Truth in Beauty

The genesis of this blog was founded on the proposition that we should be truthful about the things that we find beautiful (in particular, from an erotic perspective). I've spent these last 10+ years exploring what I find attractive through my photography (within the limits of self-reflection), and discussing it unselfconsciously on this blog. But in my years of shooting self-portraits for adoring fans, I've come to realize that it's also important to trust in the truth of what others find beautiful. Especially when that beauty is in you.

We all have hang-ups and insecurities about our appearance. While it can be a selective profession, modeling has taught me how to view myself from another's perspective. (Having an adoring partner that you trust can also have this effect, but I find that being admired, repeatedly, by complete strangers who have nothing to gain from flattering me - except seeing more to admire - is pretty compelling evidence).

Nobody's perfect, and people can sometimes be cruel, but it's often true that we are ourselves our own harshest critics. So be kind to yourself, and when somebody tells you you're beautiful, don't contradict them. I feel like our culture makes self-confidence out to be a personality flaw, but honestly, I think self-deprecation is unattractive. If you don't believe in yourself, then why should anyone else believe in you?

"Oh beautiful, why are you so blue?
If you could only see the way I see you."
- Joe Bonamassa

Understanding Exhibitionism (in a Consent Culture)

Perhaps I am too critical of those who misunderstand exhibitionism, because I am still trying to understand it myself. Though to be fair, the least I expect is patience, and to be given the benefit of the doubt, while most people would rather just plug their ears and go on judging people by their ignorant stereotypes. I know this much: standing naked in the garage with the side door open may turn me on, but I don't actually want my elderly neighbor across the street, or the visitor she's talking to on her porch, to see me like this. I really don't. That would be as traumatizing to me as I can only presume* it would be to them.

I might have some fantasy in my head of a world where public displays of sex are accepted and everybody is attractive (because I don't know about you, but being a voyeur doesn't mean I want to see just ANYONE "getting nasty" - and maybe that's the whole point of keeping these things private?). But I know that's a fantasy and not the way the world is. And I don't want anyone to "catch" me except those who I know are looking for it (which is why I do it in online environments that are vetted for consenting viewers (although I don't believe that tasteful depictions of nudity and even sexual acts ought to be considered inappropriate for public view, that's the world we currently live in)) but also won't be likely to harass me - whether it's in the form of negative or positive attention (which is why I do it anonymously online and not with people I know and interact with regularly in person - so I don't have to be a "sex idol" 24/7).

An Aside

*I may be projecting by even considering the possibility that anyone would NOT be traumatized by the sight of their neighbor engaged in sex play**, but the fact is, if our roles were reversed in this instance, I would not mind. (I can only dream of living next to an attractive exhibitionist when I grow old - it would truly brighten my life). And so it's really not fair to eliminate the possibility, however rare it may be.

Furthermore, I know that, in consent culture, asking is preferable to making assumptions, but would you really have me initiate a conversation about sexual fetishism with my [elderly, I remind you] neighbor? Even if I weren't a social recluse (who doesn't keep a running conversation with my neighbors), that would still seem inappropriate.

Anyway, the question is moot, because even if they would be interested, I myself probably wouldn't be comfortable with that. The ideal approach would be total indifference, so I could just do my thing without interference (one way or another). Although, even that would present issues, as (ironic though it is for an exhibitionist) I become very self-conscious in situations in which I know that at any time somebody could be watching me. (I suppose it's not a coincidence that this makes staying out of sight, as well as performing on camera instead of in front of people, much more appealing to me).

**On second thought, what has this world come to that this is not at least a natural consideration? Of course it is understood that there are people who would love to see their neighbors naked, but the difference is that nowadays they are considered dangerous and not simply mischievous. But can we not separate the willingness to circumvent the law and privacy (antisocial criminal behaviors) from the appreciation of erotic stimuli? Why are voyeurs so summarily dismissed without considering the existence of exhibitionists (and vice versa)?

Back on Track

Getting back to the subject at hand, there is the fact that, psychologically, when I encounter a liminal space (such as a window or a door or a gateway) - a space where I can be in proximity to public view but still safely out of sight - even (or perhaps especially, provided I know I am not in immediate danger of being spotted) when there are people blissfully unaware on the other side...I say, occasionally (which is to say, certainly not every time), when I am in the right frame of mind and I encounter such a space, the thought or the act of being naked and/or naughty in that space can really turn me on. It's not that I WANT it to. It just does. And it feels great. And as long as nobody else gets involved - or even knows that it has happened - then is there any harm?

I don't actually want to step out and surprise anybody (I'm not saying I wouldn't necessarily enjoy the experience of performing in front of an adoring audience, but that's hardly the sort of situation one commonly encounters in everyday life). But there is a thrill in the taboo - the naughtiness of juxtaposing sexual and non-sexual life. Coming as close to that boundary as is safe without going so far as to actually get caught* (it's safer than autoerotic asphyxiation, after all).

Getting Caught

*Now, I know, there are voyeurs and exhibitionists that think getting caught is part of the appeal. And it can certainly be a thrilling experience (in a similar way that staring death in the face can be "thrilling"). I think I can understand that. In a world where the person catching you is, at worst, a little shocked and dismayed but not otherwise harmed, and at best, appreciative of the unexpected view - then yeah, that can be exciting, in a way that it wouldn't be in a world where this sort of thing were commonplace. But in a world where people complain about the trauma of being "nonconsensually exposed" to nudity and/or sex, and make anyone resposonible for that sort of thing out to be a dangerous predator**, it loses a lot of its appeal.

**I'm not gonna lie, the fact that people suffer instead of appreciate this kind of light-hearted sexual mischief disappoints and confuses me. I know there are people out there who misbehave and hurt others in the process, and that's tragic. They hurt conscientious perverts as well as the victims they target, but it's much harder for the perverts to disassociate themselves because the predators are using the same tools as they do, albeit for more nefarious purposes. But why do we give abusers the power to ruin sex for everyone? As Lola from Big Mouth so eloquently put it, "touching boobs and rubbing fronts doesn't make you feel shitty; mean jerks make you feel shitty. If there weren't any mean jerks, it would be fine."

Being Seen

For some people, there is an intrinsic appeal in being seen while engaged in sexual behavior. Certainly not everyone would agree, but this is the basis for exhibitionism. Sex is such a secret, compartmentalized aspect of our lives. To be completely open about it can be a liberating feeling. So "getting caught" is just a form of letting go and allowing oneself to be totally uninhibited. Ideally, one would be seen by somebody who enjoys the view, but as hard as it is to find such an audience in a sexually-repressed culture* (the internet helps, but it's more visceral when it happens in person), one often has little recourse other than the occasional, not-so-unintentioned "oops" moment.

