Last July, I wrote about what I've termed Platonic erotica - which basically involves approaching the erotic arts as art instead of pornography (a novel concept, I know). Society draws a hard line between all aspects of life that are non-sexual - and therefore appropriate matters for public discourse and display - and those that are sexual - which it cordons off and restricts access to with extreme prejudice. I've always been interested in the grey area between the two. We bend over backwards to deny the extent to which life is infused with sexuality, or else we end up condemning perfectly ordinary behaviors (like girls showing off their dance moves to internet strangers) because somebody somewhere might interpret them in a sexual way.
I was thinking about this while reading YouTube's rules on prohibited content - which make prodigious use of the phrase "meant to be sexually gratifying". Like, who cares if somebody gets their jollies from it so long as it's not actually depicting sex? Also, the extent to which they have to contort themselves into a backbend in order to make pointless exceptions for scientific use probably has them sitting on their own heads. I say pointless because intent doesn't matter - scientific manuals are no less explicit than pornography, and watching porn (no matter how unrealistic) will teach you more about sex than you'll ever learn in a science lab.
But a good piece of erotic art can accomplish the same thing, while doing it in a much more tasteful manner. The fact that we allow certain expressions and not others, over a completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction, destroys any argument that could be made about the unsuitability of the material in question to any given audience. All it does is pay nothing more substantial than lip service to an outdated (and unconstitutional) code of subjective moralism - one that glorifies deception, via the hollow facade of dispassionate academia.
Anyway, while I was reading those rules, I brainstormed a brief snippet explaining what I would call Platonic eroticism - which is allowing society to exhibit and admit to the presence of eroticism (implicit sexuality) in everyday public life. Because we don't need to prohibit a thing just because somebody somewhere might find it sexy.
---
"Platonic eroticism" is fun, flirty behavior not intended to be the precursor to sexual intimacy (i.e., foreplay), that is designed around the general appreciation of sexual themes and cues in a social atmosphere, and not so much a mutual attraction between specific people. Its purpose is to emphasize the light-hearted playfulness of human sexuality, without the emotional weight of physical intimacy, and to take this activity out of the bedroom, to be shared among larger audiences. It does not involve explicit sexual acts, and its goal is not the satisfaction of personal desires. But it does acknowledge - with celebration, not guilt or shame - that sexuality permeates much more of our lives than the private moments we share with our committed lovers behind closed doors.
---
At the end of the day, I don't necessarily want the world to be flooded with sexual media any more than most people would. It might bother me less than it would bother a lot of people, but that's still not my vision of utopia. Not least of which because we all have different tastes, and navigating to a random porn site doesn't necessarily mean you'll find something that appeals to you in the slightest.
I mean, I kind of do that on DeviantArt when I click on people's favorites pages; you never know what you're gonna find. If they're faving my pics (which is how I find them), the gallery is likely to include some kind of naughty material. Every once in a while, I'll find someone who has what I would describe as good taste, and that makes it all worthwhile. Most of the time it's just mundane smut of a more or less explicit variety (you'd be surprised what flies under the radar over there). Occasionally it'll be one of those collections guided by the compass of a rare fetish, that will make me grimace (no judgment - you do you). But even that doesn't scare me away from coming back and checking under the rock pretty much daily.
As I was saying, I don't want the world to be flooded with sexual media, I just want to be permitted to enjoy the sexy aspect of living - whether or not it's something that only exists in my head - without guilt and shame and censure. But the way we treat porn, especially on social media, means that even the slightest association with sexuality carries the world-shattering taint of eroticism. Instead of, you know, letting it be the cherry on top of life. I don't remember consenting to being bombarded with other people's sex-negative attitudes on a regular basis. Why do they always have to be out there spoiling everybody's fun?
Saturday, March 8, 2025
Friday, January 24, 2025
Tainted With Eroticism
Or enhanced by it?
The fact of the matter is, if I were to say, "I get turned on sometimes, envisioning myself as a woman," there are people who would turn that around and use it as a weapon against me. To shame me. To discredit me. To accuse me of horrendous things. So I won't say it. But I will say that womanhood - especially in our heavily sexualized culture - can be a very sensual experience. Some people might say that's a bad thing. I say, when has adding pleasure to the recipe ever been a mistake? Your so-called "morals" are as thin as paper, and just as easily discarded.
