Seeking Diplomacy in a Culture of Exploitation

Hypothetically speaking, let's say you take a nude photo of yourself with your cell phone. You have no intention of sharing it with anyone else - you were just fooling around. Now let's say somebody picks up your cell phone, stumbles onto that photo, and posts it to an internet forum without your knowledge (or does so digitally, by hacking into your phone). Or, alternatively, suppose the one person you wanted to see the photo turns around and breaks your confidence and shows somebody else (as it is human nature to want to share something like this).

Now, this is unambiguously a violation of your privacy - and in the latter case, your trust. But - to what extent is a third party viewing that photo morally culpable for that crime, and does it depend on whether that party knows, or has a reasonable expectation of knowing, or exerts a reasonable effort to find out, that there is a not-insubstantial possibility that the picture was stolen and shared without the subject's consent? And - given that this is often difficult to determine - if the third party is to be considered in some way responsible, then how does one justify browsing the proliferation of porn on the internet, both amateur and commercial (the latter of which is itself not always free from abuse)?

Can we simply condemn the whole of internet pornography (or pornography in general), and label its consumers as well as its producers contributors to an immoral trade in humiliation and degradation? Knowing that some percentage of it is indeed shared in confidence (a fact that can be proven by the existence of my work alone), and believing in the virtues of an open forum for sexual expression (a point of view that is too easily overlooked), I cannot accept this as a fair conclusion. Whatever the proportions involved, this is a case of bad apples spoiling the bunch, and I do not believe that removing apples from our diet is any kind of a solution.

To justify this position, I feel inclined to perform a cost-benefit analysis. To me, it seems that most perverts are innocuous. They don't want to harm you. They don't want to track you down. (And, for what it's worth, this is even more true when those pictures are being circulated by complete strangers). They bear you no ill will. The worst they'll do is harass you with arguably inappropriate comments (which, incidentally, can be avoided by utilizing that middle man distributor). All they really want is to have their short moment of fantasy, and is that so bad?

It's the people who want to punish you, not thank you, for taking that picture in the first place that are going to cause you problems - I guarantee it. Yet we tend to focus on the perverts who want to look - making them out to be the bad guys - and not the bullies, the arbiters of social justice, who actively contribute to ruining people's lives (in all actuality, punishing the victim) when this happens. I mean, the only reason "revenge porn" is even a thing, and has any potency, is because we love to blame the victim, and shame people (but especially women) for any evidence of their involvement (let alone enjoyment) in an activity most of us, as human beings, engage in - sex.

None of this displaces blame from the actual thieves themselves - the ones opening the curtains on unsuspecting innocents so that the world can peek in. I'm not saying, "it's harmless, honey, just let them have their fun". But as for the extent to which your average Joe wanker is responsible for the pain and suffering incurred by anyone's unexpected porn stardom, it's a mitigating factor. You can't condemn the desire to look just because some (maybe even many) unscrupulous individuals are motivated by it to commit crimes. The best thing we could do is produce a "fair trade" market for pornography (assuming "pornography" encompasses everything including half dressed shots of people standing in their bedrooms in their underwear - a potentially dangerous precedent, considering that we see more than that on billboards and television every day), consisting only of media that has been verified to have been shared with the consent of the subject(s).

But, while I support this practice - and to that end, I hereby state that any of the nude and erotic pictures I've shared online (identified by my watermark "(c) zharth" or "zharth's photography") have been shared with my consent as the subject of those photos - I must caution that it can only ever be a half-measure at best, lest we begin to expect model consent forms to accompany the sharing of all images (as the unwieldy 2257 Regulations attempt to do), which has the very real effect of chilling speech, as well as eliminating the expansive breadth of media that already exists and cannot be identified and verified. Furthermore, considering the vast diversity of human interests, a reduction of the entire viewing gallery to only consciously produced "fair trade" images would vastly limit anyone's ability to fulfill the goal of finding what they like. Which is just what the moral conservatives - those who think you're destroying your soul by looking at porn, and that you need to be protected from yourself - want.

Now, maybe there's a culture of abuse out there to some extent. Maybe men could stand to understand a little better what it's like being a woman in this culture, and take a kinder, more sensitive approach in their never-ending hunt for sexual satisfaction. I'm not disregarding these arguments. I'm pro-reform. I just don't support wholescale prohibition as a solution, because it ignores the human value in voyeurism, and the very existence of exhibitionists (who enjoy being looked at), while glossing over a much more tenable solution to the problem of "exploitation" - focusing on the importance of voluntary labor, consensual contracts, and fair compensation. But then, this argument is never framed in terms of logistical concerns, but rather moral ones. Because, for some reason, the state has a compelling interest in what you do with your body.

