Nudism, Sexuality, and Society

Disclaimer: It is not my intention in this post to develop or propagate any stereotypes about nudists. These are merely observations I have made in my limited experience. Keep in mind that nudists are just like everyone else - we come in all shapes, sizes, colors and patterns.

I've been looking up quite a bit of stuff on nudism the past few days - including reading through some discussions on hot topics within the community. I have to admit, while I still maintain the importance of separating nudity from sexuality, I'm getting the feeling that I can at least see where my brother is coming from in terms of nudists having a conservative knee-jerk reaction to issues of sexuality. Obviously, my experiences are limited to reading the opinions of nudists on the internet from the comfort of my chair at home, but the condemnation I'm seeing of any connections whatsoever between eroticism and nudism do feel to me to be somewhat excessive. It's a tricky issue, because there are all sorts of legal implications to the portrayal of nudists within mainstream society, but I do feel that there are people out there that are being way too stuffy for their own ultimate good.

Small example: the issue of erections. I don't know specifically how it's dealt with 'on location', but some of the opinions I'm reading seem to suggest that there are nudists who believe that the mere sight of an erection is an affront to their sensibilities. Now, I understand that there is a level of conscious control involved, but there are times when things just happen to pop up. Obviously, discretion is a respectable solution, but I feel like having to run and hide, like as if the erection was inherently an insult to the public, or even intended as such, is a little extreme. Now, if someone is actively "encouraging" the erection, then you're dealing with a whole new issue - an issue that I would agree is best relegated to a private moment. But if it's just an innocent happenstance, or even an uncontrolled reaction to the environment, I don't see the offense.

For those who are concerned, lest you get the wrong impression, many people have said that this is much less of an issue than it is often made out to be.

Another discussion I enjoyed reading through was on the topic of nude photography, and how (or whether) it relates to pornography. Most nudists in the discussion had the expected opinion that innocent nudist photography has nothing to do with pornography - that it's not any different than regular family photography, since the nudity doesn't serve any kind of sexual function. I'm in agreement on that. But I sensed a sort of disdain for nude photography that does serve a sexual function, which most people would classify as pornography. Now, a question I feel like I want to ask, is this: Can a photograph of a sexual act ever be considered not pornographic?

This is an incredibly complicated issue, compounded by the matter of defining the term pornography. And I don't really feel like getting into all of that at this time. But the bottom line, for me, is that when it comes to pornography, or what many people would consider pornography, there's trash, and there's gold. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, but what appeals to my taste appeals to my aesthetic sense of beauty, and that's something that has a certain amount of worth to me, even if the subject matter is sexual in nature. Sex can be as beautiful as it can be dirty. So while a lot of the nudists in this particular discussion seemed to carry an unspoken view against the merits of pornography in any context, my view is that a photograph taken of a sexual subject can be every bit as pure as a photograph of a nude person enjoying innocent, non-sexual recreation, or of a clothed person doing the same, or anything else. Granted, the topic of sex is not necessarily appropriate anywhere and everywhere, or in discussions with just anyone, but that does not mean that it is something to be ashamed of. Isn't that the case with nudity, for a lot of nudists that haven't "come out"? They don't feel comfortable talking about it with just anyone, but they respect the lifestyle just the same. Shouldn't sexuality be considered just as pure as nudity then? More on that disparity later.

That's pretty much the point I wanted to make on that topic. Another interesting issue brought up in the thread was that of sharing nude photographs. Most of the nudists in that discussion expressed general comfortability with being photographed in the nude (in a non-sexual context), but with a decided reservation about who would get to see those photos. I understand my feelings on the issue are a little more liberal than the norm, and I can respect their concerns. Many nudists do have a reputation to uphold - although that's something that I personally don't like the idea of, having to hide oneself. I feel like one of the ideas of nudism is being yourself and shedding the masks and deceptions of clothes that you wear in society. But unlike me, most people do value their position in society, and simply can't risk the implications of being labeled a nudist, particularly in a society with many unfortunate and negative misconceptions about people that take pleasure in being nude.

One person used a phrase that sums up my feelings on the issue of being seen nude quite well. The idea is this: just because you see me, doesn't mean you have me. One of the most pervasive arguments against the sharing of nude photos of oneself with strangers, particularly on the internet, is the fear of what strangers might do with those photos. I think the implications are clear, but I have to ask, just what are these people afraid that someone is going to do? Honestly, how does it hurt you if some creep gets off to a nude photo of you? My feeling is that if somebody finds me attractive, then I'd be happy to indulge them, as long as it doesn't inconvenience me. Now, I enjoy taking nude photographs of myself, and sometimes in sexually suggestive poses. If somebody is interested in seeing those pictures, why should I keep them to myself? As long as they don't do something like stalk me or hound me for more photos or something like that, then what harm is it?

