I just had a thought. Nudists often ask the question, "how do I practice nudism on my own property, without upsetting the neighbors?" Privacy screens are often the best solution, but sometimes other nudists wonder, "why not just ask your neighbors if they mind?" But the problem with this solution (other than the possibility that they will not be so obliging), is this: I currently have a relatively private yard that I enjoy lounging (and recreating) naked in. But there are times when even I cannot do so - namely, when we have non-nudist-friendly guests over.
(There's this impression that nudists never seem to intermingle with less-than-fully-tolerant populations - e.g., nudists who boast that they don't even own swimsuits, and insist that a nudist should never have tan lines - but there are virtually no nudists in my regular family and friend group, and only very few that are comfortable with me being nude around them, and I'm not just going to cut off relations with these people because they insist on me wearing clothes).
So, the thing is, I don't even always know very well ahead of time when we're going to have guests over (obviously not during the pandemic, but under normal circumstances I mean). Can you even imagine having to stay up to date on your neighbors' visitation schedules? How do you know it's safe to go out and lounge in the shade for an hour, and that your neighbor's not going to have someone over in half an hour to show off their new deck? How does your neighbor know you're going to decide to do some naked gardening in the afternoon, and that he shouldn't invite his conservative parents over for a cookout?
It'd be all well and good if we lived in a more tolerant society, where people could more easily overlook the fact that somebody might be nude on their own property, instead of this hyper-anxious, litigious mindset - and any situation in which you think most people would behave reasonably can easily be turned upside-down by adding some hypothetical children into the mix. Whether the charge sticks or not, the last thing you want to do when you're just trying to relax and enjoy the weather is explain to a cop how you're not actually a depraved pervert who likes to expose himself to kids.
Besides, you might have some golden ideal of neighborly brotherhood in your head, in which neighbors look out for one another, sharing household tools and the like. But not everyone wants to live like that. I always strive to be amicable toward strangers, but I am not a social butterfly (in spite of my enjoyment of social nudism). And my home is my sanctuary. It's where I go (or stay) to get away from people. It's the last place I want to have someone strike up a conversation with me when I'm minding my own business. I'm a firm believer in the adage "good fences make good neighbors", and it seems to me that the taller they are, the better.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Tweets For Posterity (Volume 3)
For those unfamiliar with this series, I refer you to my explanation in the first volume. For even more tweets, I point you also to volume 2. Now let us commence volume 3!
---
I try always to be mature and respectful, but I am a sensitive soul. I promote peace, tolerance, and above all, being able to enjoy the good things in life without shame and judgment. Yet some consider this justification to lie and say hurtful things towards me. Confidence does not come easy to me. It is hard-earned. And even then, still fragile. I suffer from anxiety, and always in the back of my mind there is a pernicious voice whispering doubts, echoing the worst things others could say about me. Above all, I worry constantly that the path I've chosen may not be the right one, but I can do nothing better than follow my instincts. I am logical, and willing to entertain rational criticism of my decisions - if done so politely, and respectfully. The world does not begin and end with nudism. If people had the legal right to be naked, there would still be problems in the world. One of them is making people feel like shit because they enjoy one of the simplest and healthiest sources of pleasure on the planet. If promoting peace, tolerance, and psycho-sexual wellbeing is incompatible with advocating for the nudist lifestyle, then I will voluntarily step back and divorce myself from it publicly, because that is not a worldview I wish to support. However, I will never stop supporting non-sexual nude recreation, even if it is not called "nudism" (or "naturism"). And while I support the consensual practice of "swinging", at this time, I am not, and have never considered myself part of that lifestyle. So, where does the nudist community weigh in? Honestly I'm starting to wonder if I would even miss all the judgment and generalizations and hasty conclusions. Is this what nudism wants to represent itself as? Please let me know. It's your decision, not mine.
Unfortunately, nudism attracts a certain subset of the population that views nudity in black and white terms. In these people's eyes, to be a nudist, you must be a celibate monk. If you cannot meet that standard, then you are a degenerate pervert. There is no middle ground. Even if you just think that nudity can maybe sometimes be a little bit sexy, and that it's fine to indulge that feeling under the appropriate circumstances, you are automatically labelled a "swinger", a promoter of public sex, and an enemy to everything nudism stands for. I call these people "prudists", but it is cold comfort. Standing up for sexual well-being IS a righteous cause, but it does not carry the self-righteous assurance of the "moral high ground". Doing what's right means having to endure the establishment calling you the villain.
Most people in this textile culture appreciate the erotic appeal of nudity. Understanding and indulging in the many varied and oft-overlooked non-sexual benefits of nudity need not come at the expense of that. It is not a binary switch: an either/or dichotomy.
Becoming an erotic model on the internet boosted my self-confidence and improved my body image enormously. And that was *before* I got fit. Plus, the one advantage it had over nudism was not making me feel like a monster for enjoying the #1 thing our bodies were made to do.
I find it ironic - though no less disheartening - to be associated with the sort of riffraff accused of exploiting nudism disingenuously as a front for sexual aims; or when somebody announces a fact I openly attest to as if they were digging up dirt on me since - as someone who *supports* nudism's true aims - the only reason I occupy a moral grey area is that I am incapable of deception, and refuse to pretend that I don't sometimes have erotic feelings towards nudity just because it's not good PR to say so. If the truth frightens you, then by all means stand back, because I am your enemy.
I think one of the things that draws me to nudism is the emphasis on it being natural, healthy, and wholesome. I'm prepared to be lambasted for this opinion, but I feel the same way about eroticism. I'm not talking about permitting explicit sex acts on public streets. But the fact that people have sexual feelings, are physically attracted to others, and can appreciate the aesthetics of eroticism - in art, as in life - this is not a sin or a vice or a harmful truth that needs to be shielded from vulnerable minds. I'm not trying to persuade the world to let me expose it to something degenerate that no one wants to look at. Consent is the prime directive. But people moralize excessively about sex, to the point that it becomes an imperative, and not merely a difference of opinion.
Yes, I sell nude photography on Patreon. I am an artist, and my time and creativity is valuable. Do you know what else I do? I generate original content; I don't just share (or steal) and retweet others' work. I am a creator, not just another consumer. What do you contribute? And no, selling nude photography doesn't mean I'm putting a price on nudity. You're not paying to see me naked - anyone can do that for free with minimal effort. You're paying for premium access to the art I produce, and to support me so I can continue producing it.
What if these two assumptions about the Antichrist are incorrect? 1) That most believers will recognize him for what he is and not be duped into following him. 2) That he will be a deliberate agent of evil, rather than a mere fool who leads us to destruction through incompetence?
I don't understand how we live in a culture so obsessed with the concept of individual liberty and not being told what to do that we seem utterly incapable of staying in our homes to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE, yet we do NOT have the freedom to walk around naked if we feel like it...