If this sort of exhibitionist mentality (i.e., "if people occasionally get caught having sex, it's no big deal") encroaches on the decorum of polite society, that's not an indictment of the exhibitionist impulse, or proof that exhibitionism is motivated by sinister intentions (e.g., "exhibitionists get off on disgusting other people"). It just means that we're neglecting exhibitionists, in the sense of not giving them sufficient opportunities to satisfy themselves in ways that don't disrupt society. It's not that society owes it to them, but it's in their interest to collaborate, rather than antagonize.

Besides, exhibitionists would be perfectly capable of applying their own imagination to the problem - it's not that we have to come up with a solution for them. We just have to give them the freedom to think of one, and the space to implement it - without cornering them and judging them, and burdening them with the shame of their feelings. Imagine what kind of a safe and consensual outlet virtual reality could provide to exhibitionists, yet we waste our energy condemning the application of entertainment technologies to addressing the human animal's natural and healthy sexual urges. A person that visits a "sex club" (or even just watches porn at home) should be considered a responsible citizen attending to his physiological needs, and not a filthy deviant. Sexual indulgence (within healthy limits) shouldn't be considered a "vice" alongside things like gambling, drug abuse, and violence.

*Do we live in a sexually-repressed culture? I think this is a hard question to answer, because in many ways we do, while in other ways we don't. It all depends on what segment of society you're canvassing, and what types of behaviors you're talking about. Pornography is a huge industry, yet sex work is still criminalized. Erotic stimuli pervades society (critics deem this "pornification"), yet innocent nudity is deemed inappropriate for public view. Casual sex and hetero-non-normative couplings are more tolerated than ever, yet we still cling to the medically-dubious diagnosis of "sex addiction". Consent culture promises to reduce the negative experiences that hinder many people's ability to achieve sexual satisfaction, and yet #metoo is training a whole generation to mistrust the value of their sexual feelings.

Conclusion

I'm not asking for permission to have sex in public. I suspect that wouldn't work out as well in reality as it might seem in fantasy. I'm just asking for exhibitionism to receive the respect of not being assumed to be an inherently predatory ("nonconsensual") class of desire - which places it in the category of unsupported kinks and fetishes even among otherwise sexually liberated and tolerant communities. I'm all for constructing a concept of "ethical exhibitionism". I just don't want to feel like an outcast even among sex-positive progressives, because nature dialed up for me desires from one bin instead of another. It reminds me a lot of the arbitrariness of determining that some people must wear skirts and others must wear pants, just because of the anatomy they were born with (and didn't get to choose).

I don't judge people for what turns them on, I judge them only for what they do with those feelings. But when we push marginalized communities into the corner, and withhold support for them in lieu of shame and judgment, that's on us, too. We're afraid of encouraging "deviant" desires, but the fact is, people will have those feelings whether they're encouraged to or not. The best thing we can do is keep an open dialogue about how one can manage those feelings in healthy ways, so they don't begin to manifest in unhealthy ways. People need to feel that society is on their side (which is not the same thing as giving them carte blanche), otherwise they will grow resentful and become more likely to turn to antisocial outlets.

Best of Both Worlds

This is the issue I have with nudism: I know that sex and nudity are two separate things. But performing naked on camera turns me on. Perhaps that makes me a bad model for nudism (despite the fact that I'm photogenic, I have skills and experience as a photographer, I'm willing to be photographed naked, I believe in nudism, and I'm passionate enough to spend time and effort advocating for it - but none of that matters if you bear the scarlet letter "P" for "Pervert"). But what's wrong with that, really? (Besides the fact that it makes it hard for me to focus on the song I'm playing :-p). It's a beautiful affirmation of life, after all. A penis pointing toward heaven should be a divine symbol, really. What have generations of boorish men done to besmirch this holy appendage, and why do I have to pay for their sins?

Are OnlyFans Models Being Deprived of Fresh Air?

OnlyFans Bans Public Sex

It's sad that sex workers (and erotic content creators in particular) have to live like beaten dogs, humbly accepting every petty restriction placed on them by society and the platforms through which they try against the odds to earn a living. But that's the way things are. So when OnlyFans decides (I was going to say "announces", but they haven't announced anything, it sounds like they've just secretly amended the rules and started punishing the new rulebreakers without warning) to ban "public sex" my reaction is, "well, that makes sense". Public sex is, technically, illegal, and these sites usually forbid illegal content (or they wouldn't be around for long), not out of any sort of moral judgment, but just to cover their asses.

(A separate question, though, is why banks get to determine society's decorum. I mean, it's because money is power, but who's got the money, and do they really deserve it, based on how they're wielding that power? If money is power, and power corrupts, then is it inevitable that a society can only ever be run via corruption? Or is this just more evidence that socialism is superior to capitalism?).

But the part that really concerns me is the fear, enhanced by some reports I've been reading, that OnlyFans is starting to outlaw any and all erotic media shot outdoors - because that's easier than determining what's public and what's private (like how it's easier to ban the sight of genitalia than to determine whether somebody is doing something with it that ought to be considered "indecent"). So, the language of the rule itself is difficult to criticize - banning anything that "was recorded in or is being broadcast from a public place where members of the public are reasonably likely to see the activities being illustrated." But how it's enforced is of more concern. Will I no longer be able to shoot erotic material in my own backyard, because there's a chance that my neighbors could see me? What about a remote hiking trail - who can say how remote it really is, how many regular hikers that trail gets, and what potential cityscape view could be seen if the camera were to be rotated 180 degrees?

Once again, sex workers are being marginalized and pushed into the corners, swept under the rug, and locked up inside our own homes where there's no chance that we'll "bother" anybody. How long will it be before I can no longer even stand naked in front of a window, because we live in a society that's terrified of its own fundamentally sexual nature? I guess I'll find out soon enough, since I shoot a lot of outdoor content, and I'm not about to stop without a direct confirmation that it's not allowed (because it's an artist's duty to push the boundaries and not succumb to a chilling effect which is essentially a muzzle on free speech).

Subject vs. Artist

I sometimes wonder whether I'm a better photographer or a better model. As an artist, I strive to be good at both. It was photography - and not modeling - that got me started. I discovered I was an exhibitionist along the way, but the reason I started taking pictures was because I had an appreciation not for being naked on camera, but for seeing others naked on camera. I had envisioned shooting other models, but I've never had the people skills to make that happen. So instead of just practice, self-portraiture eventually became my everything.

When people appreciate my work, I sense that they view me centrally as an attractive model. But I view the value of what I do a little more broadly than that. I AM an attractive model, and no doubt that's important. But there are a lot of attractive people who don't share themselves with the world like I do. But it's not just willingness, it's the interest and the appreciation that all mixes together to create the intention and the opportunity where I recognize that erotic nude art is valuable and desirable, I have practiced it for years to improve my craft, and I am here to spend time and effort to create it and share it with others.