God gave us a gift. (I don't believe in God, but I'm using that as a rhetorical device - it's just a metaphor for nature, or chance; whatever made us the way we are). Which is the ability to feel pleasure through the manipulation of our sexual organs. Its purpose is to increase our happiness, as we wander this Earth doing what we were programmed to do - which is survive, and procreate. Unfortunately, in our imperfect fallibility, we have learned to use this tool as a weapon to inflict pain on others in selfish pursuit.
I don't think that means we should give up on it. That some would use it selfishly, to steal happiness for themselves at the cost of hurting others, doesn't mean the rest of us should discontinue using it correctly, to spread happiness throughout the world. The people who abuse it have nothing to do with me. They are not me. And I do not support their actions. So please do not lump me in with them because I still believe in the virtue of pleasure and eroticism, while all you are able to see in your fearful, myopic rage is the danger and risk of harm.
It all goes back to the doctrine of sexuality as corruption - which I don't believe in. Like Midas' touch, eroticism taints everything it comes into contact with, giving it sinister flair and charging it with malignant intention. If you find sensuality in the experience of being naked, you can't be a nudist - you're just an exhibitionist. If roughing it in the wilderness without clothes turns you on, then every hike will be interpreted as a sex act. If you have any inwardly directed feelings of arousal tied to your gender identity or expression, then you're not transgender - you're just a cross-dressing pervert! You can't share these experiences with family or friends, or enjoy them in public - ever! - because they're being defined as categorically sexual in nature, and that would be highly inappropriate.
Never mind the fact that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even though there are other occasions on which it might indeed be a penis. Nor am I allowed to suggest the theoretical possibility that we could all be smoking penises in public without incident and it would be just fine - because the world would not end, and we'd all learn that it's not that big a deal. (Oops, I just suggested it). Because if I did, it would tarnish the purity of my reputation, and seriously undermine that point I just made about cigars. They'd put my head in a guillotine and make sure I never have the freedom to spread my perverse delusions throughout society ever again.
I'm not saying there aren't bad people out there who would take advantage of a little leeway to wreak havoc in people's lives. Unfortunately - it's the reason we can't have nice things. But can't we at least have the imagination to suppose scenarios, that may or may not reflect reality all that closely, and then nourish ourselves on the pleasure those fantasies might bring, without instantly being labeled monsters? Imagine a world, for example, where minor sexual infractions - I'm talking non-contact offenses - were dealt with between people, instead of in court. And when people couldn't work it out themselves, it'd be brought to civil court, and not made into a criminal case.
Imagine a world where people co-habitating - or visiting others - could have a balanced discussion (with compromises on both sides) on what's appropriate re: dress codes, and sexual behavior. Where unexpectedly bumping into somebody naked would (maybe) be cause for surprise, but not necessarily castigation, let alone criminal sanction. Where somebody masturbating on a couch (assuming they're not bothering anyone, and have the courtesy to clean up after themselves) might just as soon be left alone as brought into a calm conversation about personal boundaries.
I know you're thinking that in most cases, this is how the world already works - but you're neglecting two important factors. One being that people tend to exercise self-repression, even in cases where they might be permitted some freedom if they had the courage to push those boundaries - but mostly they don't, because they are decent, empathetic people, and they've been taught by example (whether directly or indirectly) that you will be labeled a menace to society if you don't bend over backwards to stay out of other people's way.
The other factor is one I barely have the courage to mention, because it's poisoned with so much rhetoric. It's all well and good when two adults have a dispute over appropriate boundaries, but once you mix children into the living situation, it escalates very quickly. Nobody in their right mind would be fool enough to make the argument that we shield kids from the truth about human sexuality far more than is actually to their benefit (although if they did, they might remind you that repression - as opposed to open communication - is the veil behind which misbehavior often hides). But all rules that seem reasonable when applied to adults go out the window on the merest possibility that a child might step into the room. And how many places in this world can we go where that is not at least a possibility? Thus, we have rules that look good on paper, when reality reflects a far more repressed situation than anyone wants to admit.
I'll leave you with one last thought - about the importance of representation. It has been said - especially in the course of defending the freedom of speech - that speech is the beginning of all thought. Logically, it would seem that words communicate thoughts, and therefore thought must be the genesis of all speech. But while a creative mind may be capable of generating thoughts that have not (yet) been translated into words, in a broad and very real sense, average people have a hard time conceptualizing things they have no words to describe - nor any prior model or experience to draw from. This is the purpose of awareness. To utilize speech as a tool to direct thought into patterns that advocates consider under-represented.
