Rainbow Party

Happy New Year! This year's theme is...Rainbow Party!!! Pick a color to get started!

[description: shades of lipstick in every color accompany a man unbuttoning his pants]

You know, I've always felt that rainbow parties were one of the more remarkable urban legends to be born out of our collective cultural phobia surrounding adolescent sexuality. The lurid details [link to Wikipedia article] seem so weirdly specific as to resemble somebody's elaborate sexual fantasy. I'm surprised anybody ever believed they were a real phenomenon. I mean, how would that even work, anyway? The guys wouldn't be left with neat little rainbow rings on their cocks so much as a messy mishmash of colors, am I right? Still, I'm a sucker for any idea that raises perversion to the level of an art form.

[description: six lips in varied colors accompany an erect penis ringed with those colors]
The after-party

A Little Loose

[description: a man stands dressed in a fluffy pink robe, with erection sticking out]

It says a lot about a society that visual depictions of human sexual arousal can be considered not just impolite, but criminal under certain circumstances. Is an erect penis intrinsically vulgar, or can it be depicted in a tasteful fashion - emphasizing, perhaps, its beauty, playfulness, and ability to generate physical pleasure, rather than debilitating anxiety? And to what extent does that depend on society's attitude towards the inherent moral virtue of human sexual expression? I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where sex is considered to be an evil temptation, and not simply a way in which humans relate to bond and create mutual pleasure. Tell me, am I just misguidedly naive and idealistic? Because I don't subscribe to an agenda that seeks to control the way the masses wield their sexual identities? Or, rather, that if I could, I would enforce methods that would enable individuals to have more sex more pleasurably, while minimizing the risks of infection and undesired pregnancy? Instead of responding to the fear that they would not make responsible decisions by taking their pleasure away from them and replacing it with deep-seated shame? Because they're not only too stupid for their own good, but that they deserve to be punished for it? Please, tell me I'm the bad guy here...

Try This On For Size

[description: fitting room selfies fully dressed, and in panties]

Nothing soothes the wintertime blues like going out to the store and having an excuse to peel off all your layers of warm clothing. You grab a few swimsuits from the clearance rack, take them to the fitting room, and then try them on while fantasizing about those sunny days when the air is so warm that you can hang out in the middle of crowds of sexy people wearing the skimpiest of covering over their mostly exposed bodies. Am I alone in thinking this is one of the supreme delights that life has in store for us?

[description: fitting room selfies in different bikini bottoms, topless]

I swear, I envy girls for their sleek anatomy, that they can get by with wearing the skimpiest of coverings. Even if you examine the male equivalent (exclusively sold as fetish wear, it seems), full coverage requires a very noticeable bulge or pouch. Now, if that kind of thing were socially acceptable, I wouldn't care, but in this male-dominated, allegedly patriarchal society (I say to emphasize the irony and doubtfulness of those statements), you're not allowed to even hint at the suggestion of possessing male anatomy. If ever I were to get sexual reassignment surgery (and it's not on my agenda), it would be for the sake of fashion, and not to assuage any psychological distress at possessing the wrong set of genitalia.

I tried on some tops, too, but didn't get any good pictures. The problem with shopping for bikinis is that you can always find great tops or great bottoms, but so rarely two that go well together. So, you end up with a drawer filled with assorted pieces, and you can't really wear any of them because they don't match...

[description: fitting room selfies from front and back, in an off-white ruffled prom dress]

I also found this really cute dress, that looks very good on me, notwithstanding a little bit of bulge, that's partially (though not totally) obscured by the ruffles. It looks very prom-y, which is a plus, and I got it for a steal! It's got all its parts, too, and it's nice and stretchy, so I don't have to worry about it being too tight around the rib cage, as is so frequently the case with dresses like this. If only I had some place to wear it to. All the better if it was among a crowd that didn't mind the nature of my anatomy. Because why should having a little bit of a bulge prevent me from dressing up? It's not fair, I tell you.

[description: fitting room selfie, completely nude]

Until next time, thanks for joining me in the fitting room!

House Party

[description: clone shot featuring 11 nude figures scattered throughout the rooms of an apartment]

I spent a whole day working on this photo. I do believe it breaks my record for number of clones in one shot, previously set (if I'm not mistaken) by Harem no Jutsu [link to DeviantArt], which featured seven clones. I had planned on using ten clones for this shot, but managed to squeeze in an eleventh at the last minute. I used the nonstandard layout of the apartment to my advantage, although I got quite the workout running back and forth across the length of the apartment for those farthest clones. Anyone who doesn't think photography is work, is clearly not a photographer. Thinking back on some of my earliest clone shots [broken link], it was just point and shoot. But that was seven years ago, when I was still green, and excited just to see a representation of myself in a picture. Nowadays, I'm determined to take pictures with interesting poses, that show off the model's body in the most flattering way. Which is particularly hard, when you're a self-portrait photographer. But I've gone into all that before.

I started out with the intention of shooting all of the clones in such a manner as to obscure any so-called "hardcore nudity" - if only just to gain the advantage of potentially being able to show off the shot in wider contexts, but after eleven clones, I started running out of pose ideas, and I didn't want to have them all looking the same. I haven't lost any of my enthusiasm for those "hardcore nudity" shots (which will be obvious to anyone following my work), but there's something to be said for the "implied" or "near" nude approach. The suggestion is thrilling, and where you perhaps can't go exposing yourself wholesale in the public square, you might just be able to get away with drawing a larger audience to a chaster exhibition, while still managing to be titillating. It's one of those strategic tricks where if you go too far, they'll put you in the "adult" category and prevent as many people as they can from seeing your work, but even if you have to compromise on your vision a little to reach mainstream audiences, it'll just be that much more effective in potentially opening new minds.