It's good that I am attractive, and I never would have gotten anywhere if I hadn't had the opportunity to be a successful self-portrait artist, but I feel like my fans are totally caught up in their attraction to me specifically, that all they must think about coming from me in the future is more sexy pictures of me, because I've rarely heard anyone make any comment to the effect of, "boy, I would love to see you apply your camera to other models".

And it's not like I get a lot of attention (that I am aware of) from people who see my art, and may not specifically be attracted to me, but see the value in what I'm doing and what it could do for other models. I've always wanted to create art that doesn't eschew but transcends the erotic value of "a sexy picture", so that it is still sexy but also artistic beyond that in a way that a person can recognize without being specifically attracted to the model featured.

I don't want to disparage in any way the fans that have carried me along, without which I wouldn't be where I am today, joining me with enthusiasm in an activity that I genuinely love. I just want to be more than someone people follow because they think I'm hot (or even that I'm hot and a good artist, but only follow to the extent that they get to continue to view good art that showcases my hotness). I'd like to believe that in my 10+ years of doing this, I am something more than your average 18 year old hottie casually sexting selfies online (who are, nevertheless, a lot more popular than I am).

If I had the opportunity to shoot another model (not just a fellow pervert who thinks having me take pictures of them naked sounds thrilling), I don't know if I could even do it, but that's not the point. I want people to recognize the value of my skills as they could be applied to other models besides myself. Imagine the kinds of pictures I could take of that 18 year old hottie! (But I guess there's no shortage of people willing to fill that role; that's why so much porn is trash). With the combination of my artistic eye and perverted mind, unhindered by the many limitations of self-portrait photography. I don't want to be the only person that imagines these things.

For I am not just the subject of my photography, I am also its author. When you see a picture of me, you see me primarily as the model - the attractive figure central to the work. What you can't usually see, and is easy to acknowledge but harder to keep at the forefront of your mind, is that I am also the architect of that image. The image exists not just because my body looks good, but because my mind conceived of that image, determined that its existence would have value, and put forth both the physical and mental effort to create it from pure imagination. Given the opportunity (and a willing subject), I could do that with any body that looks good - not just my own.

Tweets For Posterity (Volume 6)

Each time I post one of these I wonder, how long will this series go on? And, inevitably, I end up with more Tweets to share before too long. But this time, I'm taking a break from the toxic drama of social media, in order to focus instead on sharing naked, sexy, girly art with my fans on OnlyFans [NSFW]. I have a strong desire to defend myself and what I do in the court of public opinion, but sometimes it's easier to just do it and not worry about making an argument for it. Because you can construct arguments in support of erotic imagery all day long (and I have), but, as I have stated in the past, the best defense against the influence of prudishness is simply to flood the internet with more sexy pics and videos. Spread it faster than they can censor it. -_^

Previous volumes: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

I've argued before that nudists are saner than textiles, who have an irrational phobia of the human body. But I no longer believe that - it's just that a casual attitude toward nudity is the LEAST of many crazy and inconsistent beliefs that nudists typically hold: (*) Nudists don't care who sees them naked. Yet they are terrified of having their picture taken, build tall fences around their resorts, and invest heavily in privacy measures. Because looking at naked bodies is voyeurism. (*) Nudity is always nonsexual. Finding sex appeal in the human body is frowned upon. People are sexier when dressed. The use of the human body for titillation in entertainment media is a social evil that must be stopped. (*) Nudists must present an asexual front at all times. Celibacy may not be expected, but all sexual activities (and desires) must remain private and undisclosed in any public forum. (*) All bodies are beautiful. It is not simply enough to hold one's tongue, a nudist must believe in their heart that all shapes and sizes are equally attractive. Except those that are conventionally attractive. Those bodies don't represent nudism. (*) Nudists promote the normalization of nudity, yet consider any instance of nudity in front of a nonconsenting other to be exhibitionism. Inexplicably, nature hikes and World Naked Bike Rides are exempt from this rule. Am I missing anything?

Not every wolf that dons sheep's clothing does so in deception. Sometimes, it's a show of respect, in an attempt to learn the sheep's ways. But after a prolonged campaign of lupine discrimination, is it any wonder when the wolf eventually turns its back on the flock? "Tell me how long, s'posed to keep a good man down; fore he packs his suitcase, and gets the hell out of town?" The lesson here is not one of distrust and paranoia - "beware those who walk among you" - but the importance of kindness, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion.

I think one of the issues with dogmatic nudists is that they assume their personal definition of nudism is better than anyone else's, and that anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a "true" nudist (or that this is what distinguishes philistine nudists from civilized naturists). The fact is, nudism means different things to different people. And that's okay. For the most part, textiles don't have a problem agreeing to a shared code of conduct in public spaces without it defining their identity or philosophy of life. I don't think it's unreasonable to agree on a few very basic tenets, like that what separates nudism from other instances of nudity is the nonsexual element (a novelty among textiles), or that everybody is welcome (body acceptance doesn't mean you can't have preferences). But anything beyond that is personal and subjective. I actually like the thought of nudism being attached to fitness and healthy living. But I have never once considered somebody "not a nudist" because they drink or smoke. That would be ridiculous.

The textile assumes that nudity is sexual. The nudist declares that it is not. But the realist understands that sometimes it is sexual, and sometimes it is not. Both are good, and they can overlap. It is through context and interpretation that they can be distinguished. The textile's worst crime is ignorance - not knowing the myriad purposes and benefits of nudity beyond the sexual. The nudist's crime is worse - seeing the full picture, and then willfully engaging in self-deception in order to obscure the inconvenient parts of the truth.

I support the normalization of nonsexual nudity, especially in a casual, social, and/or recreational context. But I do NOT support the marginalization of sexual nudity. One does not come only at the expense of the other. I believe we can have both. And nudists should, too. Because nudists are dreaming if they think sexual nudity will ever go away. And worse, they're shooting themselves in the foot by making an impossible demand a requirement for their success - that the survival of nonsexual nudity depends on the defeat of sexual nudity. Humans are so uncivilized. They think the only way to win a battle is to decimate one's opponent. But war hurts everyone. True victory comes from working together. When you march for a cause, you have to remember to stop at the finish line, and not keep marching over a cliff.

Sex appeal pervades mainstream culture - whether you believe this is evidence of the decline of modern civilization, or the natural order of things (I'm inclined toward the latter). Some people want nudism to be a monastic refuge from this, but it doesn't have to be. "Normal, just naked" means that, counter to the expectations of some, there is no more sexual activity than usual just because people are undressed, but that people can still flirt and preen and admire other people's bodies as much as they do when everyone is dressed.

