Two Kinds of Sex-Positivity

I've always had mixed feelings about sex-positivity as an institution, originating from the rather sex-critical perspective of feminism. Call it my bias, but sex-positive spaces seem so often to be littered with what I perceive as rather sex-negative messages - for example, /r/SexPositive contains in its own sidebar two links labeled "I'm A Sex-Negative Feminist" and "Why 'Sex-Positive' Feminism Is Sex-Negative For Me." (I agree with most of their listed ideals, although "the destruction of patriarchy" seems awkwardly shoed-in from the feminist theory, and I find it interesting that "radical consent" is defined elsewhere as "affirmative and enthusiastic" consent, rather than a radical view of who and in what circumstances somebody is capable of giving consent - rather than more liberal, it actually seems more constrictive of sexual behavior). I suppose I've just come at the position from a different angle. And if I had a different name, I'd call it that, but it really is all about having a positive attitude toward sex. If anything, the feminists should call themselves "sex-critical". But what bothers me about "establishment" sex-positivity is just that - the critical attitude.

I'm going to generalize here (fair warning), but it seems as though the establishment sex-positive position holds positive sexual experiences for all (to the degree that they want them) as the primary goal, with less negative sexual experiences as the necessary corollary. And the most obvious vector for this level of satisfaction is consent (although education is also of critical importance). But, seeing the myriad complications that arise in many people's sexual experiences, one is then compelled to view sex critically - especially alternative and fringe sexual passions. On the one hand, whatever desires one may have, as long as they can be fulfilled safely and sanely, involving only informed and consenting participants, positively impacting all those involved, then it's all gravy. But in a way, this can act as a straitjacket, restricting one's conception of what healthy sexuality may entail - like a far looser version of the Catholic church's emphasis on the missionary position. Certain sexualities outside of the normal may be considered problematic, and viewed heavily with suspicion, due to their latent potential to cause others (if not also oneself) distress of a sexual nature, which would serve to reduce the positive impact that sex ought to have on everyone's lives.

Consider, for example, someone who delights in getting a surreptitious peek up a stranger's skirt in public - an act that is currently heavily disparaged by the progressive camp. I've even encountered growing sentiment that the innocuous act of pleasuring oneself behind closed doors to images of individuals of unconfirmed origin shared on the internet ought to be considered non-kosher, on account of the fact that the individuals in question may not have "consented" to their images being used in this way. I consider this a casualty of valuing safety over liberty, raising the possibility for offense at something that mankind should take for granted (that a sexual organism will fantasize about what it sees, and may masturbate to such fantasies in private) over the freedom of individuals to exert agency over their own sexual thoughts. Your agency over your own body stops where my agency over my own mind begins.

Now, I will concede that picture trading is a grey area, because it can be an avenue for the violation of trust and privacy. And this is a case where ignorance (and not just directed malice) - a don't ask, don't tell policy, if you will - can contribute to the propagation of these transgressions. But, say what you will, I think anyone who shares a picture on the internet, or even allows an image of them to be created, should understand that the possibility exists that at some point, somebody may masturbate to it. But rather than frightening people away from taking and sharing images, I think this is a fact of life we should learn to take for granted, because I see no reason why it should be cause for any alarm. It's just part of existing in a society comprised of sexual organisms. And unlike harassment, which is antisocial at its core, this isn't a toxic behavior that needs to be eliminated.

So rather than being concerned with making sure all sex acts that occur are kosher, with no mind to those who may go frustrated and unfulfilled, I prefer to look at it from the perspective of working towards sexual satisfaction for all, regardless of the nature of one's desires, even if some of those desires are more challenging to fulfill ethically than others, and at the fundamental level, that as long as one knows how to behave oneself, one should not feel ashamed for the feelings one has that leads to sexual stimulation, no matter what anyone else who does not share them might think about those feelings.

Let me state clearly that my own brand of sex-positivity does not conflict with the ideology outlined above - it does not condone any kind of behaviors that victimize innocents and cause distress of a sexual nature to anyone (outside of mutually consensual BDSM-type arrangements). I merely approach it from a different perspective - not one that is overly critical, but rather one that is more forgiving, and willing to hand out the benefit of the doubt. The foundational principle of sex-positivity, in my mind, isn't necessarily the ideal that everyone should be having only positive sexual experiences (although that would be a good thing), but that the sexual energy that permeates our lives is viewed, not with suspicion, but as a positive thing. Even though it may sometimes be misdirected (often devoid of ill intention - a result of ignorance, and not maleficence - the solution then being education, and not public shaming, as mistakes ought to more readily be considered reparable setbacks than life-altering traumas). Obviously, when this energy is twisted to violent ends, this is a travesty. But alone, in and of itself, removed from context, the desire to seek sexual satisfaction, and the myriad ways the human organism pursues it, is a wondrous curiosity, and not a blade waiting to be sharpened. In a sense, it's coming at sex-positivity from a position of innocence rather than cynicism.

