Summer Opening

At last, Memorial Day Weekend has arrived, marking the unofficial start of the summer season (despite the periodic 80 degree temperatures we've already been having since March) - my favorite time of the year! And as I gear up for my first visit to a nudist resort this season (an occasion long-awaited through the winter), my mind strays constantly to the joys of being in a nudist-friendly environment outdoors in great weather (and the weather forecast for this weekend looks beautiful!).

I can still remember the experience of driving onto the property of a nudist resort for the first time in my life (has it already been two summers ago?). After I came through the gate in the privacy fence, the first thing I noticed was the flash of naked bodies in the distance, appearing starkly through the trees, jumping about in a game of volleyball. It was like some image from a vintage nudist magazine brought to life right before my eyes. The older woman's nudity at the check-in booth startled me, at such close proximity. It's not that I'd never seen naked bodies before (and not just impossibly fit porn star bodies), but it was the first time being in the presence of an experienced nudist - somebody for whom nudity is a total non-issue, in contrast to the hysteria so many textiles erupt into on command.

I, of all people, was actually scared and hesitant when it came time to take my own clothes off. I can assure you that it wasn't for lack of enthusiasm, but for so long, despite my yearning to be able to go naked in public and outdoors, without having to fear being seen (and the repercussions that would bring), I'd been programmed (for self-defense) to place a mental bar across my frequent desire to strip off my clothes, so that now - in an environment where it was welcomed, even expected - I still had trouble breaking society's programming and doing what felt natural (which is worth remarking, for the sake of all those people who complain about "weirdos" not having the self-control to avoid acting on their unusual, allegedly antisocial, desires).

But that didn't last long. All I wanted was confirmation that if I actually took my clothes off this time, I wouldn't be shouted at or hauled off to jail, and once I got it, I was naked in an instant, and stayed that way for the rest of my time behind that hallowed privacy fence (and probably longer than advisable once outside...). And the one remarkable thing about the nudist environment is how amazingly nonchalant the nudity is. It really is no big deal, and being in that environment really makes one wonder what the big goddamn deal is with people in the textile world.

Certainly it reinforces the belief that it is the textiles, and not the nudists, who are really the peculiar ones that are off their rocker. Moreso, given just how natural nudity really is. It also makes you realize how forced the whole ritual of getting dressed is. If it's the case that some situations do reasonably call for clothing (as many textiles argue), it's at least as true that other situations (like swimming) reasonably call for nudity. But then we get into issues like modesty and privacy - and I'll tell you what: prudes don't have the market cornered on the 'healthy lifestyles' debate. But I don't have the time or the patience to get into that right now. (Gotta pack - but not clothes!)

Given how much of a non-issue the nudity is, it's a mystery why so many people go so far out of their way, and pay money, to enjoy the nudist lifestyle. But they do - and I am one of them. I guess that's one of the paradoxes of nudism. But though the nudity is not a big deal in the sense of "oh my god, a nude person, gross (or sexy), shield your eyes (or start masturbating)!" the way that textiles make it out to be, it is a big deal to nudists in the sense of "this feels amazing, this is healthy, this is a beautiful way to live, I feel better, more natural, closer to nature, more comfortable, free, free to be myself, etc." So nudity really is a big deal, but in a positive way and not a negative way. And again, it harkens back to the question of whether it's really the nudists or the never-nude textile outcriers who are the mentally ill here. -_^

Have a great nudist season! And don't be afraid to take it outside while the weather is nice!

An Obstacle To Freedom

I wanted to be an erotic photographer. But I discovered that there are a lot of societal attitudes that stand in opposition to the kind of erotic art I want to create. So I've been spending a lot of time studying sociology and sexology in order to understand why people have these attitudes, and what can be done to change them.

In the free world, you'd expect to be allowed to go and do your own thing without having to get all of society's approval first. But unfortunately, society has the ability (and even more concerning, the will) to make it very difficult for people to pursue lifestyles that go against the grain of what they believe. That's the danger of a society that values conformity over individual liberty.