I'm seeking diplomacy here - in the hopes of making a compromise (a peace treaty, if you will) between what at times appears to be two opposing factions in the war of the sexes. Men are not simply evil pigs intent on subjugating women for the sake of their sexual fantasies, and women are not entirely unaffected by the sexual attention that men inevitably direct at them. By not accepting these two premises simultaneously, we are simply creating echo chambers which result in the creation of caricatures of the angry feminist and the patriarchal overlord - two sides of the same coin - that help no one and only serve to draw the conflict out. Can't we come together at the table to discuss these issues civilly, by talking to each other, and not at each other, valuing each side's perspective and needs and concerns? I'm here. I'm willing to have this discussion. How about you?

The Genderbread Person

In honor of the "Genderbread Person" - a fabulous visual aid that illustrates the nuances between sex, gender (identity and expression) and orientation - and in light of the fact that I always have difficulty labeling myself using the standard terms on forms and social networking profiles, plus the fact that I (apparently) enjoy talking about myself (also: organizing concepts), I'd like to take a moment to really dive in to my own self-expressed identity as it relates to these important fields.

1. Sex (a.k.a. Physical/Biological/Anatomical Sex)

Sex is a fact about people's bodies. It's not about how you feel, but the nature of the body you're in. That doesn't mean it's always straightforward, but in my case, I don't think I can get around the fact that my sex is male. I have a penis. (Yes, it's rude to ask people about their genitals. No, I don't mind - as long as you're just curious and not looking for a reason to discriminate against me. I'm a nude model on the internet; I make no effort to hide what's in my pants/under my skirt). I suspect that I may have low testosterone, as I possess some feminine characteristics, but I still basically have a man's body - broad shoulders, narrow hips, and large feet (I say that because it's impossible to find women's shoes in my size, lol).

2. Identity (a.k.a. Psychological/Mental Gender)

I identify with femininity. I don't know if that makes me a girl "inside" or what. It's hard to consider myself a "legitimate" girl when I've grown up most of my life assuming I was a boy because of my anatomy. There are some feminine things that I'll never "get" - like what the big deal is about babies, or what it feels like to have a vagina, or a period for that matter (can't say I'm missing that one). And I have some masculine hobbies - like my taste in music, for one thing. That prevents me from feeling 100% female.

And I know, few females probably feel 100% female, but when you're born that way, you get to take it for granted; the rest of us have to work for it. But I've never identified with masculinity either. I'm not macho. I'm not strong. I'm not competitive. I'm very sensitive, and soft-spoken. Maybe in a post-gender world I could just be me without worrying about labeling myself. But in this world I associate more with the female label than the male label on most days. Especially taking into consideration the next item.

3. Expression (a.k.a. Gender Presentation)

As this one is less defined by factors outside of your control, and something you can consciously manipulate, I tend to go from one end of the spectrum to the other more freely. Most of my life I've identified as cis-gendered and presented as male without a second thought - although even then there had been times when people mistook me for a girl. But more recently, as I've begun to consider possibilities alternative to the one I was born and raised into, I've been exploring my feminine side.

These days, I present as female almost exclusively (I don't go out of my way, but I do buy nearly all my clothes in the women's department, for what that's worth), albeit with the caveat that I don't dress like a drag queen (at least not most of the time)* - so often the combination of my wardrobe (girly casual) and the fact that I don't wear a lot of makeup (I've always preferred a more natural approach) means that whether I get "gendered" as male or female depends a lot on random factors (which, unfortunately, makes the issue of choosing a public restroom even more stressful for me).

It's worth mentioning, however, that masculine visual cues do nothing for me, and I derive great pleasure from dressing myself up and seeing myself (in the mirror) as female.

*Not that I wouldn't enjoy going all "femme fatale", but ironically the more feminine outfits I own tend to emphasize the parts of me that are obviously not female. A man can absolutely wear a slinky dress, but it's not going to accentuate his bust and hips so much as his shoulders and the bulge in his crotch...

4. Attraction (a.k.a. Sexual/Romantic Orientation)

My sexual orientation is a whole lot more straightforward than my gender, or even my sex (because there is some hormonal ambiguity, and I can actually pull off being mistaken for a woman while nude, under the right circumstances). However, it's hard for me to label, because most of the terms we have for sexual orientation presuppose the subject as well as the target's sex/gender (depending on what you're going by).