Whatever the truth may be. Whatever doubt people may hold in their hearts. On a mass scale, a culture cannot conceive of a thing, at the very least, until an example of it is presented to them. Be it fictitious, in a book or a movie or a TV drama. Something people can point to and say, "that". "Oh, you mean that?" Something that other things can be compared to, and contrasted with. Whether it's a model to live up to, or to avoid at all costs. (Though preferably the former). I'm just a reclusive hermit too frightened to be in the public eye, but I wouldn't hate contributing to expanding people's imaginations in that direction - towards the conception of a sex-positivity that is virtuous without being exclusive - whether it's through my own lived experiences, or the art that I create. I want to be an example - I don't want to be made an example of.
The fact of the matter is, if I were to say, "I get turned on sometimes, envisioning myself as a woman," there are people who would turn that around and use it as a weapon against me. To shame me. To discredit me. To accuse me of horrendous things. So I won't say it. But I will say that womanhood - especially in our heavily sexualized culture - can be a very sensual experience. Some people might say that's a bad thing. I say, when has adding pleasure to the recipe ever been a mistake? Your so-called "morals" are as thin as paper, and just as easily discarded.
God gave us a gift. (I don't believe in God, but I'm using that as a rhetorical device - it's just a metaphor for nature, or chance; whatever made us the way we are). Which is the ability to feel pleasure through the manipulation of our sexual organs. Its purpose is to increase our happiness, as we wander this Earth doing what we were programmed to do - which is survive, and procreate. Unfortunately, in our imperfect fallibility, we have learned to use this tool as a weapon to inflict pain on others in selfish pursuit.
I don't think that means we should give up on it. That some would use it selfishly, to steal happiness for themselves at the cost of hurting others, doesn't mean the rest of us should discontinue using it correctly, to spread happiness throughout the world. The people who abuse it have nothing to do with me. They are not me. And I do not support their actions. So please do not lump me in with them because I still believe in the virtue of pleasure and eroticism, while all you are able to see in your fearful, myopic rage is the danger and risk of harm.
It all goes back to the doctrine of sexuality as corruption - which I don't believe in. Like Midas' touch, eroticism taints everything it comes into contact with, giving it sinister flair and charging it with malignant intention. If you find sensuality in the experience of being naked, you can't be a nudist - you're just an exhibitionist. If roughing it in the wilderness without clothes turns you on, then every hike will be interpreted as a sex act. If you have any inwardly directed feelings of arousal tied to your gender identity or expression, then you're not transgender - you're just a cross-dressing pervert! You can't share these experiences with family or friends, or enjoy them in public - ever! - because they're being defined as categorically sexual in nature, and that would be highly inappropriate.
Never mind the fact that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, even though there are other occasions on which it might indeed be a penis. Nor am I allowed to suggest the theoretical possibility that we could all be smoking penises in public without incident and it would be just fine - because the world would not end, and we'd all learn that it's not that big a deal. (Oops, I just suggested it). Because if I did, it would tarnish the purity of my reputation, and seriously undermine that point I just made about cigars. They'd put my head in a guillotine and make sure I never have the freedom to spread my perverse delusions throughout society ever again.
I'm not saying there aren't bad people out there who would take advantage of a little leeway to wreak havoc in people's lives. Unfortunately - it's the reason we can't have nice things. But can't we at least have the imagination to suppose scenarios, that may or may not reflect reality all that closely, and then nourish ourselves on the pleasure those fantasies might bring, without instantly being labeled monsters? Imagine a world, for example, where minor sexual infractions - I'm talking non-contact offenses - were dealt with between people, instead of in court. And when people couldn't work it out themselves, it'd be brought to civil court, and not made into a criminal case.
Imagine a world where people co-habitating - or visiting others - could have a balanced discussion (with compromises on both sides) on what's appropriate re: dress codes, and sexual behavior. Where unexpectedly bumping into somebody naked would (maybe) be cause for surprise, but not necessarily castigation, let alone criminal sanction. Where somebody masturbating on a couch (assuming they're not bothering anyone, and have the courtesy to clean up after themselves) might just as soon be left alone as brought into a calm conversation about personal boundaries.