When I was a teenager, I began taking sexy pictures (of myself) for my girlfriend. The relationship didn't last, but my appreciation for erotic photography did. I eventually came to the conclusion that it would be selfish to limit the sight of my body to intimate partners. Erotic art is not just a means to an end - a form of foreplay shared between lovers. It's something that can be appreciated even by strangers (as anyone who has ever enjoyed porn knows). Most of us are already voyeurs. I just took a step further and became an exhibitionist.
The thing about prejudice is that 90% of everything is crap, and people are no exception. So whatever quality you hate for irrational reasons, you'll be able to find despicable people with that quality. But it may not be the quality that's despicable; it may just be people.
Primarily as a visual creature, and secondarily as an erotic photographer, I revel in the superficial appeal of the human body. Why are people so uncomfortable with this? God did not create all this beauty in the world so that we could stumble around with our eyes shut tight.
There are voyeurs and exhibitionists out there right now, trying to learn how to navigate their sexual feelings in an unfriendly world. Should we teach them how to do it ethically - because it *can* be done - or shame them for their feelings, and hope it somehow works out? When it comes to sex, we throw people to the wolves, and expect them to figure things out for themselves. We actively *punish* educators. And then we think the results tell us something about sex, when really, the only thing it tells us is how we've failed ourselves.
Relatively speaking, we live in a largely sexually-liberated culture (albeit not without a lot of pushback), that wisely values the concept of consent (above moralizing, to an increasing degree), but there is still a lot of stigma surrounding voyeurism and exhibitionism. Voyeurism is not defined by invasion of privacy. Voyeurism is a delight in the erotic appeal of sight; the appreciation of human bodies. It is a contactless, truly safe form of sexual pleasure, that can be satisfied increasingly easily in this age of internet pornography. Similarly, exhibitionism is not defined by violation of consent. It is the mirror image of voyeurism, with which it works best in tandem. Exhibitionism is self-confidence, a delight in being desired - NOT ridiculed. It, too, can be indulged easily and ethically online. I want to see voyeurism and exhibitionism respectfully regarded as a legitimate variation of human sexuality, a valuable alternative to messy contact sex, not defined by criminal behavior or psychopathology, as healthy as masturbation, and facilitated by pornography.
When confronted with the concept of nudism, many textiles express the concern that being exposed to naked people would make them uncomfortable. What they fail to acknowledge is how frequently they make nudists uncomfortable - by compelling them to remain dressed.
There's a difference between something being sexy, and something being sexual. If you're not so single-minded as to believe that every stimulus must lead to satisfaction, then it is possible to find nudity sexy, while still acknowledging that it is not sexual.
Some people think losing weight makes you more attractive. This is a LEGITIMATE perspective. I would be lying to myself and unhappy if I pretended that I liked the image I saw in the mirror better before I lost forty pounds. I did it for myself, and I'm happier now. If people commenting on how losing weight makes you more attractive causes you to feel like you were worthless before, then you're still committing the fallacy of believing too highly in the importance of physical beauty. That some people think you're "more attractive" now does NOT mean that you were unattractive before. Nor that nobody prefers the way you looked before. People commenting on your looks are doing just that and nothing more. How you look does not define who you are, how talented you are, how successful you can be, etc.
Why is "live and let live" such an uncommon philosophy? It's a big world out there. Is there not room enough for all kinds? I have anxiety, so I know how hard it is when your peace of mind depends on the beliefs of others. But the solution is tolerance, not judgment.
My perspective is that anything that normalizes nudity helps nudism, even if it's "sexualized". Why? Because there is always room to make the distinction between sex and nudity - but if nudity is normalized regardless of its association, then nudism stands to benefit, too. The reason "sexualized" nudity is a threat to nudism is because sex carries a stigma, and nudism wants to be free of a stigma it doesn't deserve. But if the stigma itself is reduced, then nudism's position improves, no matter where society stands on the sex vs. nudity debate. I know that there would still be work to be done to keep sex out of nudism, and maybe a little bit more than we would otherwise have. But in the meantime, we'd be less marginalized and freer to practice our nudism while we work on that problem. It's a tradeoff. So what's your priority? Do you want to carve a nonsexual haven out of a liberated society, or wedge nudity into an otherwise conservative society? I'd rather live in a world that's less erotophobic. And I daresay nudism has more potential in such a world.
For a great many of us, life is hard and filled with adversity. The way the sexes treat each other deserves scrutiny. On the whole, feminism has been a hugely positive social movement (when it's not inexplicably allied with religious conservatives). What concerns me is how it may contribute to an antagonism between the sexes, by giving many uncritical people who are feeling legitimately hurt (not always due to anyone's fault) an excuse to blame all the problems in their life (and the world) on men.
I'm trying to navigate (in my head) individual liberty, tolerance of diversity, and the law's seemingly contradictory commitment to moral proscription (esp. regarding "vice crimes"). To what extent is it right for a nation to dictate the lifestyle choices of its citizens? If I'm practicing X (fill in what you like), the first question to ask is, "what's wrong with X?". And if you can't convince everyone that X is fine (and it's inevitable that you won't), then the next question becomes, "if YOU don't like X, what's wrong with ME doing it?" Two responses to this question could be, it's unethical (it violates someone's rights), and it's immoral (it's "bad" for you). This is in line with my theory that ethics is the objective rules we agree upon, while morality is the subjective rules we decide for ourselves. The moral case may (giving the benefit of the doubt) be a legitimate complaint for the wellbeing of others. But even then, it should be an individual's choice whether or not to lead a "virtuous" life - or even to decide for one's self what constitutes a life of virtue. The ethical case is the only one in which a compulsion to dictate the choices of others (in order to protect innocent victims) would be justified. But even then, it should be undertaken only after a rational and scientific evaluation of the behavior in question.
It's as simple as this: prejudice against porn. Living within porn, by choice, I've found that it can be a pleasant experience. But if you have a prejudice against porn, then you are more likely to notice the bad, miss the good, and interpret the neutral in a negative light. Porn is an intrinsically positive thing, for the individual and society. If there is corruption rampant within it, it is only because good people have forsaken it. But it is worth saving. From outside, the only solution appears to be eradication. But reform is possible.
What's the point of making a skirt into a pair of shorts? Why not just wear shorts? If it's a matter of modesty, you can always put on your own shorts - they even make underwear like that. But a skort takes away that choice, and is an insult to everything skirts stand for.
While it's true that the taboo created by a textile culture can enhance the excitement of nudity through novelty, even in a hypothetical perfect nudist utopia, in which everyone is always naked, people would still be attracted to human bodies. It's how we're designed.
I don't WANT nudism to be "a refuge from sex". That doesn't mean I think nudists should permit open sex acts, or that I disagree with the fundamental non-sexuality of nudism. But if it's "normal, just naked", then it should be no more or less sexual than textile culture.