I'm sick of people using "you can't have sex in public" to harass and abuse people for sharing pornography on SUPPORTED platforms, expressing admiration for TASTEFUL erotic art, and enjoying sex appeal in WHOLESOME media that society has deemed "safe for work". "B-b-but, all that stuff is bad because you can't have sex in public in front of kids!" Whoever said anything about that? You're so preoccupied with your illicit fantasies that you wouldn't be able to recognize a logical argument if it fucked you in the ass.

Honestly, I feel like I'm giving a senior thesis on The Nuances of Nudity, and people keep stumbling into the wrong classroom, disrupting the flow of learning with the oversimplified mantras they learned in Nudism 101. Stop being so basic, people.

Talking about sexism a lot of times sounds like gemstones complaining about how shiny they are, and why everyone's always oohing and aahing over them. I'm as sympathetic as anyone who enjoys gemstones can be (and you're free to interpret that how you like), but I think the conversation lacks a certain balance. Maybe the problem is that most gemstone admirers are willfully ignorant of the gemstones' feelings. But I'm not. And if the conversation never bridges the gap, then there will never be any peace between the sexes. In addendum, I'm familiar with the feminist argument that men have had their turn, and now it's women's turn. But I'm egalitarian. Nobody's responsible for what went on before they were born. We ought to move forward TOGETHER, not just by placing the shoe on the other foot.

P.S. I've been conditioned to expect somebody to be offended that I'm comparing people to rocks. I'm not saying they're literally rocks - I even referred to those rocks having feelings. It's just a metaphor. We're still allowed to use metaphors, right? I'm just saying that, even if ALL of your concerns about the effects of admiring gemstones are valid (and I don't mean to imply that they're not), you're still talking about a world in which gemstones exist, and no one is allowed to react to their shininess. And I'm probably exaggerating the case, because there are better and worse ways to admire a gemstone, and probably few people are REALLY arguing that they shouldn't be admired AT ALL. But this performative shock at the very act of them being admired is not living in reality. And I'm sorry to ramble on about this; it probably isn't doing me any favors. I've just never felt more persecuted in my life than for my feelings of admiration particularly for the physical qualities of the female sex, considering how strongly those feelings are rooted. I'm not trying to dodge accountability, or divert responsibility. I just want to feel heard for once in my life about what those feelings mean to me. And that they're not rooted in the desire to hurt or make anyone uncomfortable, because that's all we hear about anymore.

I support everybody's freedom to dress as they are comfortable. And men and women have different rules in this society. Certainly it's not fair that men can be topless and women can't. I just don't think it's a subject that ONLY affects one sex. I do NOT feel comfortable wearing the equivalent of a bikini to the pool (with or without a top), or short shorts on a hot day. I've been harassed. My wardrobe has been policed. This is not JUST a women's issue. It just affects different types of people in different ways.

Oh, and if you think it's hard growing into the societal role of sex object (again, not saying it isn't), in my day, boys were raised with the expectation that they would have to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders; and that's hard, too. Some of us still harbor feelings of inadequacy living our otherwise preferred lifestyles of looking pretty and doing household chores. I don't identify with most men, but that just means I can see the view from both shores. Honestly, I'm a little exasperated by hearing repeatedly how hard women have it, and how much their suffering is caused by men. Not individual male humans, but the general category of penis-bearers. Life is hard. And all kinds of people can be dicks. Women don't have a premium on suffering. There's more than one hierarchy of discrimination in society, and most of us are all in this together. Although we don't see it. Because if we did, we would have the power to turn the world upside-down today.

Nudism is supposed to be relaxing and therapeutic. Why, then, is it frequently a source of anxiety and conflict? Whether it's fighting with textiles about covering up, or quibbling over principles with other nudists, this is not a very peaceful lifestyle. We all just like nudity. For different reasons. Some more than others. Isn't that enough? The textile world doesn't accept us, but it's got us fighting each other over presenting the best face, instead of working together to end the nudity taboo.

I appreciate the uncomplicated beauty of innocent, nonsexual nudity, as well as the raw, unfiltered sexuality that you find in pornography. But I also enjoy nudity that is suggestively erotic, yet tastefully artistic; not completely nonsexual, but not pornographic either. It speaks of the implicit sensuality of an organic existence, attuned to the earthly delights our bodies can provide us. Nudity is not a binary. There's a wondrous spectrum that's missed when every instance of nudity is reductively categorized as either "nudism" or "porn".

Yeah, I'm a little bit insensitive to prudes. I admit it. It's not something I'm proud of. But I do feel justified. When we live in a world free from stigma, then I'll be content to live and let live. As it is, everyone who attacks eroticism contributes to making my life harder.

I don't want to live in a world where subverting conventional gender stereotypes, and being comfortable in one's skin, is more of a bad influence on youth than drinking, smoking, stealing, picking fights, etc. Our very culture is toxic.

I don't like how nudist advocacy makes us bitter and hateful people. I remember when Tumblr was all about people posting hundreds of pictures of naked people they found attractive. And you know what? It was GREAT! It was one of the greatest things the internet ever produced. Why? Because it was people reveling in what they love, instead of railing about what they hate and viewing the world as a threat to their happiness. Which is precisely what sex-negativity accomplishes - wallowing in victimhood and suffering, instead of sharing pleasure.

More nudist hypocrisy: if I share a sexy image, my identity as a nudist is called into question, even while my pictures of "simple" nudity are touted as beautiful representations of nudism. So am I a nudist, or am I not a nudist? You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying every picture of a nudist is a nudist picture, I'm saying that if a nudist takes a picture that is not a nudist picture, that doesn't make them not a nudist, any more than if they shared a picture of themselves wearing clothes. Nudists complain when their pictures are repurposed by perverts for pornographic purposes. But when do nudists ever ask, before appropriating random nude pictures, whether the person in the picture wants their body to represent the ivory tower principles of nudism?

It's a nudist cliché to say that nothing fits as well as your birthday suit, but I think this is just a platitude used in the battle for body acceptance. The truth is, some people's birthday suits DO fit better than others. But that's not supposed to be the point of nudism. It's not that you'll look like a supermodel if you take your clothes off. It's that nudists don't care whether you look like a supermodel or not. Their mistake is appropriating the language of fashion when they should instead be touting the rejection of that very mindset.

Yeah, I don't like the consent argument for nudism. Because you're not asking consent to participate. You're asking consent to simply be, as you are. When else do you need another person's consent to choose how to dress yourself? Being undressed is not a sex act.

I don't get people who are hung up on the fear of ending up on a porn site. They're always concerned for the wrong reason. The injustice is being exploited by a commercial enterprise without financial gain, NOT somebody deciding your image is sexually stimulating. There's nothing immoral about somebody having sexual thoughts about you, or stimulating themselves in private to a photo of you with or without your knowledge. In fact, a normal psychology - that is, one not crippled by sex-negative neuroses - should consider that flattering. You can neither control, nor be held responsible (that's called victim blaming), for the way your pics are interpreted by others. That should not be taken as a reason to withhold them, thereby depriving the world of all the good that having those pics in circulation can do.