I know you're thinking that in most cases, this is how the world already works - but you're neglecting two important factors. One being that people tend to exercise self-repression, even in cases where they might be permitted some freedom if they had the courage to push those boundaries - but mostly they don't, because they are decent, empathetic people, and they've been taught by example (whether directly or indirectly) that you will be labeled a menace to society if you don't bend over backwards to stay out of other people's way.
The other factor is one I barely have the courage to mention, because it's poisoned with so much rhetoric. It's all well and good when two adults have a dispute over appropriate boundaries, but once you mix children into the living situation, it escalates very quickly. Nobody in their right mind would be fool enough to make the argument that we shield kids from the truth about human sexuality far more than is actually to their benefit (although if they did, they might remind you that repression - as opposed to open communication - is the veil behind which misbehavior often hides). But all rules that seem reasonable when applied to adults go out the window on the merest possibility that a child might step into the room. And how many places in this world can we go where that is not at least a possibility? Thus, we have rules that look good on paper, when reality reflects a far more repressed situation than anyone wants to admit.
I'll leave you with one last thought - about the importance of representation. It has been said - especially in the course of defending the freedom of speech - that speech is the beginning of all thought. Logically, it would seem that words communicate thoughts, and therefore thought must be the genesis of all speech. But while a creative mind may be capable of generating thoughts that have not (yet) been translated into words, in a broad and very real sense, average people have a hard time conceptualizing things they have no words to describe - nor any prior model or experience to draw from. This is the purpose of awareness. To utilize speech as a tool to direct thought into patterns that advocates consider under-represented.
Whatever the truth may be. Whatever doubt people may hold in their hearts. On a mass scale, a culture cannot conceive of a thing, at the very least, until an example of it is presented to them. Be it fictitious, in a book or a movie or a TV drama. Something people can point to and say, "that". "Oh, you mean that?" Something that other things can be compared to, and contrasted with. Whether it's a model to live up to, or to avoid at all costs. (Though preferably the former). I'm just a reclusive hermit too frightened to be in the public eye, but I wouldn't hate contributing to expanding people's imaginations in that direction - towards the conception of a sex-positivity that is virtuous without being exclusive - whether it's through my own lived experiences, or the art that I create. I want to be an example - I don't want to be made an example of.
Saturday, January 18, 2025
Filthy Beauty
I know I've mentioned this before (somewhere), but I read an eye-opening book about two years ago (Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us by Jesse Bering), that spends some time exploring the suppression of the disgust reaction during sexual arousal - a point that's really stuck with me. It's the reason that, to pick out a simple example, some people actually like to put other people's genitals in their mouth (I'm intentionally phrasing it to focus on how weird it sounds if you're not thinking about it in a sexual way). I mean, it's one of those things that's, like, obvious, but putting it into a (more or less) scientific context really helps you to understand human nature (and our behaviors) much better. Anyway, I just had another epiphany related to this subject.
The fact that your disgust reaction is suppressed when you're sexually aroused - so that you'll tolerate, even desire, behaviors that involve intimacy with what can only be described as "gross anatomy", all so you'll be incentivized to increase your chances at procreation - suggests to me that the things you're programmed to find desirable are inherently disgusting (to a certain degree). After all, sticking a body part into another person's orifice and then excreting bodily fluid into it - well, it doesn't sound very romantic, does it? But attraction is the key to the gateway that penetrates the wall of repulsion and body horror.
Why should these things be inherently disgusting, if you're not holding the key? Possibly because it prevents us from fucking everyone all the time - but since evolution would probably not object to this pattern of behavior, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that intimacy necessarily leaves us vulnerable. Not just emotionally. Or to external threats. But physiologically, as well. How better to transmit disease than to essentially remove the physical barrier between two (or more) persons' internal anatomy? Just like how we find bodily waste, or the stench of death, repugnant - largely because avoiding these things protects us from dangerous microorganisms. But in the case of sex, the potential reward is worth the risk (the only thing more important than survival is avoiding extinction). But better to limit exposure to just those moments when it's necessary - i.e., when you spot a hot babe, with whom you might have a chance of making healthy babies.
Anyway, the epiphany I had after ruminating on this fact is that this is probably why anything to do with sex and eroticism is such a taboo, constantly courting controversy, and inviting censorship. What you might find beautiful in an erotic sense is intrinsically filthy, and will undoubtedly be seen as such by anyone who doesn't share your particular sexual tastes. It's not simply that people are being uptight, or have been brainwashed by a puritan religious upbringing (although I'm not discounting these things as contributing factors). It's an inherent byproduct of our biological programming! Which isn't necessarily reassuring (biology is a tough force to counteract), but understanding the problem correctly is always the first step toward finding an effective solution.