Honestly, I've encountered a lot of rhetoric about "sexualization". But do you know what's more harmful? Politicization. People politicize everything these days, and it's destroying our society. At least sex is a good thing. Why do people want to add politics to everything?
A police force that doesn't inspire trust in its citizens is just government-backed terrorism. With power comes responsibility. Abuse it, and lose it. Gun-toting authority figures don't get a free pass just because their job is dangerous. A badge is EARNED, or it is meaningless.
Predatory behavior is not the manifestation of an abnormal appetite, but a selfish disregard of ethics in pursuit of what is otherwise an ordinary hunger. It is not the desire itself, but the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve one's desire that is the moral failing.
It is impolite to stare, because staring makes people uncomfortable. But the impulse, when driven by curiosity or admiration, is not evil. One of the things I appreciate about the spirit of nudism, in opposition to the textile mindset, is the notion that it is okay to look. In other words, that one is allowed to indulge in a feast for the eyes. But how to do so without making anyone uncomfortable? This is one of the perks of performance art, in which performers - whether they consider themselves exhibitionists or not - permit themselves to be viewed at length by spectators - whether they consider themselves voyeurs or not. Better yet, visual recordings and reproductions may be scrutinized indefinitely, for public AND private reasons. This is why I produce video and photographic art.
(Volume 4)
---
I try always to be mature and respectful, but I am a sensitive soul. I promote peace, tolerance, and above all, being able to enjoy the good things in life without shame and judgment. Yet some consider this justification to lie and say hurtful things towards me. Confidence does not come easy to me. It is hard-earned. And even then, still fragile. I suffer from anxiety, and always in the back of my mind there is a pernicious voice whispering doubts, echoing the worst things others could say about me. Above all, I worry constantly that the path I've chosen may not be the right one, but I can do nothing better than follow my instincts. I am logical, and willing to entertain rational criticism of my decisions - if done so politely, and respectfully. The world does not begin and end with nudism. If people had the legal right to be naked, there would still be problems in the world. One of them is making people feel like shit because they enjoy one of the simplest and healthiest sources of pleasure on the planet. If promoting peace, tolerance, and psycho-sexual wellbeing is incompatible with advocating for the nudist lifestyle, then I will voluntarily step back and divorce myself from it publicly, because that is not a worldview I wish to support. However, I will never stop supporting non-sexual nude recreation, even if it is not called "nudism" (or "naturism"). And while I support the consensual practice of "swinging", at this time, I am not, and have never considered myself part of that lifestyle. So, where does the nudist community weigh in? Honestly I'm starting to wonder if I would even miss all the judgment and generalizations and hasty conclusions. Is this what nudism wants to represent itself as? Please let me know. It's your decision, not mine.
Unfortunately, nudism attracts a certain subset of the population that views nudity in black and white terms. In these people's eyes, to be a nudist, you must be a celibate monk. If you cannot meet that standard, then you are a degenerate pervert. There is no middle ground. Even if you just think that nudity can maybe sometimes be a little bit sexy, and that it's fine to indulge that feeling under the appropriate circumstances, you are automatically labelled a "swinger", a promoter of public sex, and an enemy to everything nudism stands for. I call these people "prudists", but it is cold comfort. Standing up for sexual well-being IS a righteous cause, but it does not carry the self-righteous assurance of the "moral high ground". Doing what's right means having to endure the establishment calling you the villain.
Most people in this textile culture appreciate the erotic appeal of nudity. Understanding and indulging in the many varied and oft-overlooked non-sexual benefits of nudity need not come at the expense of that. It is not a binary switch: an either/or dichotomy.
Becoming an erotic model on the internet boosted my self-confidence and improved my body image enormously. And that was *before* I got fit. Plus, the one advantage it had over nudism was not making me feel like a monster for enjoying the #1 thing our bodies were made to do.
I find it ironic - though no less disheartening - to be associated with the sort of riffraff accused of exploiting nudism disingenuously as a front for sexual aims; or when somebody announces a fact I openly attest to as if they were digging up dirt on me since - as someone who *supports* nudism's true aims - the only reason I occupy a moral grey area is that I am incapable of deception, and refuse to pretend that I don't sometimes have erotic feelings towards nudity just because it's not good PR to say so. If the truth frightens you, then by all means stand back, because I am your enemy.
I think one of the things that draws me to nudism is the emphasis on it being natural, healthy, and wholesome. I'm prepared to be lambasted for this opinion, but I feel the same way about eroticism. I'm not talking about permitting explicit sex acts on public streets. But the fact that people have sexual feelings, are physically attracted to others, and can appreciate the aesthetics of eroticism - in art, as in life - this is not a sin or a vice or a harmful truth that needs to be shielded from vulnerable minds. I'm not trying to persuade the world to let me expose it to something degenerate that no one wants to look at. Consent is the prime directive. But people moralize excessively about sex, to the point that it becomes an imperative, and not merely a difference of opinion.
Yes, I sell nude photography on Patreon. I am an artist, and my time and creativity is valuable. Do you know what else I do? I generate original content; I don't just share (or steal) and retweet others' work. I am a creator, not just another consumer. What do you contribute? And no, selling nude photography doesn't mean I'm putting a price on nudity. You're not paying to see me naked - anyone can do that for free with minimal effort. You're paying for premium access to the art I produce, and to support me so I can continue producing it.
What if these two assumptions about the Antichrist are incorrect? 1) That most believers will recognize him for what he is and not be duped into following him. 2) That he will be a deliberate agent of evil, rather than a mere fool who leads us to destruction through incompetence?
I don't understand how we live in a culture so obsessed with the concept of individual liberty and not being told what to do that we seem utterly incapable of staying in our homes to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE, yet we do NOT have the freedom to walk around naked if we feel like it...
When I was a teenager, I began taking sexy pictures (of myself) for my girlfriend. The relationship didn't last, but my appreciation for erotic photography did. I eventually came to the conclusion that it would be selfish to limit the sight of my body to intimate partners. Erotic art is not just a means to an end - a form of foreplay shared between lovers. It's something that can be appreciated even by strangers (as anyone who has ever enjoyed porn knows). Most of us are already voyeurs. I just took a step further and became an exhibitionist.
The thing about prejudice is that 90% of everything is crap, and people are no exception. So whatever quality you hate for irrational reasons, you'll be able to find despicable people with that quality. But it may not be the quality that's despicable; it may just be people.
Primarily as a visual creature, and secondarily as an erotic photographer, I revel in the superficial appeal of the human body. Why are people so uncomfortable with this? God did not create all this beauty in the world so that we could stumble around with our eyes shut tight.
There are voyeurs and exhibitionists out there right now, trying to learn how to navigate their sexual feelings in an unfriendly world. Should we teach them how to do it ethically - because it *can* be done - or shame them for their feelings, and hope it somehow works out? When it comes to sex, we throw people to the wolves, and expect them to figure things out for themselves. We actively *punish* educators. And then we think the results tell us something about sex, when really, the only thing it tells us is how we've failed ourselves.