I know there are conservative nudists. But if you ask me, nudism is, to a notable degree, an inherently liberated lifestyle. So I don't like when it feels like hanging out with a bunch of evangelical Christians, "praying the porn away". There's room for "nudism isn't porn" without going on a crusade to rout out perverts like it's your God-given imperative to purify a morally-corrupt society. That isn't nudism. That's religious fanaticism. And I don't want your religious fanaticism in my nudism.

Having to be wholesome enough to solve all the world's problems (body issues! class disparity! sex addiction! vitamin D deficiency!) is too high a bar. Can't we just accept that some people like to be naked, without that being shadowed by the looming specter of sex crime?

A concept is only as good as its execution. Greatness comes not from aptitude, but accomplishment. Every amateur thinks they have a great idea. And you know what? They're probably right. Because great ideas are a dime a dozen. The real test is bringing that idea to fruition.

Here's a novel strategy: instead of speculating whether groups of naked people are up to no good, how about we just investigate any claims of sexual impropriety, and then if there's no sexual impropriety, just leave the naked people alone? If we can agree that simply being naked isn't a crime, then I have no problem with cops, religious leaders, etc. watching me during social nude recreation. As long as nudists are terrified of people bringing cameras into their resorts, this issue will never be resolved. But really, if it's truly the case that people are having sex in sex clubs, then so the fuck what? This isn't some big moral dilemma. You don't like sex clubs? Then don't go to a fucking sex club! And leave those of us who do the fuck alone. It's not your business.

Nudists say "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And there's this sense that some nudists, the "militant" kind, perhaps - who will make any excuse to be naked, even when it doesn't make a lot of rational sense - are frankly a bit crazy. So what makes a person go nude when it would make more sense to stay dressed? My partner says I'm the only person she's ever known who takes OFF their clothes to go outside. Sometimes I wear a robe around the house for warmth. Why take it off to go out in the yard? Well, partly because I associate positive feelings of being nude outdoors, closer to nature, exposed to the elements (even when those elements aren't strictly very conducive to human relaxation - but then, I never stay out very much longer than I'm comfortable). But what of a normal day in the house, when the air is a bit chilly, and I would simply be more comfortable in my robe? As I often am. What is the impulse that sometimes inspires me to take it off, if it's not simply that I've become a little over-heated? The answer is, nudity is exciting. It's comfortable, yes, but it's also a thrill to be exposed. And, maybe your mileage varies, but I also think nudity is beautiful. I don't want to cover that up. I want to see my body when I look down at myself, or walk in front of a mirror. Call me a narcissist or an exhibitionist (though a lot of people agree with me on this), but I want other people to get a chance to see that view, too. Paradise in my mind is being surrounded by beautiful naked people. I'm beautiful, why withhold that view from others?

Another thought occurs to me. Beauty is subjective. I'm a model, so my strategy works well for me. But this is where the issue of "consent" comes in. What if somebody who sees you doesn't think you're beautiful, and would prefer not to have to look at you? This is what I like about nudism. Even if I *want* to see someone naked, I can't just ask them to disrobe, because that would be considered an inappropriate (and sexual) request. Textilism actively obliterates consent, by poisoning people against the affirmative option. The same way that mainstream, sex-negative culture approaches human sexuality. There is no consent when people are conditioned to say no, and then punished when they say yes anyway. Don't talk to me about nudity requiring consent, until "yes" is a valid option.

People say "it's never the people you want to see naked". Not only is this a) not true, and b) completely missing the point, but it's not like we live in a society where attractive people can walk around naked. Skimpy clothes don't count, because that's not naked. And the fact that you can go online and browse porn to your heart's content doesn't count, either. That's sex, not nudity. It's sad that so few people know the simple joy and beauty of nakedness, without all the complications of making it into a private, intimate encounter.

You can genuinely understand nudism and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can support genuine nudism, and be an exhibitionist or pornographer. You can even BE a genuine nudist and still be an exhibitionist or pornographer.

There are not participation trophies awarded in the beauty contest of life. I know this sounds insensitive, and I don't feel good saying it, but I believe in confronting the truth even when it's harsh. And the world we live in - whether natural or manmade - is not a kind one. However, I think it is more humane to tell someone who is not blessed in the looks department that not being beautiful doesn't mean you're out of the game, than to say "you're beautiful, too" and keep them clinging obsessively to the delusion that beauty is all that matters.

Textiles put too much emphasis on how the appeal of nudity is purely sexual in nature, while nudists focus too hard on denying any erotic element. The truth is in the middle. The human body is a work of art. Aesthetically. And erotically. Why can't we appreciate both? And why can't we appreciate the erotic element without it being made sexually explicit? Physical attraction is a symptom of the urge to procreate. But that doesn't mean its only value is the end goal of sexual reproduction. Life is the journey, not the destination. Thomas Mann once wrote, "we artists cannot tread the path of Beauty without Eros keeping company with us and appointing himself as our guide." That doesn't lower Beauty to the level of pornography, it raises Eroticism to the level of art.

Nudists rightfully oppose the view that "nudity is a sex act", so how come they default right back to it so quickly whenever I say that SOMETIMES nudity can be sexy, and that that's a good thing? Nudity can be multi-faceted; also, "erotic" does NOT mean "sexually explicit".

A peafowl analogy: Imagine a society of peacocks, that enacts a law requiring tail covers to be worn in public at all times, because tails are used to attract a mate, and they are therefore classified as sexual organs. Now imagine a subpopulation of nudist peacocks who believe that it is uncomfortable and unnatural to wear tail coverings at all times. Furthermore, peacock tails can be appreciated for their aesthetic beauty, and simply exposing them does not constitute sexual behavior. Meanwhile, so-called "exhibitionist" peacocks may get some instinctual enjoyment out of exposing their tail feathers, and appreciating the tail feathers of other peacocks from an erotic perspective, without this necessarily accompanying sexual behavior.

So I'm not trying to disparage anyone's journey when I say this. I support whatever route leads you to happiness. But I say it because it contradicts perceived wisdom, and because I believe there are people out there - like me - who would benefit from hearing it. You can be trans and not take hormones. You can be trans and not ever take hormones. You can be trans and not even WANT to take hormones. And not only are you still trans, but you are no less trans (nor less fabulous) than anyone else.

