About a month since I last updated. This is one of my weaknesses that I have yet to overcome, being able to stay focused on one subject without getting sidetracked on another one for quite awhile. Also finding myself the time to do that isn't required is hard for me, which I really hope to overcome. But enough about that, the topic at hand this time, sex and gender.
By default, sex and gender is a binary system of male and female, something that doesn't change from birth, and the meaning of gender is often used interchangeable with sex. Most people likely wouldn't even think of anything of more then two genders or sexes.
I'll like to say sex and gender are not the same thing despite being used interchangeable. This is usually not even thought up of very deeply except when it comes to the issue of intersexual and transgender people. Intersexuals are most certainly a third sex. In a nutshell, people who are born in a way that they couldn't really be labeled male or female. Their usually "corrected" before leaving the hospital, to fit into the binary system of being a male or female.
I'll also say there is in fact a third gender. Gender is not as simple as male or female. How would we define what makes a living being male or female? Gender could be broken up into role and identify. I should note that these can vary depending on what culture you're in. Gender role is how a gender is expected to act and what tasks they are usually given. Gender identify is more personally and how oneself views oneself in terms of gender, which is most cases is usually male or female that matches with their gender role and sex. This is the key factor in there being a third gender. In other words, gender is man made and may or may not be a concept in nature, unlike how sex is.
Gender is also not as simple as masculine or feminine behavior. For example, a tomboy might have more masculine behavior then feminine, but she's still considered female (including considering herself that) and while she might act similar to males, her expression and appearance might still be that of a girl or woman. On the other hand, a transgender or transsexual person might still have the body of their birth sex, but their expression and appearance might go to the point where their considered to be of the opposite gender from their sex.
Omnisexuality/Pansexuality goes beyond simply male and female, for people that might have a sexual attractive for intersexuals, transgendered people, genderqueers, and anything else not of the binary man or woman system. It also seems to have no focus on the gender of the person unlike bisexuality, which the bi part only says two. It's realizing that not everyone fits the male or female binary gender system that we're heavily taught is there and the only truth. Most cultures and nations might not realize anything beyond male and female, including pronouns, but their there. Third gender pronouns are very debatable among such communities and there is yet to be an accepted norm for a set of one. The word it is not considered a good term for a person outside the male or female gender.
This is what I believe I personally fit, a third gender, or rather, Androgyny, not male or female like society says I am and should be. Hence, I'm rather uneasy at times when you're forced to say your male or female on forms and even more so if it has to be public knowledge and in public view. This usually applies to certain web sites on the Internet. I don't wanna wear a big male or female label even if 98% or 99% of people have no such problems. Of course, people would think I'm crazy. I don't call myself The Deviant One for nothing.
Autogynephilia (in other words, love of oneself as a woman) is a concept thought up by Ray Blanchard that claims there are only two types of transwomen. The first type is a transwoman who is sexually arousal by being a woman "himself" (more on that in a moment) and is into other women. The other type is a transwoman who is into men and becomes a woman to dodge having to deal with being a homosexual man and to appear as a heterosexual woman. The concept was furthered extended by J. Michael Bailey (who wrote a book called "The Man Who Would be Queen", which can be read for free online) and Dr. Anne Lawrence, a transwoman. This concept focuses heavily on putting all transwomen into those two types and if any of them denies it, they "must be lying". Their also do not fully accepted transwomen as of they were women and are called by Blanchard "a man without a penis". If I'm not mistaken, transmen are never mention anywhere in all of this.
Concepts like that is what I believe can really hurt the TG community. Everyone doesn't fit into neat boxes as suggested by Autogynephilia. Something seems wrong with being a transwoman lesbian unlike being a gay man. It should also be noted that J. Michael Bailey claimed that bisexuality doesn't exist, which is seen by the LGBT community as another attack against them. This concept pretty much fails to realize that most transwomen are women trapped in a man's body and that they work to correct it.
Now, the rest of this post will most likely be focused on me.
I want to feel fully complete as an androgyne. After all, it is part of the trans community, even if a somewhat unknown sub group of it. It doesn't fit the binary gender system that sometimes the trans community focuses even more on then non trans people. I feel that a female body look and feel would fit me a lot more then where I'm at now. Despite the androgyne bit, society is gonna see me as male or female and I whether go with the latter. It'll also mean more "freedom" to do certain things that males normally take a lot of heat from. Also this is a chance to further prove some points about gender.