Relatively speaking, we live in a largely sexually-liberated culture (albeit not without a lot of pushback), that wisely values the concept of consent (above moralizing, to an increasing degree), but there is still a lot of stigma surrounding voyeurism and exhibitionism. Voyeurism is not defined by invasion of privacy. Voyeurism is a delight in the erotic appeal of sight; the appreciation of human bodies. It is a contactless, truly safe form of sexual pleasure, that can be satisfied increasingly easily in this age of internet pornography. Similarly, exhibitionism is not defined by violation of consent. It is the mirror image of voyeurism, with which it works best in tandem. Exhibitionism is self-confidence, a delight in being desired - NOT ridiculed. It, too, can be indulged easily and ethically online. I want to see voyeurism and exhibitionism respectfully regarded as a legitimate variation of human sexuality, a valuable alternative to messy contact sex, not defined by criminal behavior or psychopathology, as healthy as masturbation, and facilitated by pornography.
When confronted with the concept of nudism, many textiles express the concern that being exposed to naked people would make them uncomfortable. What they fail to acknowledge is how frequently they make nudists uncomfortable - by compelling them to remain dressed.
There's a difference between something being sexy, and something being sexual. If you're not so single-minded as to believe that every stimulus must lead to satisfaction, then it is possible to find nudity sexy, while still acknowledging that it is not sexual.
Some people think losing weight makes you more attractive. This is a LEGITIMATE perspective. I would be lying to myself and unhappy if I pretended that I liked the image I saw in the mirror better before I lost forty pounds. I did it for myself, and I'm happier now. If people commenting on how losing weight makes you more attractive causes you to feel like you were worthless before, then you're still committing the fallacy of believing too highly in the importance of physical beauty. That some people think you're "more attractive" now does NOT mean that you were unattractive before. Nor that nobody prefers the way you looked before. People commenting on your looks are doing just that and nothing more. How you look does not define who you are, how talented you are, how successful you can be, etc.
Why is "live and let live" such an uncommon philosophy? It's a big world out there. Is there not room enough for all kinds? I have anxiety, so I know how hard it is when your peace of mind depends on the beliefs of others. But the solution is tolerance, not judgment.
My perspective is that anything that normalizes nudity helps nudism, even if it's "sexualized". Why? Because there is always room to make the distinction between sex and nudity - but if nudity is normalized regardless of its association, then nudism stands to benefit, too. The reason "sexualized" nudity is a threat to nudism is because sex carries a stigma, and nudism wants to be free of a stigma it doesn't deserve. But if the stigma itself is reduced, then nudism's position improves, no matter where society stands on the sex vs. nudity debate. I know that there would still be work to be done to keep sex out of nudism, and maybe a little bit more than we would otherwise have. But in the meantime, we'd be less marginalized and freer to practice our nudism while we work on that problem. It's a tradeoff. So what's your priority? Do you want to carve a nonsexual haven out of a liberated society, or wedge nudity into an otherwise conservative society? I'd rather live in a world that's less erotophobic. And I daresay nudism has more potential in such a world.
For a great many of us, life is hard and filled with adversity. The way the sexes treat each other deserves scrutiny. On the whole, feminism has been a hugely positive social movement (when it's not inexplicably allied with religious conservatives). What concerns me is how it may contribute to an antagonism between the sexes, by giving many uncritical people who are feeling legitimately hurt (not always due to anyone's fault) an excuse to blame all the problems in their life (and the world) on men.
I'm trying to navigate (in my head) individual liberty, tolerance of diversity, and the law's seemingly contradictory commitment to moral proscription (esp. regarding "vice crimes"). To what extent is it right for a nation to dictate the lifestyle choices of its citizens? If I'm practicing X (fill in what you like), the first question to ask is, "what's wrong with X?". And if you can't convince everyone that X is fine (and it's inevitable that you won't), then the next question becomes, "if YOU don't like X, what's wrong with ME doing it?" Two responses to this question could be, it's unethical (it violates someone's rights), and it's immoral (it's "bad" for you). This is in line with my theory that ethics is the objective rules we agree upon, while morality is the subjective rules we decide for ourselves. The moral case may (giving the benefit of the doubt) be a legitimate complaint for the wellbeing of others. But even then, it should be an individual's choice whether or not to lead a "virtuous" life - or even to decide for one's self what constitutes a life of virtue. The ethical case is the only one in which a compulsion to dictate the choices of others (in order to protect innocent victims) would be justified. But even then, it should be undertaken only after a rational and scientific evaluation of the behavior in question.
It's as simple as this: prejudice against porn. Living within porn, by choice, I've found that it can be a pleasant experience. But if you have a prejudice against porn, then you are more likely to notice the bad, miss the good, and interpret the neutral in a negative light. Porn is an intrinsically positive thing, for the individual and society. If there is corruption rampant within it, it is only because good people have forsaken it. But it is worth saving. From outside, the only solution appears to be eradication. But reform is possible.
What's the point of making a skirt into a pair of shorts? Why not just wear shorts? If it's a matter of modesty, you can always put on your own shorts - they even make underwear like that. But a skort takes away that choice, and is an insult to everything skirts stand for.
While it's true that the taboo created by a textile culture can enhance the excitement of nudity through novelty, even in a hypothetical perfect nudist utopia, in which everyone is always naked, people would still be attracted to human bodies. It's how we're designed.
I don't WANT nudism to be "a refuge from sex". That doesn't mean I think nudists should permit open sex acts, or that I disagree with the fundamental non-sexuality of nudism. But if it's "normal, just naked", then it should be no more or less sexual than textile culture.
Honestly, I've encountered a lot of rhetoric about "sexualization". But do you know what's more harmful? Politicization. People politicize everything these days, and it's destroying our society. At least sex is a good thing. Why do people want to add politics to everything?
A police force that doesn't inspire trust in its citizens is just government-backed terrorism. With power comes responsibility. Abuse it, and lose it. Gun-toting authority figures don't get a free pass just because their job is dangerous. A badge is EARNED, or it is meaningless.
Predatory behavior is not the manifestation of an abnormal appetite, but a selfish disregard of ethics in pursuit of what is otherwise an ordinary hunger. It is not the desire itself, but the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve one's desire that is the moral failing.
It is impolite to stare, because staring makes people uncomfortable. But the impulse, when driven by curiosity or admiration, is not evil. One of the things I appreciate about the spirit of nudism, in opposition to the textile mindset, is the notion that it is okay to look. In other words, that one is allowed to indulge in a feast for the eyes. But how to do so without making anyone uncomfortable? This is one of the perks of performance art, in which performers - whether they consider themselves exhibitionists or not - permit themselves to be viewed at length by spectators - whether they consider themselves voyeurs or not. Better yet, visual recordings and reproductions may be scrutinized indefinitely, for public AND private reasons. This is why I produce video and photographic art.