Scarcity contributes to theft. That doesn't justify the crime, but we're only human, and if reducing scarcity can mitigate criminality (by giving people what they want before they resort to stealing it), why would we not pursue that strategy? In the case of voyeurism ("stealing peeks"), nudists claim (logically) that exposure to nudity reduces curiosity about people's bodies. So if some people are comfortable being seen nude, why would they not be willing to contribute to satisfying that curiosity? I know some people feel that if you're willing to steal something, you don't deserve to have it. But having the thing (or wanting it) isn't the crime, it's the stealing. So should even the people who know better than to steal be punished by not getting it, either? Because that's what happens when you stigmatize saying "yes". You're contributing to scarcity, and thereby encouraging theft. Which is not actually a bug; it's a feature. Moralists want to besmirch the behavior they condemn any way they can. Example: If you support abstinence, then rape is a more satisfactory outcome than consensual sex, because it reinforces your claim that sex is abhorrent. I just wish this kind of moralizing position were viewed as being as despicable as it really is. It seems ironic to imagine all these moral leaders smiling (privately) when atrocious acts are committed in the world, and yet, doesn't it explain a lot? Because it justifies their position. Like throwing money at the police whenever crime rates go up. Cops & robbers, saints & sinners. Two sides. Same coin. They exist in a symbiotic relationship, each supporting the other. And the whole system is built upon a foundation of money and power. Two things that corrupt, and are very difficult to give up once acquired.

People also assume that voyeurism and exhibitionism is always about sex. Sometimes it's really all about the looking. It may have an element of eroticism, which is why you can't say it's completely nonsexual, but it's not explicit or even indecent. And what's so wrong if people have sexual thoughts that they keep to themselves anyway? Somebody can look at you and silently judge you for your appearance - in a nonsexual way. But somehow that doesn't carry the stigma of someone LIKING what they see - but in a sexual way.

I strive to be principled and wise. I may only be human, but trying gets you closer than not. Roger Daltrey sang "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right", but it's hard not to, when people who disagree with you actively prevent you from living your best life. Although maybe, in the end, it's easier to blame other people who are in your way, than to admit that you are the one stopping yourself from achieving happiness. And why? Only because of fear. But fear is a survival instinct; how do you know when it goes too far? And how do you fight it when it does - when your whole body is rebelling against the cold, rational analysis of your logical mind? And I've been called brave. I do things regularly that others would be terrified to do - like pose naked on the internet. Yet, as a sufferer of anxiety, I do believe that my life is ruled by fear. If even someone like me can be called brave, then does bravery really exist? I mean, some people are reckless, and will try anything - and that's not me. But everyone takes calculated risks; their circumstances and dispositions just distribute those risks differently, depending on their priorities and lived experiences.

Cancel culture is just vigilante justice. Conviction in the court of public opinion. It looks nice when it works - when bad actors receive their comeuppance. But it also blinds us to wrongful conviction, when opinions with emotional catharsis are shared and re-shared as facts.

What if the "trans" in transgender didn't stand for "transition"? What if the journey of being transgender wasn't framed as changing a part of yourself in order to be happy, but merely expressing who you already are in a more authentic manner?

I acknowledge that different people have different experiences - that's why I'm speaking up; because it's too easy to get the impression that there is a right way (and thus a wrong way) to be trans. To me, my gender is an expression of my mind, not a rejection of my body. My dysphoria does not result from the shape of my body, but from the arbitrary limitations society places on my self-expression due to the belief that certain interests, personality traits, or clothing is tied to one's anatomy. You don't need a vagina to express femininity.

Being a nudist doesn't mean I think everyone should be naked all the time. But I do think we could stand to be exposed to a lot more nudity in our everyday lives. So much of the flavor of life is lost when nudity is something you only allow yourself to enjoy during sex.

We are all victims of different circumstances. But there are two ways to deal with that victimhood. You can either lash out at other people in retaliation, and perpetuate the cycle, or you can remember how it feels and reach out to others in need of a helping hand.

Suggestion: if you're considering using the phrase "shock and offend" to describe exhibitionism, stop. Try having a conversation with an actual exhibitionist before you go on to make claims about a widely misunderstood phenomenon that you have no direct experience with. Also, the label "exhibitionist" is not a catch-all term for "people who add a sexual context to nudism". Don't just use it as a garbage heap for all the people nudism rejects. It's not a slur; it's a legitimate type of sexual desire and identity. Furthermore, being turned on by the fantasy of public sex doesn't necessarily mean that you 1) actually engage in public sex, 2) have no concern for other people or the social contract, or 3) want to make public sex legal without consideration to context.

(Volume 7)

Exhibitionism al Dente

Straddling the Line Between Taking It Off and Showing It Off

Preface: This article is an expression of my views and the culmination of my experiences as an exhibitionist and a nude photographer interacting with the online nudist community (mainly on Twitter and Reddit) over the past two years.

What relevance does exhibitionism have to the topic of nudism? Ask a great many nudists, and they will tell you, "absolutely none!" But I believe this is an oversimplification of the issue. After all, it keeps popping up. But before we can say anything meaningful about how (or whether) exhibitionism fits into the practice of nudism, we ought to clarify just what exhibitionism is. And we can start by determining what it is not.

How Exhibitionism is Misrepresented

Everyone thinks they know what exhibitionism is, but being able to recite a medical diagnosis published in the DSM (a manual with a historically poor track record of describing human sexual diversity) is no substitute for lived experience. As a self-described exhibitionist, I am frequently confronted by people who insist that my personal feelings and experiences are less instructive than the cartoonish image in their heads of the "trench coat flasher". Yet, in over ten years of engaging in exhibitionism, I have never known such a creature to exist in real life. My image of the average exhibitionist isn't the hypothetical night prowler stalking the subways with a hard-on for unsuspecting marks; it is the increasingly visible trend of young, confident women showing off their bodies to adoring fans on the internet.

To what extent are our preconceived notions about exhibitionism truly representative of the phenomenon described by that term? Linguistically speaking, the root of exhibitionism is exhibition, which is a type of display, that we can boil down to "showing off in front of others" (presumably in an erotic context). Nothing about this implies that for the exhibition to be sexually stimulating, it must be performed in front of someone who is not expecting it, or that a negative reaction is actually desired. In fact, common sense dictates that if the audience enjoys the exhibition - even encourages it - then it will be more satisfying to the exhibitionist. Indeed, voyeurs are the perfect foil for exhibitionists; voyeurism and exhibitionism represent two sides of the same coin - people who enjoy sexual display, whether as performer or audience. Together, they form a consensual loop of mutual benefit.