I mean, think about it. Human beings (and not just our species, but organic life in general) are icky, gooey, drippy, leaky, smelly bags of flesh and guts. If it weren't for the sheer importance of the role that sexual reproduction holds in our fundamental programming, I doubt we'd even tolerate ourselves for more than a second. This actually bugs me as an erotic artist, because it reveals that the subject of my passionate dedication is rather narrow-minded and ego-centric. I mean, there are standards of aestheticism that approach the objective (at least from our perspective). You can appreciate the beauty of a fine specimen of animal, for example - the lines and curves, the musculature, the colors and patterns - without it (necessarily) involving any kind of sexual evaluation whatsoever. But that driving force of desire that makes an erotic portrait so... potent? Just imagine, if there were another intelligent species on this planet (or any other), what they find erotically beautiful could be unremarkable to us. Or, worse yet, actively repulsive. And of course the reverse would have to hold true. If the virtue of my work can't even transcend my own species, how much value does it really hold, in the cosmic scheme?
On the other hand, it's not even as though all human beings can appreciate my art. My subject is so niche, it's not a majority - it's not even a multitude that appreciates it. Just a tiny minority. So I don't know why it should bother me that hypothetical beings that may or may not exist, and that we probably won't come into contact with any time remotely concurrent with the existence of my consciousness, can't appreciate my work. I guess I just want to believe that I'm doing something that has importance beyond the tiny blip that is the span of my life on the universal clock. But I should be content in the knowledge that, even if it's only a few people, there are others out there who appreciate what I do. And that not only do I find it enjoyable to do, but doing it brings pleasure and excitement to them as well. That's enough, right?
Right?
But I wish, as a society, we could stop criticizing each other for enjoying the things we like that other people find repulsive, especially to the point of not just withholding another's happiness, but ruining somebody's life because of what ultimately amounts to a matter of unbidden tastes. We literally want to put bullets in people's heads because they prefer the taste of salted caramel to cookies and cream.
The fact that your disgust reaction is suppressed when you're sexually aroused - so that you'll tolerate, even desire, behaviors that involve intimacy with what can only be described as "gross anatomy", all so you'll be incentivized to increase your chances at procreation - suggests to me that the things you're programmed to find desirable are inherently disgusting (to a certain degree). After all, sticking a body part into another person's orifice and then excreting bodily fluid into it - well, it doesn't sound very romantic, does it? But attraction is the key to the gateway that penetrates the wall of repulsion and body horror.
Why should these things be inherently disgusting, if you're not holding the key? Possibly because it prevents us from fucking everyone all the time - but since evolution would probably not object to this pattern of behavior, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that intimacy necessarily leaves us vulnerable. Not just emotionally. Or to external threats. But physiologically, as well. How better to transmit disease than to essentially remove the physical barrier between two (or more) persons' internal anatomy? Just like how we find bodily waste, or the stench of death, repugnant - largely because avoiding these things protects us from dangerous microorganisms. But in the case of sex, the potential reward is worth the risk (the only thing more important than survival is avoiding extinction). But better to limit exposure to just those moments when it's necessary - i.e., when you spot a hot babe, with whom you might have a chance of making healthy babies.
Anyway, the epiphany I had after ruminating on this fact is that this is probably why anything to do with sex and eroticism is such a taboo, constantly courting controversy, and inviting censorship. What you might find beautiful in an erotic sense is intrinsically filthy, and will undoubtedly be seen as such by anyone who doesn't share your particular sexual tastes. It's not simply that people are being uptight, or have been brainwashed by a puritan religious upbringing (although I'm not discounting these things as contributing factors). It's an inherent byproduct of our biological programming! Which isn't necessarily reassuring (biology is a tough force to counteract), but understanding the problem correctly is always the first step toward finding an effective solution.