(Volume 4)
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Ten Years of Truth & Beauty
I've been reminiscing over the last month in anticipation of this blog's ten year anniversary. Can you believe it? I've been posting my thoughts (and a lot of my photography) on this blog for ten years, and it's still a regular fixture in my life. Then again, looking back at the first year of posts on this blog, I'm surprised at how early I was debating some of the very same issues that continue to plague me today (although it seems as though I really began to hit my stride around 2016) - such as the tenuous line between erotic photography and nudism, the inadequacy of cis-normative conceptions of sexual orientation, and the misrepresentation of voyeurism and exhibitionism. But does that mean I should hang up my hat, and call it a day? Surely, by now, I've said everything I have to say on these topics. Right?
Except that this blog serves as a therapeutic outlet for my tireless mental processes. And I enjoy writing for it. In ten years, I have posted a whopping 1,332 entries. Yet, that is a huge and intimidating barrier of entry for new readers. I wanted to compile a "top ten" or "best of" list to accompany this post, but even with a month's preparation, that would have required an inordinate amount of reading (and digestion) on my part. Still, I browsed through the archives, and tracked down some of my more memorable posts (numbering in the dozens), that I think are among the most insightful, or entertaining to read. I've split them into general categories for your convenience (with the understanding that a lot of these issues frequently overlap).
Art, Modeling, and Photography
The Principles of Exposure
Body Appeal (And Other Issues)
Construction (and Deconstruction)
The Best of Cocktoberfest
How To Clone Yourself
Four Phases
Straight Model, Gay Audience
Filtering
Rise of the Semi
Decade Comparisons
Nudism
My Life In Nudism
Spending a Day at a Nudist Resort
Contemplating a Nudist-Friendly World
Conversations with a Nudist
Nude At Home
Nudists and Tanning
Gymnophilia
Nudism's Appeal to Nature
A Nudist Survey
Clearing Up A Misconception
Voyeurism & Exhibitionism
The Illicit(?) Thrill of Nudity
Cost Benefits of Naked Exhibition
Seeking Diplomacy in a Culture of Exploitation
The Voyeur's Temptation
Flashing a Smile
Voyeurexhibitionism
Nudity in the Park
School Dress Code
Sexy Superpowers
A Statement on Exhibitionism
Peer-2-Peer Versus Broadcast Models of Internet Sexuality
Sex-Positivity
Sexual Compliments...For Dummies
For an Ethical Morality
Constructing Society
Why Care About Sex Worker's Rights?
5 Myths About Porn
Sexology, Perversion, and Asocial Sexuality
The Conventional Narrative of Love and Sex
Fetishizing Virginity
Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?
Bad Reality, Good Fantasy
Mortality
Benefit of the Doubt
Mental Autonomy
Two Kinds of Sex-Positivity
Trafficking or Prostitution?
Three Definitions of Porn
Feminism
Speedos for Feminism
My Annual Speedo Rant
The Definition of Feminism (Note: this post turned out to be the first in a five-day series that continues in Feminism Strikes Again, Bullet Style, A New Outlook, and, finally, Further Thoughts on "Sexualization")
In Defense of Sexy Cosplay
Top Google Results - "no speedos" rule
Water Park
Teaching Girls To Sext
Why I Wear Swim Briefs
Dressed To Distraction
Gender Studies
The Gender Scale
Adventures of a Transgender MtF in Hicksville, USA
Hard To Categorize
"Gay" and "Straight" are Cis-sexist Terms
The Third Field
The Genderbread Person
Straight Male (and Related Meanderings)
What if Orientation is just a Preference?
Except that this blog serves as a therapeutic outlet for my tireless mental processes. And I enjoy writing for it. In ten years, I have posted a whopping 1,332 entries. Yet, that is a huge and intimidating barrier of entry for new readers. I wanted to compile a "top ten" or "best of" list to accompany this post, but even with a month's preparation, that would have required an inordinate amount of reading (and digestion) on my part. Still, I browsed through the archives, and tracked down some of my more memorable posts (numbering in the dozens), that I think are among the most insightful, or entertaining to read. I've split them into general categories for your convenience (with the understanding that a lot of these issues frequently overlap).
Art, Modeling, and Photography
The Principles of Exposure
Body Appeal (And Other Issues)
Construction (and Deconstruction)
The Best of Cocktoberfest
How To Clone Yourself
Four Phases
Straight Model, Gay Audience
Filtering
Rise of the Semi
Decade Comparisons
Nudism
My Life In Nudism
Spending a Day at a Nudist Resort
Contemplating a Nudist-Friendly World
Conversations with a Nudist
Nude At Home
Nudists and Tanning
Gymnophilia
Nudism's Appeal to Nature
A Nudist Survey
Clearing Up A Misconception
Voyeurism & Exhibitionism
The Illicit(?) Thrill of Nudity
Cost Benefits of Naked Exhibition
Seeking Diplomacy in a Culture of Exploitation
The Voyeur's Temptation
Flashing a Smile
Voyeurexhibitionism
Nudity in the Park
School Dress Code
Sexy Superpowers
A Statement on Exhibitionism
Peer-2-Peer Versus Broadcast Models of Internet Sexuality
Sex-Positivity
Sexual Compliments...For Dummies
For an Ethical Morality
Constructing Society
Why Care About Sex Worker's Rights?
5 Myths About Porn
Sexology, Perversion, and Asocial Sexuality
The Conventional Narrative of Love and Sex
Fetishizing Virginity
Sexual Consent - Right or Privilege?
Bad Reality, Good Fantasy
Mortality
Benefit of the Doubt
Mental Autonomy
Two Kinds of Sex-Positivity
Trafficking or Prostitution?
Three Definitions of Porn
Feminism
Speedos for Feminism
My Annual Speedo Rant
The Definition of Feminism (Note: this post turned out to be the first in a five-day series that continues in Feminism Strikes Again, Bullet Style, A New Outlook, and, finally, Further Thoughts on "Sexualization")
In Defense of Sexy Cosplay
Top Google Results - "no speedos" rule
Water Park
Teaching Girls To Sext
Why I Wear Swim Briefs
Dressed To Distraction
Gender Studies
The Gender Scale
Adventures of a Transgender MtF in Hicksville, USA
Hard To Categorize
"Gay" and "Straight" are Cis-sexist Terms
The Third Field
The Genderbread Person
Straight Male (and Related Meanderings)
What if Orientation is just a Preference?
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Desensitization to Nudity
"...there is truly no reason for clothing in the comfort of our own homes, or outdoors on a beautiful sunny day."
I just came across a really great article [broken link] that, if not for the images of nudity accompanying it (although I, personally, enjoy the images), I would be tempted to present to a general audience, to explain to those curious what makes nudism so appealing. I just have one comment about the discussion in the two paragraphs preceding the section subtitled "The Illusion of Shame".