Why, then, do exhibitionists sometimes act out, and perform for less than enthusiastic audiences? This is a more complex question than I am able to answer, but suffice to say, I believe it is more of a human nature question than an exhibitionist one. The trouble is that exhibitionism is disproportionately exposed to the public in the form it takes when it accompanies psychiatric distress and antisocial disruption. Good exhibitionists that behave themselves don't typically make the news. It's no wonder, then, that people cling to the DSM diagnosis. Yet, when I've tried to explain that there is more to exhibitionism than a medical diagnosis, people have shut me down, insistent that what I am describing is not technically exhibitionism - because it is not covered by the DSM diagnosis! Thus we are locked into a repeating cycle, even as things like homosexuality and "transvestism" have expanded in the public consciousness to include non-medical phenomena that are not the result of mental disorder. We live in a world where it is increasingly becoming understood that even such a thing as sexual sado-masochism (another DSM diagnosis) can be practiced in a consensual context. So why not exhibitionism?

But what about unsolicited dick pics, you ask? I understand that this is a frustrating problem for many women. My opinion as an exhibitionist is that this is actually less of an exhibitionist thing, and more like a primitive form of flirting - on a level of sophistication with cat-calling (albeit considerably more explicit). I have never sent an unsolicited dick pic, and have no desire to. I have taken many pictures of my dick - ranging from artistic to humorous to straight-up sexy - but not to spring on unsuspecting females, in the vain hope that they'll consider it an enticing invitation, but to share on image hosting platforms for appreciative voyeurs, to browse and admire at their leisure. You might be surprised by how many people out there LIKE looking at stranger's dicks - if only you would ask first.

But to whatever extent that exhibitionism may be involved in behavior that targets unsuspecting victims, I believe it is an imbalance of priorities or a misjudgment of interests - the exhibitionist mistakenly considers his own enjoyment of exposure as representative of a more general psychology, and therefore expects a positive response, rather than deriving pleasure from the anticipation of a negative response. In my understanding, the thrill in the risk of getting caught is distinct from any possible thrill of ACTUALLY getting caught, and the exhibitionist fantasy of getting caught usually hinges on the exploration of a more open sexuality (the thrill of being seen), than the sadistic pleasure of ruining another person's day. Regardless, whatever one finds desirable in fantasy, this is a separate issue from what behaviors one chooses to engage in; a person should be judged by their own decisions, not by the decisions of others who may have shared a similar fantasy.

Having covered what I believe exhibitionism is not, what does it mean, then, to be an exhibitionist? In my opinion, exhibitionism is about appreciating the visual aspect of eroticism, having confidence in one's appearance, and reveling in the feeling of being admired, independent from the source of that admiration, as well as any strict requirement for intimate physical contact. It dovetails excellently with an artistic mindset (via the aesthetic appreciation of erotic beauty), and, when pursued for its own sake - as the purest exhibitionists do - and not simply as a means to an end (i.e., foreplay), presents a potential opportunity for sexual stimulation that is contact-free and thus 100% safe from the transmission of disease, as well as unplanned pregnancy. I believe it should be viewed as a more wholesome form of eroticism than many physically and psychologically messier alternatives, and yet it (along with its partner, voyeurism) remains one of the few forms of sexual desire that is still viewed with paranoia and disdain even among sexual progressives, due to the stigma generated from unrepresentative stereotypes.

A Sex-Positive Detour

Hold that image of wholesome exhibitionism in your mind; we're going to return to it in a bit. But first, before we examine how exhibitionism fits into nudism, I'd like to clear up another misconception. Whenever I mention sex-positive nudism, there are invariably some who think I am talking about nudists having sex out in the open. This is not the case. "Sex-positive" is not just a word that perverts use to demonstrate how much they love sex; it is a social movement with a history and ties to feminism. What it represents is not a libertine, "anything goes" philosophy. It represents a positive attitude toward human sexuality, distinguished by its opposition to a sex-negative culture that regularly shames and stigmatizes what are natural and healthy sexual feelings and behaviors. Sex-positivity challenges the premise that our fundamental sexual nature is an organic flaw, a moral failing, or a sin; and invites us to revel in and celebrate the joy of sexual pleasure. It is NOT a synonym for sexual obsession, addiction, or total sexual abandon. A positive approach to sex must necessarily honor the desires - and therefore, the consent - of any and all participants. Therefore, sex-positivity must still navigate the social and personal boundaries we construct around sex.

So when I say that we need a more sex-positive nudism, I am not asking nudism to embrace public sexual behavior. Rather, I am asking nudism to confront its own sex-negative assumptions, just as sex-positivity positions itself as an alternative to a sex-negative culture. These assumptions are the result of an antagonism that has developed between nudism and sex. As many nudists will cite, the wider culture rarely encounters nudity outside of a sexual context, and so has been conditioned to necessarily associate the one with the other. There is also an additional stigma placed on anything to do with sex - including legal and economic restrictions on who can engage in it and where. So, the institution of nudism suffers unnecessarily from the misinterpretation that it is a sexual lifestyle. Nudists attempt to rectify this state of affairs by reminding people - loudly and frequently - that nudism is nonsexual, and that not all nudity carries a sexual context.

All of this is true, and a worthwhile endeavor. The problem is when this antagonism grows out of bounds, and nudists become akin to soldiers in a crusade against sexual expression, or any sexual interpretation of nudity whatsoever. The desire to illustrate a nonsexual context for nudity becomes a fervor to eliminate any possible sexual connotation (lest it confuse some hypothetical third party about the relationship between nudity and sex), and nudists begin to sound like religious fundamentalists decrying the moral corruption of a sexually obsessed culture. I believe this is a distraction from, and not a fundamental tenet of, what nudism stands for - which is an honest and open approach to the human body. I do not view sex-positivity as contradicting that, and I do not think it is constructive to make sex-positive individuals feel unwelcome within the lifestyle, and so I resent the conception of a nudism built upon a framework of sex-negativity. This is what I mean when I say that nudism needs sex-positivity, and it is in no way incompatible with the belief that sexually explicit behavior does not belong within nudism.

Fitting Exhibitionism Into Nudism

How, then, does exhibitionism fit into nudism, if that doesn't mean people having sex in public? Remember the wholesome image of exhibitionism I invoked above. Now imagine if it were non-sexually explicit. For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with groups of people who enjoy having sex in front of each other, or with each other, or outdoors, or what have you - all within a consensual context. But this is not nudism. And this is not the sort of exhibitionism that underlies nudism. That sort is the same kind of exhibitionism that underlies much of human socialization, even while we're dressed. It is not sexually explicit, but it is about showing off in front of others, and it may contain erotic connotations even while it remains "family friendly". It happens when a young woman struts on the beach in her new bikini, or a young man rushes to lift a heavy object in order to show off the muscles he's been working on at the gym. This, too, is a form of exhibitionism.