Simply put, I'm attracted to girls. Very much. I'm tolerant, and open-minded, and willing to experiment if the right person came along; but I also have strong preferences, and it would be doing a disservice (to me, as well as to anyone who hits on me - including the scores of gay/bi-curious guys that I'm just not that into) not to acknowledge them.

If I had to choose a label, I'd pick "gynesexual" (attracted to females or femaleness), because calling myself "straight" doesn't accurately reflect my non-traditional gender (or my orientation when I'm passing as female), and I don't think I'd qualify for the official designation of "lesbian" (especially with that big ol' "M" on my ID). "Attracted to girls" is really the best way to put it - it says everything it needs to say, and nothing more -  but you'll notice that that's never an option.

Note: Some people make a distinction between sexual and romantic attraction, but for me they're pretty well-aligned, so it's not a big deal. If anything, I might be more inclined to have a purely physical experience with a guy (if he's beautiful enough) as a form of "experimentation", but I have very little interest (even some aversion) to the idea of romance with one.

Similarly, some people make a distinction between the sex and the gender they're attracted to (often indicating that one isn't as important as the other). Again, my preferences are aligned, as I prefer the female sex and gender. I'm not trying to be exclusionary - these are just my preferences. I've seen attractive transwomen (and I'm not afraid to admit it), and I wouldn't discriminate against someone on account of their anatomy (preference or not, penises are very user-friendly).

But I, personally, enjoy the sexual coupling of penises with vaginas - and I happen to have a penis. That doesn't make me intolerant. If I had a vagina myself, it's possible that I'd be more interested in penises. I guess you could say that I'm sexually straight and romantically gay (since the idea of a woman-woman relationship appeals to me). Which is why the perfect setup for me would be a relationship with a girly girl who's attracted to girly boys with penises. But "perfect" is a huge word, and encompasses all kinds of niggling stipulations.

Statutory Rape

This concept seems to elude a lot of people, but the literal breakdown of the phrase "statutory rape" yields "rape by statute" - which is to say, rape as determined by statute (not sexual violation by a legal document). The implication is that this is "rape in name only". If it was literally rape, then it would just be rape. But it's not. It's statutory rape. Being that the term "rape" refers to a sexual act conducted in violation of the victim's consent, statutory rape is applied in cases of consensual sex where one or more of the participants' consent is simply not recognized by the state - technically, making it rape. This is obviously not as bad as actual rape. Technical rape only exists so that we can tell certain people that they aren't allowed to have sex (for better or worse). It has nothing to do with what those people actually want.

Now, the inevitable fallout of claiming that "statutory rape is a consensual crime" is moral outrage. People will say, "but sex is inherently damaging to kids!" But we're not talking about "child sexual abuse" here. If statutory rape was child sexual abuse, then it would be called child sexual abuse (although there are zealots out there who would like to see this happen), and there would be no statutory rape anymore. But the concept exists because it describes a distinct phenomenon - one where actual consent (as opposed to legal consent) is present. And what about these things called Romeo and Juliet exceptions? Kids of a certain age (i.e., the age of sexual maturity, not to be confused with the legal age of consent) are in some cases explicitly permitted to have sex. Their "dating" pool is just restricted to their own age range.

So let's not pretend that nature gave nubile teens raging hormones knowing that it would destroy their minds and bodies, as opposed to, you know, contributing to the propagation of the species. Statutory rape exists for two reasons - to give a youth's parents legal recourse to pressure and punish them and their peers on the subject of becoming sexually active (because we live in a very judgmental, moralist culture); and, hopefully more importantly, to protect them from the possibility of coercion, exploitation, and abuse (none of which is guaranteed as a matter of course) by more experienced authority figures. Does the concept of statutory rape serve an important role in society? Is its inclusion on the law books justified? Quite possibly. But please, when we talk about this, let's not forget the very real difference between legal consent and actual consent. Because, whatever your agenda may be, I agree with Kinsey et al., who once said "that the happiness of individual men, and the good of the total social organization, is [never] furthered by the perpetuation of ignorance."

Sexual Agency

As a sex-positive, I don't like the idea that sexual stimulation is fundamentally Wrong (with a capital 'W') under certain categorical contexts, even where all participants would disagree with such a judgment. If two (or more) people go into a bedroom of their own volition, fool around in private (without violating the bounds of a mutually agreed upon exclusive commitment), are safe, responsible, and decent to each other, and do not regret what they have done (absent external influences applied after the fact), then in my mind, they have done nothing wrong. Doesn't matter the sexes involved, the races, the positions, the number of participants, the familial connections, or the ages. The individual is the ultimate arbiter of their own sexual agency - not the government or society. The individual makes the decision - the government and society exist only to educate the individual about their options.