Textiles often assume that regular exposure to nudity will either overtax or short-circuit their erotic response to the human body. In other words, they fear that they will either constantly be thinking of sex, or else that they will lose their ability to appreciate the sex appeal of nudity. The author of this article adequately addresses the former case, explaining that people frequently exposed to nudity tend to become desensitized to it. But in so doing, fails to recognize that he is contributing to the concerns of those at the other extreme.
Moreover, the author compounds the tenuousness of his position by making claims that would seem to support the "escalation model" of erotic conditioning - this specious idea that a person exposed to erotic triggers will need increasingly more extreme stimuli in order to get off, like an addict developing tolerance. Do people have a tendency to expand their erotic horizons, and seek novelty in sexual stimuli? Of course! But if this model were accurate, then it would only be a matter of time before all of us, with the proper exposure, would grow tired of the most extreme porn and completely burn out our libidos, becoming no longer capable of arousal - and this just isn't how human sexuality works. How else can you explain the fact that I've seen hardcore pornography, yet I still get excited every time I see a pretty girl, even when she's dressed? (Although, yes, any amount of exposed skin will enhance the experience).
"Simple nudity just doesn’t stay sexy for long"
It's true that people regularly exposed to nudity have a tendency to become desensitized to it. And that's a good thing - not being driven into a frenzy every time a bare breast enters your field of vision. But there is a middle ground between thinking about sex every time you see a naked person, and becoming incapable of finding a naked person sexy. The latter doesn't happen just because you've seen a lot of nudity. That wouldn't make sense, from an evolutionary perspective.
Take me, for example. I've been a nudist and a nude photographer for many years now. I surround myself with nudity, whether in person or online - and of both models and regular people - on a daily basis. Yes, it loses its novelty. And as I've said, that's a good thing. It's called maturity. But I still think nudity can be exciting. There's a reason I haven't given up on being a nude artist by now. Seeing a lot of naked bodies doesn't blind me or numb me to their beauty, or their potential for eroticism.
I just came across a really great article [broken link] that, if not for the images of nudity accompanying it (although I, personally, enjoy the images), I would be tempted to present to a general audience, to explain to those curious what makes nudism so appealing. I just have one comment about the discussion in the two paragraphs preceding the section subtitled "The Illusion of Shame".
Textiles often assume that regular exposure to nudity will either overtax or short-circuit their erotic response to the human body. In other words, they fear that they will either constantly be thinking of sex, or else that they will lose their ability to appreciate the sex appeal of nudity. The author of this article adequately addresses the former case, explaining that people frequently exposed to nudity tend to become desensitized to it. But in so doing, fails to recognize that he is contributing to the concerns of those at the other extreme.
Moreover, the author compounds the tenuousness of his position by making claims that would seem to support the "escalation model" of erotic conditioning - this specious idea that a person exposed to erotic triggers will need increasingly more extreme stimuli in order to get off, like an addict developing tolerance. Do people have a tendency to expand their erotic horizons, and seek novelty in sexual stimuli? Of course! But if this model were accurate, then it would only be a matter of time before all of us, with the proper exposure, would grow tired of the most extreme porn and completely burn out our libidos, becoming no longer capable of arousal - and this just isn't how human sexuality works. How else can you explain the fact that I've seen hardcore pornography, yet I still get excited every time I see a pretty girl, even when she's dressed? (Although, yes, any amount of exposed skin will enhance the experience).
"Simple nudity just doesn’t stay sexy for long"
It's true that people regularly exposed to nudity have a tendency to become desensitized to it. And that's a good thing - not being driven into a frenzy every time a bare breast enters your field of vision. But there is a middle ground between thinking about sex every time you see a naked person, and becoming incapable of finding a naked person sexy. The latter doesn't happen just because you've seen a lot of nudity. That wouldn't make sense, from an evolutionary perspective.
Take me, for example. I've been a nudist and a nude photographer for many years now. I surround myself with nudity, whether in person or online - and of both models and regular people - on a daily basis. Yes, it loses its novelty. And as I've said, that's a good thing. It's called maturity. But I still think nudity can be exciting. There's a reason I haven't given up on being a nude artist by now. Seeing a lot of naked bodies doesn't blind me or numb me to their beauty, or their potential for eroticism.
Monday, April 27, 2020
A Summer Without Pools
A summer without pools is like Christmas without presents. And I'd happily give up Christmas to live an endless summer.
At the moment, the prospect of being able to go to the pool this summer is looking pretty grim. (For once, you might get through the summer without having to listen to me rant about the stigma of men's swim briefs in this country :-p). And I was thinking about how sad it will be not to be able to lounge in the heat and sunshine, and splash about - of course, even without a pool, I can do these things at home, in my back yard, with the garden hose. But what I can't get at home is all the eye candy; and I'm not gonna lie to you about how much I enjoy the sight of attractive young women in barely there bikinis, skin glistening wet - all in close proximity.
I have mixed feelings about stating this so openly, because on the one hand, it seems stupidly obvious, and something that I'm sure a lot of people appreciate about pool culture, without it needing to be said - or, rather, refraining from saying it because, on the other hand, you're liable to be labeled a "pervert". And yeah, I am a pervert, but that doesn't mean I want people associating me with all the bad things that tend to go along with that. I'm not a creep or a predator just because I'm not ashamed to enjoy the erotic pleasures in life.
Because, although the pool is a place where people (and some, perhaps even many of them, will undoubtedly be attractive) congregate while dressed in scandalously skimpy clothing (despite the fact that, aside from the buttoned-up prudes that most people rightfully ignore, nobody ever seems to acknowledge that there's anything indecent or inappropriate, or indeed even threatening to a "family friendly" atmosphere, about all this nubile flesh on display, in public - I just don't understand how this can all be taken for granted in the narrow context of a beach or swimming pool, but just about anywhere else, similar exposure is grounds for serious concern or alarm), I feel that there is something untoward about admitting that you enjoy those sights on display.
Like, you can go there and get an eyeful, and as long as you behave, there's no problem. But if you were to, say, come right out and express the desire to be surrounded by scantily clad women (or even suggest to the women you might otherwise be surrounded by that you would enjoy seeing them in less clothing), you would be drawn and quartered. Or, in the best case scenario, your request would be laughed off, and the women still wouldn't consider disrobing.
And I just want to say, what's so wrong with that desire, anyway? Is there some reason - some obligation we have - that it ought not to be fulfilled? Does enjoying that somehow make you a bad person? Or is it because we've been exposed to too many bad role models, and the public consciousness associates those sorts of desires with bad men - predatory, chauvinistic, single-minded males who habitually harass and objectify women?