I mean, just to choose one example, the whole "all prostitutes are sex slaves" thing is just an excuse to proselytize one's moral position on prostitution. A truly freedom-loving society would be more concerned with facts and the individual voices of those who allegedly need rescued (from their own perversion, no doubt) than advertising (and then enforcing) an all-encompassing moral position.

This should be self-evident to any rational, skeptical mind, except that we don't teach or encourage reason and doubt in people - our culture is polluted by the false virtue of blind faith, and the insidious duty to save the souls of others. Religion is a scourge on humanity, and politics is (unfortunately) a waste of time.

Crossing Boundaries

I want my art to cross boundaries. Not just gender boundaries - which it already does. I want people to be able to appreciate my art regardless of their sexual interests.

That's one of the pitfalls of working in erotic art. You run the risk that people judge it superficially for its erotic qualities, and then not give it a chance to demonstrate its artistic potential.

My art has two levels. The top level is that it consists mostly of sexy pictures - and I've never been too pretentious to accept that, and to welcome the attention that it brings. But there's another level, where I use my erotic pictures to make statements about things I care about, especially topics related to culture and sexuality.

And the thing is, I've noticed that my pictures draw in a particular audience. There are exceptions for which I am grateful, but mostly they are gay (or bisexual) men interested in feminine men, gender benders, guys with long hair, etc. Since the start I've lamented the fact that I'm not shooting pretty girls - not just because that's what I'd prefer to shoot, but because I figure the pool of heterosexual men in the world is a much bigger one to draw my audience from.

But that's not all. I've also lamented that more women don't view my pics (and have chalked it up to the - admittedly sexist - notion that women prefer nonvisual erotica), but this isn't simply a case of wanting specific demographics (straight men, women) to view my art. The ultimate goal, for me, is to produce art that anyone can appreciate, regardless of their sexual interests.

Now, that's kinda tricky if the kind of art I want to produce is specifically erotic art. And maybe I'm being a bit selfish and/or overly ambitious (it wouldn't be the first time). But I want to make art that speaks to cultural issues about sexuality, and I want to do it in a way that people can get something from it (and not be instantly turned off from it), even if they don't specifically view the subject of the photograph as a sexually appealing subject.

(Digression on Homophobia)

I think part of the problem involves the phenomenon whereby a person is typically disgusted by sexual triggers that they don't have. Homophobia is one of the most obvious examples of that. People who aren't gay frequently find homoerotica distasteful (or, perhaps more accurately in the case of people who don't have an ideological stance against homosexuality, men who aren't attracted to men will find sexual images of men (especially with other men) distasteful - seeing as so many men (understandably) find lesbian erotica a turn-on).

[description: close-cropped image of an erection in hand, touching its own mirror reflection]
(Not all my photos are intended to be "artsy")

I used to feel that way, myself, but over time, I've discovered that my aversion to homoerotic imagery is as much a result of lack of confidence in my sexuality and fear of finding out that I might be turned on by it than it is an expression of taste. As far as disgust goes, there are certain acts or depictions of acts that I find disgusting - but this isn't limited to homoerotic imagery, as much hardcore straight pornography turns me off because of its excessive focus on reproductive anatomy and biological functions.

As I've expanded my understanding and experience of the great diversity of human sexuality, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing distasteful about homosexuality, I've learned to recognize that even if I were to find myself being turned on by homoerotic imagery, it wouldn't be anything to be alarmed about. And so it doesn't scare me anymore (or, to be honest, as much). And the accompanying realization I have is that people who make a big deal about homophobia are [not necessarily repressed homosexuals, but] people who still have internalized the belief that there is something distasteful about homosexuality.

And that, I think, is something that it would be beneficial for society to fight against. Even if one were capable of being turned on by homoerotic imagery, it doesn't indicate anything beyond that simple fact. I've discovered that I can be turned on by depictions (or descriptions) of sex acts I wouldn't have imagined I'd be interested in - and it doesn't mean I particularly have an interest in those acts, especially.