Not that so-called "self-censorship" will ever be a legitimate substitute for free speech in my mind, but I consider it another tool to toss in my toolbox, that has its time and place. There's no reason whatsoever that the following two images can't both exist simultaneously, just as long as the one isn't necessarily precluding the existence of the other:

[description: two nude shower portraits - a man with a towel, and a man bent over the tub exposed]

A Few Photos

Happy Friday the 13th!

[description: portrait of a nude man sitting on a chair, with a Pringles can between his legs]

Inspired by a photo I saw on deviantART [NSFW]. In the "non-nude" tradition of showing as much as absolutely possible, while not going "all the way". Also, I thought the shape of the Pringles can was humorously suggestive.

[description: two nude figures sit on a couch, one relaxed and the other reserved]

Conversations With A Nudist, Part 3 - The Conversion. Because you knew it was inevitable. Be sure and check out Part 1 and Part 2, as well.

[description: a clothed figure shares a couch with a nude man displaying an erection]

Casual chat on the couch. Only after I took this shot did I realize it's a variation on a theme I've been enamored with going back at least to this shot from 2010 [broken link], and even earlier. I learned a long time ago that nudity is more stark when contrasted with a dressed figure, and the same is true of erotic subjects. Masturbating alone in private is one thing, but the suggestion of a figure doing so in the presence of others (or, in this case, being so comfortable as to sit completely open-legged with a hard-on) is even more exciting - especially if the other figure treats it casually like it's no big deal, instead of pandering to the stereotype of exhibitionists shocking innocent prudes. Images like this one concoct a fantasy utopia where people aren't afraid of human sexuality, enabling the viewer to let his imagination run wild.

[description: b/w portrait of a nude man standing erect in a brightly backlit kitchen]

And here's a shot I've been sitting on from a couple months back, that I keep coming back to. I really like it. It's one of those shots where you look at it and you have to admit that even with the blatant eroticism suggested by the erection, it's a beautiful and artistic portrait. How could anyone be offended by this? It's not vulgar. It's not disgusting. It's a compelling affirmation of life.

Spread Love

[description: a nude man sits erect on a couch, the words "spread love" written across open legs]

I was browsing pictures online one day, and I saw a photo of someone who had written the phrase "spread love" on the soles of their feet. Call me a pervert, but my first thought was, "then how come those legs aren't spread?" And that's when the idea hit me to do a spread eagle shot with the words "spread love" written along the insides of my thighs.

There's just something about a spread eagle shot that is so matter-of-fact. It's inviting, but it's also shameless. I think that's why a lot of people disparage it. It's too blatantly sexual. But that's what I love about it. There's no dancing around the issue - this shot is about sex. Maybe not the act itself, but certainly its direct implication. And there's something refreshing and free about that.

I imagine this image would make a bigger splash if the model were female, but I do what I can with what I have. I think it would be fantastic if this shot started a trend among all those who hold a liberal view toward pornography and human sexuality. Those who think the true obscenity in our culture is violence, not pornography. Those who embrace and celebrate sex and its role in providing pleasure in people's lives.

Or, just all those who love spread eagle shots and want to share that love with the world. So if you're one of those people, go ahead and take all your clothes off. Grab a marker (tip: use a washable marker) and write the words "spread love" along your inner thighs (remember to write from your right knee to your left, unless you're going to be shooting in a mirror). Then spread your legs and take a picture of yourself. Finally - and this is very important - upload it to the internet, and share it with the world!

Nudism vs. Naturism

[description: two portraits - a nude man doing house work, and a nude man in the great outdoors]

Question: Is there a difference between nudism and naturism?

Short Answer: The terms carry slightly different connotations, but practically speaking, they may be used interchangeably.

Long Answer: There is no official consensus about how and why and in what contexts each of the two terms is used, or where their definitions overlap. In some cases, "naturism" can be understood to be the European analog of "nudism", and so the two terms are really interchangeable. When somebody says that they are a naturist, or are practicing naturism, then unless they go into more detail, you may infer that they are really just indicating that they are a nudist, or are practicing nudism.

That having been said, some people do differentiate between the two terms. Naturism seems to take on an added connotation above and beyond nudism - one that may, depending on who you ask, encompass associations with outdoor recreation and/or a "healthy living" perspective. By this logic, you could consider all naturists to be nudists, but not all nudists to necessarily be naturists.

Some people prefer the term "naturism" because of its connotation with nature - it is a more innocuous (and less conspicuous) word to use in mixed company, and avoids the stigma that many textiles associate with the word "nude". I, however, prefer the term "nudism" in part because I support transparency - if the lifestyle is about going nude, then why not just own up to it, instead of trying to beat around the bush with less suggestive, and thus more opaque, terms?

I also prefer "nudism" because it doesn't carry the added weight of "naturism"'s connotation with nature. Not that I don't like that connotation - as a nudist, I am very pro-nature. But I find that it can be a bit limiting in some respects, as if to suggest that if you practice at home, indoors, or if you live what some may deem an unhealthy lifestyle (e.g., one that involves drinking, smoking, lazing about instead of getting exercise and fresh air and eating healthy), or if you engage in arguably "un-natural" grooming practices (like shaving), or have any tattoos and/or piercings, then you're not really a part of the lifestyle.

As important as I believe nature is to the enjoyment of nudism, the bottom line is that it all boils down to the fact that what makes nudists and naturists different from the rest of the population is that they like to be nude! So why make it more complicated than that? The term "nudism" is pretty all-inclusive - you don't have to join a club and pay membership dues, or follow any kind of esoteric rules. If you like being nude for anything other than sexual reasons, then you are a nudist! (Not that there's anything wrong with liking to be nude for sexual reasons - it's just that that isn't nudism).