Obviously, that's a real concern. There are freaks out there, and plenty that wouldn't be below (above?) inconveniencing you if they think you've got something they want. And that's a risk. But my view of humanity is one of peace and love. I believe that people should be respectful to one another. Am I being far too idealistic? Probably. But I refuse to live a life consumed by terror. I believe that if you conduct yourself in a way that allows you to respect yourself, while treating other people the way you want to be treated, then you're being true to yourself, and hopefully, the bad seeds in your life will be displaced by the good ones (I'm talking about people - friends and such). In any case, we do live in a society, and there are always measures if things get drastic. But again, it's a matter of standing up to your detractors and showing them that you're free to be who you want to be. I've lived my life in fear, hiding behind a shell, and I'm sick of it. I'm still working on breaking free, and this is an important step in that direction. But when I see other people building walls of protection around themselves - while I can sympathize - I can't help but feel a little sad at the thought of a person living in fear like that. But I guess that's part of what makes me, me. I just wish it were a marketable thing that I could exploit to make a living or at least just teach people, or something...


There is a criticism I hear used against nudism. If nudism is about loosening the boundaries of what is acceptable, and recognizing that the sight of a naked body is neither immoral, nor harmful, but a perfectly natural thing, that should be encouraged and not shunned, then how come nudists characteristically tend to be so uptight about sexuality? You could argue that where nudists draw the line against public sexuality, the rest of society merely draws their line against public nudity. So what makes the nudists' position any more right, or acceptable? Ultimately it comes down to a matter of taste, and it would seem that the nudists are outnumbered. Now, you could throw scientific facts and studies around, but it's hard to change a person's ingrained sense of what is decent and acceptable. You could argue until you're blue in the face that there's nothing wrong with eating sushi, and that it could even be good for you, but that's not always enough to make a reluctant person try sushi (and who's to say they should be forced to?). I mean, who knows, it could turn out that having sex in front of other people is a huge health benefit for everyone involved - but even if that were true, do you think everyone's going to immediately adopt that belief and start practicing it regularly?

It's not a foolproof case against nudism, but it does raise an important concern. As for me, I would love it if nudity were universally accepted, if the choice to go bare was granted as an inalienable right, but I'm not the kind of person to push my beliefs on other people, and I have to accept the fact that there are people for whom public, social, and/or casual nudity is not the way to go, and those beliefs should be respected, too. But the bottom line is, there should be places, communities, where these sorts of things are more acceptable, and places where they are less acceptable. You would think that there would be enough nudists to form communities like this. Not expensive resort destinations, or just limited areas like parks and beaches, but actual entire communities of people gathered together who have the same open ideas about this subject. In various price ranges and sizes and qualities. Are there? Maybe there are. Maybe in a different country. I just kind of wish they were more prevalent. Like, this is stretching it even further, but why aren't there year-round communities like that at Burning Man? Those people all go back to their federal and state jurisdictions, where the laws only differ so much from the rest of the country. You'd think they'd band together and form communities here and there. And you'd hope there'd be enough of them to form enough communities to be spread out.

I think what I'm getting at here is, why does there only seem to be one way to go through life? There's only one option for society. It's a monopoly. I guess moving out of the country is an option. But I mean, that takes a lot of effort and initiative, and probably money - sampling cultures until you find one that you like. If this is the land of freedom, then how come our standards and morals are dictated by an insensitive penal code, constructed for a majority, when we are but one person? I'm quite frustrated with it all.

Can you see why I don't believe in free will? I feel like I have no control whatsoever over how to live my life. Granted, a lot of that is due to psychological limitations, but you have to admit that being raised in a society like this, there are certain things that it's really hard to escape. What if you don't feel like paying taxes? Isn't there some kind of alternative? What if you don't agree with some of the petty laws on the codebooks? Do you have to go to jail just to prove your point? And don't talk to me about lobbying. You could argue with politicians your entire life and not get the results you want. And what if somebody else wants the opposite - isn't that always the case? You die with no results, having wasted your life away on a lost cause. Yeah, I'm bitter.

Maybe I'm spoiled, and maybe I'm a dreamer. But who's to say we should have to compromise? My body is a product of my environment, and my thoughts are a product of my mind. I'd like to think there's something more to what I'm saying than petty idealism... Wouldn't you?

Real and Ideal

When I look at the world, I judge it from the perspective of the ideal. And the thing that depresses me most, is that wide gap that exists between the real and the ideal. Maybe it's not unusual, but I feel like it must be some kind of deficiency. Why should I judge the world from the ideal? Why can't I see it for what it is, and simply accept it as that? But I'm a perfectionist.