Certainly, it could be argued that innocence is synonymous with naivety (and I admit it is unusual for me to pass over the cynical stance), but I see more beauty in innocence, more pleasure, and my own personal experience of sexual desire reflects an innocent attitude - again, in the sense I've described before, not as a lack of experience, but an approach, an attitude that rejects the Pandora's box of evils that much of society associates with sex. It is a purer approach. Not reflective of virginity, but freedom from corruption. Not defining carnal knowledge as corruption - this is the sex-negative strategy. Sex-positivity is stating that one can have carnal knowledge and still be without sin. To refuse to associate such knowledge with pollution, either of the body or mind.

Human Anatomy

Human anatomy - so much controversy over such a simple thing. I try not to let myself be blinded by my own bias - as I've had the opportunity to become quite accustomed to the sight of naked bodies, and I recognize that not everyone has had this privilege. But, if you can believe it, there was a time when I was quite prudish about exposed skin - to an embarrassing extent. I consider it a firsthand lesson in how people can grow and change and evolve, and a reminder that not everyone who may be an enemy today will remain so indefinitely. But I know what it's like to be repressed. I wasn't born liberated - I had to make the journey.

Still, allowing for growth and variance, there is an element of hypocrisy that I cannot abide. Personality-wise, I can have a tendency to be picky and uptight. Rationally, I have come to the conclusion that freedom is an unassailable virtue. But emotionally, I desire to control every aspect of my environment. But you know, that has taught me a hard lesson - and it's an argument I've made before on the subject of trigger warnings. It's not possible to control every aspect of my environment. So I have had to learn, for better or worse, to live with things that annoy or offend or sometimes even traumatize me (when, as is sometimes the case in life, it is not possible to simply remove myself from the situation - although this is a strategy I wish more people would attempt to employ more frequently).

Not only have I been incapable of controlling the behaviors of other people, in order to produce a consistently pleasant environment around myself, it seems the accepted opinion that, even were it possible, to even do so would be unjust. Which is a conclusion that I agree with rationally, if only because the golden rule demands it, given that I wouldn't want others to control my behavior for their own personal reasons. (Communication and compromise, on the other hand, is healthy).

Aye, but here's the rub: they do so anyway, even as they tell me it's wrong. And the only reason they can get away with it is because their opinion on this issue (the issue of nudity) is the popular one, and I'm the one on the lunatic fringe. (And the social conditioning is so bad that even many of the people who should be on my side - other nudists - instead agree with our opposition, to avoid making waves). But like every issue of justice that was once unpopular and is now taken for granted (more or less) - be it women's suffrage, racial equality, or tolerance of certain sexual minorities (but not others) - I believe that just because it is now, baby, doesn't mean it should be. I just don't have a lot of patience waiting for society to catch up. Unfortunately, I don't have much of a choice, either.

Shame vs. Hormones

We are sexual organisms. Individuals will, of course, vary, but generally speaking, we are programmed to have lustful feelings towards the human body - and, depending on psychological conditioning, sometimes other things. That any social institution (be it religion or otherwise) should capitalize on making us feel ashamed of this fact is tragic, and I reject it.

It is not unreasonable for us to step back and consider the way we feel, and what these feelings compel us to do. Otherwise, the Hormone Monsters within us all would rage unchecked, and might tear civilization apart in a grandiose orgy. (Not that there's anything wrong with orgies, but without a measured conscience, there's no guarantee that consent will be respected).

But we mustn't let the Shame Wizard seep into our subconscious either, making us feel bad for the things that are supposed to make us feel good. As long as you are in control of yourself, and able to act rationally, there is no reason to feel bad for the thoughts you have that turn you on, and the fantasies you pursue towards sexual satisfaction.

Regarding the phenomenon of "post-orgasmal guilt", whether there is an element of psychochemistry involved (i.e., coming down off of a high), or the expression of a social need unfulfilled (i.e., the desire for intimacy in the absence of a partner), to whatever extent a sexually repressive culture exploits this weakness, I view succumbing to it as a character flaw.

In order to avoid sexual hypocrisy - which results in the abhorrent practice of indulging in sexual desires behind closed doors while condemning them openly in public - I've taken the advice of one of history's most notorious perverted sages (whatever his reputation may be, he was as much a philosopher as a scoundrel). The Marquis de Sade once wrote, "whether one is stiff, or whether one is not, one's philosophy, acting independently of the passions, should always remain the same."

In other words, do not allow yourself to be swayed by the heat of passion to engage in anything you'll have to apologize for later, and similarly, don't apologize for anything you permit yourself to do in the heat of passion - stand your ground. Only by doing this can you lead a fully authentic lifestyle, in and out of the metaphorical bedroom. This is how I've always approached being an internet model.

Door Frame

[description: a man stands in a door frame wearing a robe, and with the robe at his feet]

A few images I shot inspired by something I saw on the internet. These "on/off" comparison shots (dressed vs. naked) are fairly popular, and I can understand why. I find the comparison intriguing, and it fuels the imagination of anyone who's ever encountered an attractive stranger (or acquaintance) and fantasized about what they look like naked. Of course, where nudists are concerned, there is no imagination necessary. :-p

Checking In

Check it out - I'm checking in for a nude check-up!