Now, to be fair, I don't have a problem with placing (reasonable) restrictions on specific types of sex acts - like unprotected sex, either physically or psychologically "extreme" sex, or procreative sex. People should have the privilege to choose to engage in these activities if they desire it and are of a sufficiently sound mind and body. In a completely liberated world, everyone would have the freedom to destroy themselves (but not others, without consent) sexually. But I recognize that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own stupidity (to a certain point). Failure to mitigate the spread of disease, or the risk of unprepared (whether planned or not) pregnancy, as well as coercion and physical or psychological abuse, should all be prosecuted on the word of the victim (with all the defenses of democracy in place), in a culture that encourages open conversation, and does not shame people into keeping silent about their sexual misadventures.

I just don't believe that some people should be allowed to have all kinds of sex without discrimination, and others none - that it's a binary step function, as opposed to a dimmer switch. I believe that we all should be subject to the same reasonable rules and protections. Not everyone is (physically or mentally) capable of engaging in all varieties of sex acts. But there is not a person alive who can experience sexual desire that does not have the right to some form of stimulation. And because they have this right, we owe them an education, so that they may navigate their feelings and desires, and wield their agency safely and responsibly. It is not our role to withhold information in the vain hope of keeping people from the threshold of sexual activity. It is our duty to give them the knowledge they need, so that they will be prepared whenever they decide to cross it.

I mentioned I was a nudist...

[description: a nude figure standing in a doorway confronts a clothed figure seated in a chair]

...didn't I?

Spontaneously inspired by a clever and thought-provoking image that can be found here [NSFW]. I like how it demonstrates the sexist double standard by which naked women are generally viewed more positively than naked men. I also noted, for what it's worth, the fact that when dressed, the woman is exposing a lot more skin than the man. Additionally, both figures are clearly drawn to be young and trim and (therefore) generally attractive, which ties in to the issue of using models (versus real people) to advertise nudism. A picture speaks a thousand words, indeed.

Narcissism?

You might believe that I became a model because I am reasonably attractive. And that might be true - because I likely wouldn't have gotten the encouragement I needed if I wasn't. But it's also true that I never thought of myself as attractive until I became a model, and realized how many other people thought that way about me. I don't have an over-inflated sense of my own appearance. As a photographer, I know the tricks that go into creating beautiful portraits. I think I look goofy in spontaneous snapshots just like everybody else. But I'm not interested in selling myself short, either. Our commercialist culture exerts way too much effort - and is way too invested - into making people feel inadequate. I'm not perfect. I have "bad hair days". And there are things about my body that I don't like. But if I believe that I am beautiful, that's not just narcissism talking. It's a positive assessment of the facts.

[description: screen cap from the 2016 film The Neon Demon, starring Elle Fanning]
"I know what I look like.
What's wrong with that, anyway?"

The Best of 2016

Happy Friday the 13th! If you're superstitious, take this into consideration: today I'm unveiling the photographic highlights of the past year, on my home site as usual (Part A and Part B) [very NSFW]. Not so bad, eh? I think I'll let the photos speak for themselves - except to say that, as ever, my skills are improving as I continue to put more and more experience under my belt. Looking back, I usually use this post to summarize my accomplishments from the year, present a statement of my current web presence, and speculate about what's to come in the future. I feel like keeping this relatively short.

As it has been for several years now (since I left flickr), this here blog is the front line for my photography and essays, so if you're reading this, I'd like to commend you for being ahead of the pack. I'm also still posting selfies over at tumblr [defunct] ("the place for porn") - they may be a year or two old, but many of them haven't been posted anywhere else. And for my hornier fans, my amateur profile on XTube [defunct] is still live. Although explicit pornography continues to be not my first priority, the video content you can see there (for a modest price) is unlike anything you'll find anywhere else (except, maybe, the occasional video here on this blog).

That's all you really need to know at this time. I've got a profile over at deviantART [NSFW], too, but I have to be honest, the immaturity that pervades the forums is spoiling my enthusiasm for the site, and I haven't posted anything in months. Looking ahead to the future, only the crystal ball knows what's in store, but as I've alluded to recently, I'm hungry to try something new. I'm also becoming more and more eager to cross over into some kind of "mainstream" exposure, but it remains difficult to navigate the controversial themes that inspire me to pick up the camera in the first place. Stay tuned as that story continues to unfold.