I mean, think about it. Human beings (and not just our species, but organic life in general) are icky, gooey, drippy, leaky, smelly bags of flesh and guts. If it weren't for the sheer importance of the role that sexual reproduction holds in our fundamental programming, I doubt we'd even tolerate ourselves for more than a second. This actually bugs me as an erotic artist, because it reveals that the subject of my passionate dedication is rather narrow-minded and ego-centric. I mean, there are standards of aestheticism that approach the objective (at least from our perspective). You can appreciate the beauty of a fine specimen of animal, for example - the lines and curves, the musculature, the colors and patterns - without it (necessarily) involving any kind of sexual evaluation whatsoever. But that driving force of desire that makes an erotic portrait so... potent? Just imagine, if there were another intelligent species on this planet (or any other), what they find erotically beautiful could be unremarkable to us. Or, worse yet, actively repulsive. And of course the reverse would have to hold true. If the virtue of my work can't even transcend my own species, how much value does it really hold, in the cosmic scheme?
On the other hand, it's not even as though all human beings can appreciate my art. My subject is so niche, it's not a majority - it's not even a multitude that appreciates it. Just a tiny minority. So I don't know why it should bother me that hypothetical beings that may or may not exist, and that we probably won't come into contact with any time remotely concurrent with the existence of my consciousness, can't appreciate my work. I guess I just want to believe that I'm doing something that has importance beyond the tiny blip that is the span of my life on the universal clock. But I should be content in the knowledge that, even if it's only a few people, there are others out there who appreciate what I do. And that not only do I find it enjoyable to do, but doing it brings pleasure and excitement to them as well. That's enough, right?
Right?
But I wish, as a society, we could stop criticizing each other for enjoying the things we like that other people find repulsive, especially to the point of not just withholding another's happiness, but ruining somebody's life because of what ultimately amounts to a matter of unbidden tastes. We literally want to put bullets in people's heads because they prefer the taste of salted caramel to cookies and cream.
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
Unresolved
It sounds counterintuitive - and maybe this makes me a bad artist (although let's be honest, I'll never be great) - but my resolution for this year is to take fewer pictures. It's kind of gotten out of hand, and I need to reel myself in (I'd like to say that I'll focus on quality over quantity, but frequently in my work process, quality has proven itself to be the byproduct of quantity) - and also spend time managing my backlog. I'm spending too much time barrelling forward, and I think that it's actually holding me back.
Maybe I'm wrong, and I have completely the wrong idea about this. I know that doing something a lot is what makes you get better at it. But I need time to manage, too. Not just create. I have years of good stuff I haven't even shared yet, and I need to curate my library of photos, fashion something of a portfolio, and figure out how to present my work to potential new audiences that are missing out. I want to get better at doing those things, too. And I don't want to wait forever to do it. Life is short. Not everybody is as young as I am, and I'm not even as young as I'd like to be. And there'll be nobody invested enough to manage my estate when I'm gone.
This year, I want to think further ahead than just this year.
Maybe I'm wrong, and I have completely the wrong idea about this. I know that doing something a lot is what makes you get better at it. But I need time to manage, too. Not just create. I have years of good stuff I haven't even shared yet, and I need to curate my library of photos, fashion something of a portfolio, and figure out how to present my work to potential new audiences that are missing out. I want to get better at doing those things, too. And I don't want to wait forever to do it. Life is short. Not everybody is as young as I am, and I'm not even as young as I'd like to be. And there'll be nobody invested enough to manage my estate when I'm gone.
This year, I want to think further ahead than just this year.
Tuesday, December 31, 2024
Backfire
Nothing engenders within me less outrage than hearing about another celebrity sex scandal. I find it galling that we have the nerve to condemn people for sexual misbehavior in a culture where we throw ourselves to the wolves in terms of navigating our fundamental sexual programming. It is only after we have provided an avenue for everyone to attain sexual satisfaction through ethical means, without restricting access to comprehensive education and the latest advances in medical technology - and without weaponizing crippling shame! - I say, it is only after we have done this that we can then talk about the "moral failure" of those wayward souls who resort to seeking orgasms outside of socially-approved channels. But not a moment sooner. Honestly, when somebody has a sex scandal, it makes me want to empathize with them more. Because who among us hasn't been hamstrung by our puritan culture in the pursuit of pleasure? And why? Because we're supposed to feel bad about wanting to feel good? We deserve a more nuanced conversation than that.