It is also a form of flirting, but one that need not be accompanied by actual physical sexual arousal. Nor is it a display that is usually considered inappropriate to be conducted before the eyes of children. There is no reason this behavior would not, or should not, carry over into the world of nudism. For many people, part of the appeal of social nudity is the opportunity to show off one's body, or appreciate the bodies of others, with no more or less of a sexual connotation than it carries in a textile environment (just like everything else a nudist does - simply without clothes). While this form of display is certainly not what every nudist hopes to get out of nudism, and may offend the sensibilities of some who rely on nudism to be a safe space from physical judgment (these judgments need not be vocalized), it would be unnatural to exclude this one element of human behavior from any social gathering, and disingenuous to suggest that it does not go on, regardless of anyone's objections.

Further, the presence of exhibitionists within nudism reinforces many of the points I made about the nature of exhibitionism above. The fact that an exhibitionist would find nudism appealing at all - a lifestyle in which full exposure is unremarkable, and the sight of the human body is neither shocking nor offensive - only lends evidence to the view that exhibitionists enjoy exposure in front of consenting audiences (with consent, in this case, referring to the nudity, and not the addition of any sexually explicit behavior). And though some may misunderstand the nonsexual nature of nudism, surely many will be aware of it, as nudists spare no opportunity to remind the world - demonstrating that explicit sexual activity is not a fundamental requisite of exhibitionism. Those who do mistake nudism as a convenient forum for public acts of so-called indecency are undoubtedly ill-informed, and probably inexperienced in organized social nudism (as they are, in my understanding, handily dealt with by local nudists whenever such a situation arises). I suspect they constitute a larger problem for the public image of nudism online, which presents its own unique set of challenges.

The Myopia of Online Nudist Advocacy

Occasionally, those who have no direct experience of nudism will come to the conclusion that, since they never seem to encounter nudists in their everyday life (an inevitable result of society's intolerance towards nudity, requiring nudists to limit their nude recreation to private spaces, and leading many nudists to keep their lifestyle a secret), they must exist somewhere out of view, in an isolated pocket of society - the proverbial "nudist colony" or commune - where they never have to wear clothes. The truth is, nudists are all around us. They may spend nights, weekends, and/or vacations recreating nude with other like minds, but they still have to go to work or school, do their shopping, and visit friends and family in textile society like the rest of us - wearing clothes. Maybe not by choice, but by necessity. Nudists spend a lot more time wearing clothes than textiles spend naked. Yet, when was the last time you saw a dedicated nudist account on social media post an image of people wearing clothes? Nudist accounts online often myopically restrict their vision to spreading the message of nudism, with everything not related to that message considered at best a distraction, and at worst, an outright obstruction to that goal.

Maybe this is a result of the taboo surrounding nudity - in society, as well as on social media. Many nudists feel that they cannot freely post about their nudist activities, so they must create alternate accounts. They still have an outlet for their other interests, so the alt account becomes a dumping ground for nudist topics. Yet, I believe it would be beneficial for nudists to integrate their nudist activities into their regular accounts, for the visibility of nudism, as well as to demonstrate that their lives aren't utterly consumed by this one interest (contributing to the stereotype that nudists live in a microcosm of society where they never wear clothes). However, a stigma is generated among nudists themselves when those interests include tangential subjects that are related to nudity, yet viewed as conflicting with nudist principles (usually due to the presence of a sexual context).

When I visit a nudist resort, I'm there to practice nudism. I know the rules, and I abide by them. I'm there as a nudist, because I enjoy nudism, whatever other interests I may have. I refrain from inappropriate behavior, just as I do in a textile environment. But the internet is more complicated. I came to nudism online through my interest in nude photography. And nude photography, like nudity in general, encompasses a wide range of contexts, from casual nudist portraits to fine art nudes to sexually suggestive (or even explicit) erotica. As an artist, I am fascinated by nudity, whether for its symbolism, its aesthetic beauty, or its sex appeal. These are all different things, but they are united by a single thread (or rather, lack of thread) - the unclothed human body. And it's not always straightforward for me to distinguish, say, a nudist image from an exhibitionist one, when that meaning often times depends on the viewer's individual interpretation.

Some nudists would argue that you cannot be a nudist and an exhibitionist - but my existence proves them wrong. Just because nudism and exhibitionism are different things doesn't mean that one negates the other, and that a person can't genuinely appreciate both. Other nudists will acknowledge this, and yet still argue that one should not mix nudism and exhibitionism on a single account. I understand the justification for this view - the need to oversimplify the issue of nudity, to prevent confusion over the distinction between sex and nudism. But nudity is often complex. There are plenty of accounts that stress the nonsexual nature of nudism. Is there no value whatsoever in hearing alternative opinions on nudism from the perspectives of people engaged in sex-related (or sex-adjacent) fields? Because the fact - however inconvenient it may be - is that these interests often coincide.

A fascination for nudity and an openness toward the human body in one form can lead to a fascination and openness in other forms. But instead of reaching out as allies in the fight against the taboo surrounding the human body, nudists view sex-positive advocates as enemies, responsible for "sexualizing" the human body, even as sex-positives themselves may genuinely respect and support the nonsexual aims of nudism - having, in the course of embracing human sexuality, acquired a level of comfort with the human body above and beyond what is typical of textiles, and learned a corresponding truth about the value of casual, not-necessarily-sexual nudity. There is a reason for the imbalance evident in the fact that people who embrace sexuality are more likely to be nudists, than nudists are likely to embrace sexuality - because the culture of nudism is inherently biased against sexuality in a way that sex-positive advocacy is not against nonsexual nudity. Which leaves us with a lot of so-called perverts who may have much to say in support of nudism, but whose voices are not welcome within the lifestyle due to the enduring stigma of sex.

I try very hard to be clear about what nudism is and isn't in all my communications, and never ascribe the label "nudism" or "nudist" to anything that blatantly opposes what I believe nudism to stand for (which excludes anything sexually explicit), but without limiting my ability to also say things about nudity that aren't nudist in nature. I have never claimed that everything I do or say reflects on nudism. Yet this is the overwhelming pressure that nudists apply to nudist advocates online. It's as if you are their employee, and your birthday suit is the company uniform, and anything you do or say while wearing it reflects on the company.

Let's face it. Nudism is about nudity, but not all nudity is about nudism. Nudists don't own the subject of nudity, yet they often try (futilely) to own the conversation on nudity, especially online. Non-nudist expressions of nudity are not merely non sequiturs, they are framed as threats to the existence of nudism. When, in reality, people interested in one facet of nudity may be interested in another. But this natural kinship is being destroyed. We hurt ourselves more by fighting amongst one another, than we would if we banded together (no matter the different flags we fly), in support of greater acceptance and respect for the human body, in conjunction with a dedication to sexual liberty within the confines of consent - which has never included environments in which people engage in nonsexual nudist recreation. Let's stop judging people by how their superficial appearance affects the public image of nudism, and start judging them by the actual principles they believe and support. Nudity is complex. And so are people.