actions aren't considered equivalent, is because we're used to one more than the other.

In any case, it remains to be proven to me that seeing the human body unclothed fundamentally damages the human psyche (more than the process of abuse that constitutes a prerequisite for being able to be so damaged by such a sight), in a way that, for example, another person's fashion choices or grooming habits or conversation topics (or what have you) do not.

And unless this can be satisfactorily done, it is unreasonable to restrict a free citizen's right to appear nude in the public commons (a separate argument would have to be made to overturn the right of businesses to enforce a dress code, if one were so inclined), especially outdoors, but absolutely on one's own private property, regardless of who (on or off the property) might be able to see them.

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.