One thing I don't understand, is how a right can be "inalienable" if there are situations where it can be revoked. A prisoner has been alienated from his right to liberty, while a man condemned to death has been alienated from his right to life itself. And, well, the pursuit of happiness is a rather complicated issue.

Furthermore, not every man is created equal. Is this not obvious? I think the true point of the notion is that a person should not be judged on factors over which he has no control - such as the color of his skin, or even his (or her) gender. But then, depending on your personal philosophy, you could argue that even a person's behavior is not under their control (well, I'd be inclined to, at least). But if we are not to judge a person by their behavior, then what good does judgement serve? Certainly, what matters more to a society is what a person does, rather than what a person professes to believe.

Physics is the study of natural law. While political law is based on moral action, natural law is based on possible action. Political law tells us what is and is not moral to do (remembering that morality is subjective), while natural law tells us what is and is not possible to do. From my perspective, the study of physics is the study of constraints. The more I learned about physics, the more I learned about the limits of reality that constrict the ideas that form within the imagination. Why is the human mind capable of imagining things that are not possible? Or, more importantly, what purpose does such facility hold?

Surely, dreams and fantasy can lift us out of the mundanity of our world-weary existence. But if we could imagine no better than what is possible in reality, then would we even understand the idea of anything better than what already is? Would existence not already be the pinnacle of imagination? Does a relative scale work in this instance?

Some would say that philosophy is largely the study of irrelevant questions. Of course, that's a pessimistic view. Society to me is the sum total of mankind's attempt to compromise dreams with reality. And maybe that is good enough, after all, but for a person like me, who sees in ideals, it seems incredibly insufficient to me. What I imagine is probably impossible, but what difference does that make? It doesn't make it any less desirable for me, and it doesn't make reality any more acceptable.

I feel like I'm in an undesirable position. Is that hard to believe? I don't have a job, and yet I don't currently have any bills to pay. I get food and shelter for free, and I can spend my days as I please. But those are only the outside conditions. Inside, I am not content. And my problem isn't my outside world, but my inside world. Something within me prevents me from living a life I can fully enjoy.

What is the nature of this beast? Fear, probably. A form of shadow. A darkness on my soul. When something comes to mind, my instinct is to hold back. This is troublesome, because it prevents me from doing things. But here's the question. Would doing those things be more harmful than avoiding them? Ah. The very question that plagues my every thought. It's quite ridiculous, really. But it's the way I'm wired.

I'm not a people person, and I can't decide whether I'd be better off *becoming* a people person, or by actually avoiding people. But how in fuck can I live a life simply avoiding people? There's way too many people in this world, and they all want my attention for some reason or another. This is the notion of being part of a community. If you're a part of this community, you have to give something back. You are subject to their laws. You are subject to their taxes. You have to be a part of this machine.

But I don't want to be a part of the machine. But I don't feel like there's any real existence outside of the machine, either. Not one that I've found. I've been hiding in the corner, because it's the best I can do, but it's not good enough. So do I have to give in? Do I have to get used to the machine? I desperately do not want to. And even if I convince myself that it's the only way... well, what does that really change? I'm still hiding in this corner.

They say knowledge is half the battle. But it's not. Knowledge is useless in this instance. All the knowledge in the world can't move a single feeling, if its roots are thick enough. I feel like society owes me some kind of assistance. 16 years of formal education couldn't prepare me for the real world. So what, am I just to be tossed aside? Independence. In a world so interconnected, how can anyone utter that word with a straight face? What happens to the people that can't help themselves?

I've long believed my fate to be extermination. If it's survival of the fittest, then I should be dead. But this society doesn't quite work that way. This isn't the jungle. It's a sort of jungle, but it's not the same jungle we evolved from. I envy other people's abilities to adapt. I wouldn't want to be anybody else but me, but there are qualities other people possess, that I would take in a heartbeat if I could.

In a parallel universe, I bet I was a lot more practical. I focused on studying computer programming, and ended up getting a cushy work-at-home job for great money. Some lucky break early on in my childhood resulted in early treatment for whatever personality disorders I may have had. I also ended up becoming a pretty good guitarist on the side, since I didn't constantly avoid practicing. Nothing major, just a local band to play some bars on the weekends - for great fun. I also didn't let my aversion to company spoil my chance at meeting a girl who understands me. My happiness is fueled by my carefully constructed initiative to go out and do the things that I take interest in, rather than sitting around thinking and reading about them. In this life, I lead my shadow, and not the other way around.

Ah, but that's the ideal. Welcome to the real.