One thing I've maintained for a long time is that the realm of sexual fantasy is distinct from one's sexual activities in the real world, and while sometimes there are absolute overlaps, there are other times where that is absolutely not the case.

So we should really not be concerned about what happens to get us turned on, because we are still in a position to make a decision about what kinds of acts we feel comfortable engaging in. And in the long run, whether we discover proclivities we never had before, or simply expand upon a rich fantasy life, the result is that we find ways to better please ourselves, and, hopefully, become more accepting of the diverse range of sexuality that exists in humans.

The result of that being that more people will be comfortable to view images of naked girly men even if they aren't into that sort of thing, for the benefit of being able to evaluate those works as the culturally relevant and potentially fascinating pieces of art that they are.

(End Digression)

That's not the only solution, of course, and it's probably not immediately applicable. Another possibility is that I can simply shoot a broader range of subjects, so as to pick up audiences within each demographic, almost like a sniper. That might be a little tricky, given that the quality of my work output is dependent on my inspiration. But I could certainly be inspired to shoot pretty girls, and that alone would vastly increase my audience base.

Another possibility is to maybe sanitize a subsection of my work, so that, without excising the erotic component completely, I can make it relatively safe to view for a broader audience (much like the effect of using implied nudity in place of explicit nudity, or the greater art world acceptance that tamer erotica gets when compared to hardcore pornography). But I do already do this to some extent, as I like to create some variety in my portfolio. Though I will admit that I am heavily biased toward a certain type of output, as it is my nature.

I wonder if my goal is realistic. I've already stated that one of my primary goals as an erotic photographer is to create an erotic work of art that is so (artistically) good that it transcends society's taboo against sex and encourages people to share it and display it in places that erotic works normally aren't expected to be found. But I guess part of that relies on the enthusiast's own transcendent opinions on sexuality in culture (that he'd be willing to risk being responsible for that kind of exposure).

Similarly, my ambitious goal to create erotic art that can be appreciated by persons who don't primarily view it erotically, may actually depend on the person in question's ability to recognize the erotic quality of a work of art outside of his own specific erotic response, which may require an unusual level of sexual tolerance and sophistication.

But then, in the end, if I am asking people to be radically tolerant and sophisticated and transcendent about their ideas of sexuality and culture in order to properly appreciate my work, then ambitious though it is, it's not a bad requirement to ask people to aspire to, after all.

Post-Feminism

I noticed something interesting while I was putting a shirt in my closet today. Sometimes when I put button-up shirts on a hanger, I like to button the top button in order to keep the collar's shape. But I noticed with this shirt, that the top button was all the way down at the bust line. And I thought, "of course! Women are expected to show off their cleavage."

But then I thought about how men's shirts are expected to be buttoned tightly all the way up to the neck, and then, as if that weren't enough, you're expected to tie a noose around your throat (something that I've always despised). And it occurred to me, that feminists frequently complain about how women are expected to dress sexy, but it's not like men aren't expected to conform to stifling (and uncomfortable) dress standards of their own. And given a choice, I would MUCH rather expose my chest (regardless of who stares at it) than restrict my breathing - but there is no choice, because that sort of thing is determined by your gender.

And it just seems to me that if we were to be honest, then the fact that men have to present themselves with such a professional image - which, don't think for a second isn't about sex: women are stereotypically (whether true or not) claimed to be attracted to wealth and power - is a feminist issue, too! Except, this isn't really feminism anymore, because it's not just about women. And it annoys me the way feminists talk about 'male privilege' - because men and women are oppressed equally under their own social customs.