My ultimate purpose is to become and feel complete. Right now, it just feels like I'm living a shell of myself, not my true self. While it has not been all the long (since late 2005), it just feels strong and it only keeps building up as time goes by. If I had to compare to a label, it would be that of a shemale or transgenderist. A shemale in most cases being a pre/non-op transsexual who still has sexual function in the penis. A transgenderist being similar to a transexual, but they value their genitals and don't want SRS.
The one thing that sets me apart from many trans people is I don't plan to fit an extreme gender role or sterotype. Didn't tomboys and many other types of women taught people that not all women act like a stereotype lady who behaves in a certain way? Unlike many transsexuals who want to get rid of all possible signs of their former self, I don't intend to get rid of much male concepts about me. I mainly want to add the female stuff to my gender. I don't need to look and feel as much as a woman as possible just for society to see me as one. To some extend, yes, but not fully. It may seem kinda like an oxymoron to want to do this, but not SRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery). I think it should really be called GRS (Genital Reassignment Surgery). Genitals isn't the leading factor in how one acts. That's why I used the shemale label, to still have a functional penis while otherwise having the body of a woman, including breasts.
So why would I go through the process of hormones if I don't intend to become a "true" woman? This is hard to explain. Look at it this way. Trans people usually have a gender that doesn't match their sex. Male to female (MTF) and female to male (FTM). It's almost the same way with me. A gender (androgyne) that doesn't match my body (male born). It's not enough just to have a face that looks androgyne, but also a whole body that is pretty much female in shape and feel. I feel that is more right for me then a male body. Sure many androgynes likely doesn't go through any process of changing their body, but I'm not like many androgynes.
I'm willing to lose friends and family over this. Well, it's not like I have much family to lose. I'm not very active or in touch with my family, but what they do know about me (minus the TG bit) so far is pretty positive. That's pretty much for the family I don't live with. Should my dad know anything about this, he likely would be angry beyond belief. However, he doesn't even live in the same state as me and doesn't really keep in contact with me, which stopped sometime mid 2006.
To me, this is getting so frustrating. My mother doesn't understand how I could want to become a woman (at least through society's eyes), yet keep a penis. She pretty much sees a penis as the primary factor, if not the only factor that defines someone as a man. So regardless of how much I appear as a female on the outside, she'll still consider me a man. Now had I plan to get SRS, this may or may not be the case. Also, she only goes on about the negatives of this whole thing and mention nothing positive, not a single positive thing at all. She acts like I'm confused because I want to have the body of a woman, yet have a penis. She even goes as far to say other TG and pre/non-op transsexuals are confused. I argued over and over about this, including how would she know how they felt? Just because I feel the need for these things doesn't mean I'm in anyway confused about them. Also, just because someone is confused about someone else doesn't mean that person is confused about oneself. Furthermore, she seems to act like there is no need to understand this. I swear that this shouldn't have ever been brought up, but it was gonna happen sooner or later.
This is indeed gonna be a hard process, with a lack of funds (and means to get them) and bad location with very limited support. I feel like I must do this, as I refuse to live my whole life in my current state. I rather die at a young age living my life to the fullest then die at a very old age without really doing anything with my life. I'm sure many other feel the same way. My life with the details above (plus more I have yet to explain, related to other topics) wouldn't be a very safe life and could in fact be dangerous, but again, I rather live that life while living life to the fullest, not a safe life while hardly doing anything. Maybe now more and more people are starting to see why I'm using the title The Deviant One.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
A very deep look into Nudism.
Oh yes, the state of being without clothes. Oh how much a good amount of people hate it. I feel like it's one of those things people tend to hate without question, or at least without that much questioning. There are a number of reasons for this. One being that “it's all about sex!” Another being “who wants to see a penis or a fat woman naked?” Yet another being “it's harmful to children!” Believe it or not, there are people in today's society who enjoys being nude and none of those things mention above are really a problem. Well, due to current laws, which are likely mostly worldwide, they are nude for only certain places, like at home or nudist resorts. Yes, there are whole clubs and groups where people get naked. Yes, there are all kinds of shapes and sizes of people and it's truth most don't have the body of a supermodel, which are usually (but not always) fake anyway, usually in removing moles or anything else found unattractive. Many people of the general public want to live in some fantasy world where only supermodels exist. Nudism does have people of all ages, from children to the elderly. Yes, children, but isn't that harmful to their development? How many can really explain why it's harmful to their development? Won't that give them the wrong ideas about stuff? Won't they easily get sexually abuse? Isn't being naked a sin to many religious folks? That and much more answered below.