I have nothing but respect for the fairer sex. I treat them as human beings. I also really enjoy the sight of their bodies. Not to the exclusion of their minds, or personalities. But if I enjoy their bodies, too, is that wrong? Is that not an earthly pleasure we should be allowed to indulge in? Openly and honestly, and not pursued by surreptitious means (the difference between keeping mum and satisfying yourself with whatever you can get, versus asking straight out for what it is you want in life). Because I seem to encounter an awful lot of barriers to doing just that, and it's frustrating.
At the moment, the prospect of being able to go to the pool this summer is looking pretty grim. (For once, you might get through the summer without having to listen to me rant about the stigma of men's swim briefs in this country :-p). And I was thinking about how sad it will be not to be able to lounge in the heat and sunshine, and splash about - of course, even without a pool, I can do these things at home, in my back yard, with the garden hose. But what I can't get at home is all the eye candy; and I'm not gonna lie to you about how much I enjoy the sight of attractive young women in barely there bikinis, skin glistening wet - all in close proximity.
I have mixed feelings about stating this so openly, because on the one hand, it seems stupidly obvious, and something that I'm sure a lot of people appreciate about pool culture, without it needing to be said - or, rather, refraining from saying it because, on the other hand, you're liable to be labeled a "pervert". And yeah, I am a pervert, but that doesn't mean I want people associating me with all the bad things that tend to go along with that. I'm not a creep or a predator just because I'm not ashamed to enjoy the erotic pleasures in life.
Because, although the pool is a place where people (and some, perhaps even many of them, will undoubtedly be attractive) congregate while dressed in scandalously skimpy clothing (despite the fact that, aside from the buttoned-up prudes that most people rightfully ignore, nobody ever seems to acknowledge that there's anything indecent or inappropriate, or indeed even threatening to a "family friendly" atmosphere, about all this nubile flesh on display, in public - I just don't understand how this can all be taken for granted in the narrow context of a beach or swimming pool, but just about anywhere else, similar exposure is grounds for serious concern or alarm), I feel that there is something untoward about admitting that you enjoy those sights on display.
Like, you can go there and get an eyeful, and as long as you behave, there's no problem. But if you were to, say, come right out and express the desire to be surrounded by scantily clad women (or even suggest to the women you might otherwise be surrounded by that you would enjoy seeing them in less clothing), you would be drawn and quartered. Or, in the best case scenario, your request would be laughed off, and the women still wouldn't consider disrobing.
And I just want to say, what's so wrong with that desire, anyway? Is there some reason - some obligation we have - that it ought not to be fulfilled? Does enjoying that somehow make you a bad person? Or is it because we've been exposed to too many bad role models, and the public consciousness associates those sorts of desires with bad men - predatory, chauvinistic, single-minded males who habitually harass and objectify women?
I have nothing but respect for the fairer sex. I treat them as human beings. I also really enjoy the sight of their bodies. Not to the exclusion of their minds, or personalities. But if I enjoy their bodies, too, is that wrong? Is that not an earthly pleasure we should be allowed to indulge in? Openly and honestly, and not pursued by surreptitious means (the difference between keeping mum and satisfying yourself with whatever you can get, versus asking straight out for what it is you want in life). Because I seem to encounter an awful lot of barriers to doing just that, and it's frustrating.
Saturday, April 4, 2020
Incidentally Erect
Nudists take nudity - something that, in a textile society, is often associated with sex - and interject it into an otherwise totally non-sexual lifestyle. Now, stepping back from the textile perspective, it's not altogether illogical to consider the unclothed human body separate from the act of sex. One would have a harder time, however, making a similar argument for erections, which are a physiological process designed to prepare the male organ for sexual penetration (of the female). Nevertheless, there is some little room for that argument, as erections may be stimulated psychologically or even with incidental contact, without the presence of, or even necessarily the intent to engage in, any explicit sexual conduct.
[description: series of portraits of a naked man playing volleyball outdoors with an erection]
I would not spend too much time arguing that the selective exhibition of such cases of erection-absent-sex (with "sex", I suppose - by a broad definition - potentially including such things as manual stimulation - e.g., with the hands or other body parts - or actions such as thrusting of the hips) would not carry with it some level of erotic intent on the part of the producer/distributor, or that it would not primarily be viewed in such a fashion by its consumers. However, it would seem to strike an ironic parallel with nudists' attempts to "desexualize" nudity: by featuring erections in everyday situations, without making any overtures toward the organ's sexual function.
Is there such a thing as a "non-sexual erection"? And even if we must conclude that there is not, could there not still be individuals with an interest in erections depicted in non-sexual contexts? Some might say, "what's the point? You're showing an erection. Most people would consider that sexual. You've already crossed that line, so you might as well go all in." But I think that the novelty of an erection appearing outside of a sexual context could very well have a unique appeal to a subset of the population. After all, in the realm of pornography, "softcore" may be considered by many to be a synonym for "watered-down", yet it remains a popular subgenre for a great many people who can appreciate the subtle art of suggestion over a more direct, in-your-face approach. I, personally, while tending to lean more toward softcore, maintain that both approaches are interesting, and worthwhile to explore.
If anything, though, I think this demonstrates that erections themselves (independent of what's being done with them) should not necessarily be considered "sexually explicit". How is a non-sexual scene with an erection any more shocking or alarming than it would be if the penis it featured were flaccid? What is it about the shape and size and turgidity of a penis that agitates people? Is the stiffness of a penis uniquely offensive in a way that a view of the organ itself, in its restful state, is not? Or is it because it is liable to invite questions, or direct one's thoughts toward the "immoral" subject of sex? (Although, in a textile society, one could say the same thing about nudity in general; the fact that nudists have divested themselves of this assumption is only evidence that the same could perhaps be accomplished in a more erection-tolerant society).
I feel (and I could be wrong - this is just my personal impression) that a great proportion of the perceived offensiveness of pornography is in its vulgarity - the closeup on body organs, the liberal depiction of bodily fluids, and the great diversity in the distinction individuals make between what is appealing, sexually, and what is disgusting (as well as the variability in a single individual's opinion depending on whether or not he is currently aroused - a character flaw the Marquis de Sade once cautioned against). None of this would seem to me to hinge primarily on whether or not a penis is hard or soft. I maintain that if you have the maturity to see a penis in its flaccid state, then there is no reason you should not be able to handle the sight of it erect.
[description: series of portraits of a naked man playing volleyball outdoors with an erection]
I would not spend too much time arguing that the selective exhibition of such cases of erection-absent-sex (with "sex", I suppose - by a broad definition - potentially including such things as manual stimulation - e.g., with the hands or other body parts - or actions such as thrusting of the hips) would not carry with it some level of erotic intent on the part of the producer/distributor, or that it would not primarily be viewed in such a fashion by its consumers. However, it would seem to strike an ironic parallel with nudists' attempts to "desexualize" nudity: by featuring erections in everyday situations, without making any overtures toward the organ's sexual function.