Seeing as I don't "visit" this blog as much as I did last year (which is to say, daily), I felt like dropping in, as if to say, I'm still out there, still living a nude life (as much as possible), and still occasionally taking pictures to share.

[description: series of portraits of a nude torso in various stages of arousal]

Last year's project involved a lot of work, and at times it was hard to keep up. But I tell you, if I go too long without taking a picture, I start to miss it. It's a lot of fun, expressing myself in this way - both being able to share my vision of a beautiful naked life, and using those opportunities to share some of my thoughts and opinions on related topics. I don't think I'm ever going to want to quit. It'd just be nice if someday I could find a muse to shoot in my place, when I get old and frail (it consistently surprises me what physical effort self-portrait photography is) and not so pretty anymore...

Mixed Company - Breakfast

This is the first in what I hope will be a series of images exploring the theme of "mixed company" - that is, a household in which there coexist peacefully a nudist and one or more textiles. This is a personal fantasy of mine - a world that is not necessarily filled with nudists, but one in which nudists are accepted and permitted to go nude, without fanfare, as if it were just another fashion choice.

[description: a clothed figure cooks on the stove while a nude figure washes dishes at the sink]

The impetus for this photo series was a dream I had one morning. In the dream, I was attending some kind of convention, when a staffer informed me that the time had come for my appointment for a kind of escape room challenge. But instead of a team effort, this was an individual challenge, with elements of an obstacle course incorporated, so as to be more physical than mentally-based. Two staffers took me behind a curtain, bound my arms and legs with a kind of rope or chain, and then left me there to make my escape. The most notable detail of this experience was that I had no choice but to tear off the very clothes I was wearing in order to free myself. In the dream, I had a tacit understanding that this was an expected part of the challenge - that I would then have to complete the obstacle course nude, and perhaps even then return to the convention and spend the rest of my day without clothes.

I was excited by the thought of being nude in public - but specifically, by matter of necessity, and not personal choice. That way, I might enjoy my nudity free from the guilt of my desire - a shame instilled in me by a repressed culture - similar to the way that rape fantasies may enable a person to enjoy sexual pleasure without having to take responsibility for it. Indeed, the responsibility for my state of undress lay with the organizers of the escape room challenge, and their authority as a professional and respected company meant that this occurrence - that an attendee would end up nude and have to return to public without their clothes - was common enough and expected enough that nobody would lodge any sort of complaint. (I suppose, in reality, even were this to occur, they'd provide some kind of clothing at the end - but that's not how my dream worked).

What this, then, presumes is a world in which nudity (even in public) is not necessarily the norm (so that it is still uncommon enough to create an effective contrast), but an occasional accepted alternative to being dressed. And while the "forced nudity" aspect is a powerful component of this fantasy (insofar as it effects deferred responsibility), I want to de-emphasize the possible corollary that much of the excitement comes from either the fear or the action of being caught. In my mind, this is not really the case. I enjoy the contrast (both aesthetic and psychological) of nudity against the dressed, but I want to be permitted to go about my business without hassle or even alarm, accepted the way I am - which just happens to be without clothes.

Nothing To Be Ashamed Of

[description: a man in a towel chats with a woman, while another woman sneaks up behind him]

I like CFNM (clothed female, nude male). I also like CMNF (clothed male, nude female), as clichéd as that may be. And, of course, NMNF is always a blast. But it seems to me that much of the time, CFNM ties in with humiliation, often involving guys embarrassed by the size of their penis. Now, I can understand the erotic appeal of humiliation (at least in theory - or fantasy), but that's not what it's about for me.

I suppose it's more of a traditional exhibitionist thrill - being exposed in front of others - albeit with the conceptual twist that you're not the one actively exposing yourself, but are the victim of others wanting to expose you - you just happen to like it, which is not necessarily the anticipated response. I suppose it's a form of responsibility deferment (I'll have more to say about that in another post). If it's true that "you can't rape the willing", then it's similarly true that you can't violate an exhibitionist by exposing him.

If somebody is trying to expose you, then they are giving their consent to be exposed to. If, on the other hand, you elect to expose yourself to someone, you have to deal with the possible repercussions of that person not wanting to be exposed to (a not unlikely possibility) - or, at the very least, the added complication of obtaining their consent beforehand. Which can be a perfectly exciting part of the scene, but let's be honest, spontaneity can be fun, and sometimes you just want to cut to the chase.

What we are provided with, then, is the exciting (to an exhibitionist) prospect of being exposed, in a situation where the consent of all parties is implied; which lets us relax and enjoy the exposure without the nagging guilt in the back of our minds, instilled by a culture that preaches that exhibitionism is a harmful and selfish fetish. Not selfish in the sense of seeking self-satisfaction - as all fetishes pretty much do by definition - but in the sense of (allegedly) doing so at the expense of (and without regard to) the supposed harm it causes others. At least, according to stereotype.

[description: a man stands naked and exposed before two amused women]

If, on the other hand, you get off on the non-consent of either party, then you're welcome to interpret it that way, because it will still just be a harmless fantasy - which is where these kinds of desires are best satisfied.