That's why I'm a post-feminist. I think feminism was a good idea back when the idea of women's rights and gender equality was novel. In today's society, though, women's empowerment comes at the expense of the subjugation of everyone else. It's no longer an issue of gender - especially considering the problems that are coming to light about transgender and gender-queer individuals in society. Today, to be a feminist is to be conservative, and is contrary to the doctrine of gender equality (which states that men, as well as those who identify neither as male nor female, deserve the same treatment as women). The progressive alternative is post-feminism, which adopts the righteous foundations of feminism, but applies them across the board without consideration to an individual's gender identity.

If you like to wear nooses - I salute you! If you prefer to go topless - I salute you, also! And it doesn't make a damn difference to me whether you're a man or a woman or something else entirely. :-)

Freedom vs. The Nanny State

The Nanny State

Freedom

Here, let me show you
how to live your life, honey.

I respect your choice, even if it is

not the one I would make for myself.

This ad sends out an
unhealthy message, let's
remove it from public view.

Let's trust people to come to

their own conclusions, and teach

our children to be critical thinkers.

This work is offensive.
People shouldn't be allowed
to make works like this.

This work offends me,

so I will avoid it. But others

may indulge in it if they like.

That outfit is distasteful,
you shouldn't be allowed
to wear it in public.

I don't like your style, but

you're free to express yourself

that way if you want to.

This substance is dangerous.
It should be prohibited.

We should educate people about

the dangers of this substance,

but what an individual chooses to put

in their own body is their business.

That practice is immoral,
it should be criminalized!

I wouldn't choose to engage

in that practice, but I will let

others decide for themselves.

(violation of consent)

(freedom of choice)

Good intentions do not absolve the nanny from arrogantly and self-righteously sticking her nose into other people's affairs.

Moral Relativism Al Dente

I don't believe in any universal moral code - like, anyone who has gay sex is going to hell. If you don't like gay sex, that's fine for you. What a gay man does with other gay men, however, is entirely their own business. But opponents of moral relativism often complain that if all morals are relative, then what stops me from killing you for personal gain? This is really a strawman argument, because none but the radical extremists of moral relativism are suggesting that everyone's motives are justified by the doctrine of individual morality. That's really where ethics comes into play - regardless of what your and my morals are, we each have the potential to behave in ways that violate the agency and the humanity and the consent of each other. It's not what's right in a universal sense, it's what does and does not violate the rights of you or I.

So, for example, could murder ever be justified? What about corporal punishment? What about assisted suicide? What about people who don't value life as highly as the rest of us - people who, say, are fully willing to risk their lives for the thrill of extreme sports? Murder is "wrong" because it involves taking a person's life against their will. But if they hand their life over, then that's their decision to make. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't look out for each other's wellbeing, or that people never make bad decisions about their lives and even about what they want or think they want. But when it comes to taking a hard black-and-white stance on issues of morality - believing that this or that type of act is ALWAYS wrong and NEVER justified - we really need to step back and understand that not everyone's experience of the world is the same.

That's the substance of moral relativism al dente. Individuals may have their own unique moral codes, but each of us is connected to the rest of us, and the decisions we make and the actions we take affect the rest of the population. The result is a sort of interwoven mesh of morality, where each thread is pliable, but not entirely separate from the other threads. We must be flexible in determining how to apply our concept of morality to other persons who may have differing views, but this does not mean that anything goes. It's not a hard stance on universal morality, but neither does it lend complete freedom to people to do anything they want without consequence. I believe this is what most people who defend moral relativism are suggesting, but perhaps describing it as moral relativism al dente would help get across that point.

Note: The title of this post was totally ripped off from Derk Pereboom's Determinism Al Dente, the philosophy text that convinced me that free will is compatible with determinism.

Preventing Teen Pregnancy

I was checking out this season's hip swimwear fashions in Seventeen magazine, when I saw an ad notifying me that May is National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. Now, I'm not very fond of the idea of teen pregnancy. Then again, I'm not very fond of the idea of pregnancy in general. The idea of bearing offspring, in which I can preserve my genes, is intriguing, but I've more or less decided that I don't want to curse another generation with the genes I have. Moreover, I have no desire whatsoever to put in the massive effort that's required to raise a kid (let alone more than one). But I also realize that other people have different opinions (not to mention skills and resources) than me on that.