Friday, December 20, 2024
Thursday, December 12, 2024
Gymnaesthetics
I'm coining a new term - gymnaesthetics. It combines the Greek word for nudity, "gymnos", with "aesthetics", the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the nature of beauty. In a nutshell, gymnaesthetics is the study or appreciation of naked beauty. As a corollary, and taking cue from aestheticism - an art movement focused on aesthetics, or "art for art's sake" above and beyond any pragmatic function - the term gymnaestheticism may be used to refer to the artistic discipline of producing art that is focused on the perceived beauty of the unclothed human form.
In thousands of years of human civilization, and half a millennium removed from the Renaissance, I'm surprised I have to be the one to come along and invent this concept. Now, I know I'm not the first person in the history of mankind to appreciate the sight of a naked body. The subjective experience of human beauty is a nearly universal phenomenon. But in civilized society, there exists a stringent taboo on nudity. And are you really fully appreciating the human body if you're covering part of it up? Yet the clothes don't come off unless it's about sex. Why isn't there a community dedicated to naked beauty, as distinguished from porn?
Nudism comes close, but misses the mark with their politically correct rhetoric prioritizing self-acceptance. "Every body is beautiful" is a self-contradiction, because beauty is inherently selective. Any kind of emphasis on the visual aspect of seeing people naked (and the pleasure it can bring) is criticized by nudists as voyeurism. You're not permitted to openly acknowledge the positive impact of fitness, diet, grooming, etc on a person's appearance. Nudist beauty pageants have become more than passé - they're an outright taboo!
Of course, there are lots of people who appreciate naked bodies in a superficial manner, but it's always myopically centered around sexual recreation. I've never been one to deny the erotic element of naked beauty, but so much gets lost when sex is the primary focus. Sight is treated as merely an appetizer to the main course of touch. Appearance is only a means to the end of getting off. It's like going to the theater to catch the trailers, and then having to sit through a movie you didn't want to watch. Little care is given to the craft and artistry of presentation. People are paired off (or grouped), instead of sharing their delight publicly. It's interactive, when sometimes you want a more passive form of entertainment. And you have to strictly limit your audience, which also restricts your reach.
Is it so hard to let people interpret art however they want, while still letting the images stand for themselves? It's enough that the human body is considered "indecent" and inappropriate for public viewing - with artistic exceptions inconsistent, as well as few and far between. But you can't even comfortably honor gymnaesthetics in private, without carefully vetting potential observers, lest the wrong person get an eyeful, complain to peers and authorities, and then you face the prospect of social reprobation even if there isn't enough of an offense to support legal repercussions...
In thousands of years of human civilization, and half a millennium removed from the Renaissance, I'm surprised I have to be the one to come along and invent this concept. Now, I know I'm not the first person in the history of mankind to appreciate the sight of a naked body. The subjective experience of human beauty is a nearly universal phenomenon. But in civilized society, there exists a stringent taboo on nudity. And are you really fully appreciating the human body if you're covering part of it up? Yet the clothes don't come off unless it's about sex. Why isn't there a community dedicated to naked beauty, as distinguished from porn?
Nudism comes close, but misses the mark with their politically correct rhetoric prioritizing self-acceptance. "Every body is beautiful" is a self-contradiction, because beauty is inherently selective. Any kind of emphasis on the visual aspect of seeing people naked (and the pleasure it can bring) is criticized by nudists as voyeurism. You're not permitted to openly acknowledge the positive impact of fitness, diet, grooming, etc on a person's appearance. Nudist beauty pageants have become more than passé - they're an outright taboo!
Of course, there are lots of people who appreciate naked bodies in a superficial manner, but it's always myopically centered around sexual recreation. I've never been one to deny the erotic element of naked beauty, but so much gets lost when sex is the primary focus. Sight is treated as merely an appetizer to the main course of touch. Appearance is only a means to the end of getting off. It's like going to the theater to catch the trailers, and then having to sit through a movie you didn't want to watch. Little care is given to the craft and artistry of presentation. People are paired off (or grouped), instead of sharing their delight publicly. It's interactive, when sometimes you want a more passive form of entertainment. And you have to strictly limit your audience, which also restricts your reach.
Is it so hard to let people interpret art however they want, while still letting the images stand for themselves? It's enough that the human body is considered "indecent" and inappropriate for public viewing - with artistic exceptions inconsistent, as well as few and far between. But you can't even comfortably honor gymnaesthetics in private, without carefully vetting potential observers, lest the wrong person get an eyeful, complain to peers and authorities, and then you face the prospect of social reprobation even if there isn't enough of an offense to support legal repercussions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)