Is there such a thing as a "non-sexual erection"? And even if we must conclude that there is not, could there not still be individuals with an interest in erections depicted in non-sexual contexts? Some might say, "what's the point? You're showing an erection. Most people would consider that sexual. You've already crossed that line, so you might as well go all in." But I think that the novelty of an erection appearing outside of a sexual context could very well have a unique appeal to a subset of the population. After all, in the realm of pornography, "softcore" may be considered by many to be a synonym for "watered-down", yet it remains a popular subgenre for a great many people who can appreciate the subtle art of suggestion over a more direct, in-your-face approach. I, personally, while tending to lean more toward softcore, maintain that both approaches are interesting, and worthwhile to explore.
If anything, though, I think this demonstrates that erections themselves (independent of what's being done with them) should not necessarily be considered "sexually explicit". How is a non-sexual scene with an erection any more shocking or alarming than it would be if the penis it featured were flaccid? What is it about the shape and size and turgidity of a penis that agitates people? Is the stiffness of a penis uniquely offensive in a way that a view of the organ itself, in its restful state, is not? Or is it because it is liable to invite questions, or direct one's thoughts toward the "immoral" subject of sex? (Although, in a textile society, one could say the same thing about nudity in general; the fact that nudists have divested themselves of this assumption is only evidence that the same could perhaps be accomplished in a more erection-tolerant society).
I feel (and I could be wrong - this is just my personal impression) that a great proportion of the perceived offensiveness of pornography is in its vulgarity - the closeup on body organs, the liberal depiction of bodily fluids, and the great diversity in the distinction individuals make between what is appealing, sexually, and what is disgusting (as well as the variability in a single individual's opinion depending on whether or not he is currently aroused - a character flaw the Marquis de Sade once cautioned against). None of this would seem to me to hinge primarily on whether or not a penis is hard or soft. I maintain that if you have the maturity to see a penis in its flaccid state, then there is no reason you should not be able to handle the sight of it erect.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
On The Misrepresentation of Exhibitionism
We're in the early part of spring when the weather is becoming mild, yet the trees are still mostly bare, only a few of them beginning to bud. I found myself desiring fresh air in my lungs and warm sunshine on my skin. So I went outside to toss my volleyball around - for the first time this year! - in spite of the fact that it's still unclear the extent to which everybody's regular summer plans will be affected by the pandemic we are in the midst of. Will there even be volleyball tournaments this summer? And even if they are still held, will I consider it wise to attend them? It's too soon to tell.
So I was tossing my volleyball around, and I was feeling distinctly self-conscious about the many windows with partial views onto my back yard, thinking that I was looking forward to when the trees fill in and the yard becomes considerably more private. And it struck me that there are a lot of people (especially nudists I've grappled with online) that would simply not accept that an exhibitionist could feel this way. And I realized that this was an excellent example of what I've tried to explain many times before about exhibitionism.
Firstly, I am a nudist. Genuinely. I like to be naked in non-sexual situations for comfort, convenience, and about twenty other reasons I've written about in a book I've published. But I am also an exhibitionist. I have recorded videos of myself not just naked but masturbating (and in some cases having sex with another person - with her full consent, of course) for anonymous strangers to view and appreciate. I get off on random people making sexual comments about my naked body (online - where it is easier to maintain the boundary between vision and contact). I dare anyone to define me as anything other than an exhibitionist. Yet I still can be self-conscious exposing myself to unsuspecting people. Because I care about consent. And shocking and offending people, or getting caught and dealing with repercussions, does not interest me or turn me on.
Yet there are those who would tell you that I don't exist. That I must be lying about the way I feel. Or that I am so rare an anomaly that my perspective doesn't count. They make assumptions, and jump to conclusions about exhibitionism, based on sensationalist news reports and cultural stereotypes, without direct, firsthand experience with exhibitionism, and often in flagrant contradiction to what exhibitionists will freely tell you about themselves. They talk about "trench coat flashers" on the subway with a straight face, not realizing that this caricature is no less cartoonish than a criminal twirling a handlebar mustache. And they refuse to listen when you say so.
I am an exhibitionist. I am not some sex pervert that lives on the fringes of society, some antisocial vagabond who doesn't know how to interact civilly with other people, a disgusting criminal eroding the fabric of society, for whom it's only a matter of time before I cross some line and have to be put away for the good of mankind. I'm a person - a human being, just like you. Not all exhibitionists are the same, but I'm intelligent. I'm well-bred. I'm decent, and I know how to treat people with respect. I'm a part of society. I contribute to society. Society is better off for having me in it. And my exhibitionist feelings are not a disease or a sickness, or a criminal compulsion, but a wondrous example of human diversity. And I am not the only one like me.
So I was tossing my volleyball around, and I was feeling distinctly self-conscious about the many windows with partial views onto my back yard, thinking that I was looking forward to when the trees fill in and the yard becomes considerably more private. And it struck me that there are a lot of people (especially nudists I've grappled with online) that would simply not accept that an exhibitionist could feel this way. And I realized that this was an excellent example of what I've tried to explain many times before about exhibitionism.
Firstly, I am a nudist. Genuinely. I like to be naked in non-sexual situations for comfort, convenience, and about twenty other reasons I've written about in a book I've published. But I am also an exhibitionist. I have recorded videos of myself not just naked but masturbating (and in some cases having sex with another person - with her full consent, of course) for anonymous strangers to view and appreciate. I get off on random people making sexual comments about my naked body (online - where it is easier to maintain the boundary between vision and contact). I dare anyone to define me as anything other than an exhibitionist. Yet I still can be self-conscious exposing myself to unsuspecting people. Because I care about consent. And shocking and offending people, or getting caught and dealing with repercussions, does not interest me or turn me on.
Yet there are those who would tell you that I don't exist. That I must be lying about the way I feel. Or that I am so rare an anomaly that my perspective doesn't count. They make assumptions, and jump to conclusions about exhibitionism, based on sensationalist news reports and cultural stereotypes, without direct, firsthand experience with exhibitionism, and often in flagrant contradiction to what exhibitionists will freely tell you about themselves. They talk about "trench coat flashers" on the subway with a straight face, not realizing that this caricature is no less cartoonish than a criminal twirling a handlebar mustache. And they refuse to listen when you say so.
I am an exhibitionist. I am not some sex pervert that lives on the fringes of society, some antisocial vagabond who doesn't know how to interact civilly with other people, a disgusting criminal eroding the fabric of society, for whom it's only a matter of time before I cross some line and have to be put away for the good of mankind. I'm a person - a human being, just like you. Not all exhibitionists are the same, but I'm intelligent. I'm well-bred. I'm decent, and I know how to treat people with respect. I'm a part of society. I contribute to society. Society is better off for having me in it. And my exhibitionist feelings are not a disease or a sickness, or a criminal compulsion, but a wondrous example of human diversity. And I am not the only one like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)