So it occurs to me that there's something a little odd about a national movement to prevent anyone's pregnancy. You really have to ask the question: who's getting pregnant? And are they doing it intentionally? I think it's widely believed that teens who get pregnant didn't really want to, they just weren't properly educated about contraception, or were too lazy to put forth the effort, or weren't expecting to become sexually active, without realizing what fate (and their or their peers' hormones) had in store for them. Certainly, the solution to this problem is more education, that is more easily accessible, and to kids of all ages (better too soon than too late).

But what about teens who want to get pregnant? After all, it's as much a biological impetus as the powerful impetus teens have to become sexually active in the first place (at the risk of sounding sexist: possibly more so for girls than for guys). Personally, I would advise against a person choosing to have a baby until they have the means to care for one (which, ideally, requires a sturdy home and a stable income, not to mention other skills required to navigate the pitfalls of modern life). After all, it's plain irresponsible to have a kid if you don't have the means (and certainly if you don't have the intention - that applies to guys as much as to girls) to care for one.

Now, in the modern age, we have this conception of childhood which extends until age 18 or 22, in which a kid doesn't grow up until he/she's graduated high school, maybe even attended college, and only then is expected to get a job and become an "adult". We can argue the merits of this system of extended childhood (I've certainly read about its faults), but whether good or bad, ultimately, it's just one possible life plan, and not the only one that's valid or even necessarily commendable. So I would hope that every teen considers their unique position, before deciding whether or not to have a child, but I wouldn't expect every single one to properly come to the decision to wait.

But, then you'll have teens (and this problem certainly isn't limited to teens) who decide to have a kid for selfish or immature reasons. They'll want a kid despite not having the means to care for it. What do we do in these cases? Naturally we fear that the baby will either suffer, or will require the resources of secondary caregivers (like the teen's parents, perhaps), who, irresponsibly, weren't in (or whose opinions weren't given proper weight) on the decision to have the baby in the first place. Those cases are inevitably going to be more complex, and the source of the problem is likely going to involve complicated social factors. I have read, for example, that one possible motivation for a teen to get pregnant is that it is a solution to the conundrum that so many teens face - that of desiring adult responsibility while still being treated like a child. Having a baby is like an instant "grow up" card - and, after all, if parents are the ones with all the power, then to acquire power, one needs only to become a parent. Right?

Regardless of the causes and the issues involved, the 'solution' isn't going to be easy. Education is certainly important. Teens are going to want to become sexually active, and I don't see any good reason to combat that. All the "wait until you're older" programs I've seen carry too much moral baggage which contributes to the stigmatization of sexuality that cripples our culture's ability to deal honestly with our sexual natures (and obstructs our journey to discovering pleasure). Information about safe sex practices is all the more important, then. Teens (and younger kids - waiting leads to accidents) need to know their options, and how important it is that they use them.

This still isn't going to convince all teens to hold off on pregnancy, or to keep them from getting pregnant unintentionally. So we also need to make sure that we have systems in place to help those teens who do get pregnant - help them to make the right decisions, which isn't necessarily to avoid having the baby in the first place, but to do what's best for all the people involved (baby included - even if, maybe, that means sparing the baby a troubled, loveless life, in specific instances). But ultimately, stigmatizing teens who get pregnant isn't going to solve any problems, and I can only see it contributing to the problems that already exist. I've never seen a case where stigmatization accomplished anything productive, other than to stroke the ego and sate the moral complexes of those wielding power irresponsibly over others.

And if we care at all about individual choice - which is the foundation of liberty and diversity - then we must first ask the question, "what do you want"? And then the next question should be, "what can we do to help?" With the intention of making it work out best for everyone involved, taking into account their unique needs and desires (which, for a teen, may include 'having a baby').