Let's face it. The media mostly only shows that people get undressed for sexual reasons and not just simply another state of matter, like wearing clothes. For those who think nudity is only about sex, I'll ask you this. Do you ever think about sex when disrobing to bath? I wonder if there are any real cases of people being so ashamed and uptight about nudity that they bath with clothes on, even if barely covering their body in the process. The media has done such a good job of reinforcing the idea that nudity = sex into many people's minds. These people usually refuse to think there is another side to the story, which applies to more then just nudity, but that's beyond the current topic here. Nudists know nudity and sex are two very different things. In fact, many nudists tend to be anti-sex, or at least anti-porn. Also, nudist resorts have rules against any sexual actions going on, including a male getting turned on. They even flaw upon those dressed in a sexual way, like a woman wearing short shorts and a bra only. Even minor sexually stuff is a lot more flown upon then stuff among clothed people. Their anything but sex clubs.
Surely all the famous art work that has nudity in it was made only for sexual reasons right? No, that isn't the case. For some reason, people seem to accept art work with nudity, but almost nothing else, including photographs. They seem to act like it's impossible for non-classic art nudes to not be porn in some way. It's not like classic art couldn't show sexual acts. However, there have been complains even today about nude art work being in certain places, including places where children can see it, who usually tend to ignore it anyway. Isn't it ironic that these same people against nudity usually have nude (or at least implied) paintings and statues in their home, including being detailed with female nipples or a penis and sometimes even youth?
So what are the reasons for clothes? The main reason is to protect us from the elements. This expanded to make statements in different ways. Everything from social class (like being rich or poor) to written statements. For whatever reason, it became law to wear clothes. Modesty has been brought into the mix and to be without clothes is to be without respect. That doesn't mean the idea of modesty has to remain the same as it is now. It, like other moral issues, is subjective.
What are the reasons for swimsuits? Mostly modesty. Otherwise, what other purpose do that severe? They don't help us get any wetter or stay drier. Also, they carry the weight of the water after getting back on dry land and they can even carry sand which generally feels uncomfortable. They also tend to cost almost as much, if not more, then clothing that covers much more of the body. Lastly, it's usually much harder to dry with them on then if you were just naked, like after finishing bathing. Nudists mainly see swimsuits as pointless and even called them shame suits. In many swimsuits, you're pretty much naked except for what society considers immoral and harmful, the genitals and female breasts. The only other purpose is to severe as model suits, as hiding that “little secret”, which certain people are turned on more by then full nudity.
The first America swimsuits covered most of the body. Couldn't have been very comfortable to swim in could it? It was even illegal for men to go topless at beaches at one point. I believe it was around 1930's that when many men broke that law (with a cause), it was no longer illegal and hardly anyone fussed about it anymore. Yet, even over 70 years later, this is not yet truth of females.
Wait, not everyone has a perfect body. To many nudists, that's not an issue. To them, it's about accepting everyBODY. Far less people have perfect bodies then what we may think. Perfect, usually being what the media tell us it is. It may also be biological and something we're born with. But either way, there's a difference between accepting the non-ideal body and hated of it like “you're ugly!” It doesn't really help that much when we're only exposed to the ideal body, the ideal body being what people generally accepts. Of course, not everyone has the same idea of the perfect body, but we're often only shown the most common and accepted one. It's amazing how many female breasts are not large, “perfectly” round, or seemingly unaffected by gravity.
Nudists tend to be a whole lot less judging over someone's appearance and are hardly likely to have problems fitting within society's very hard to reach "perfect body" that usually involves very pricy breast implants. What good comes out of many young women stressing out trying to fit an idea that's very hard if not close to impossible to meet just because society is non accepting of anything less? How many women get breast implants other then for “many people think my breasts are too small to get turned on by”? Doesn't this only reinforce the idea that women must meet the ideal body or else? In a way that's a topic on it's own, but with nudism, people are generally happier with the bodies they have, not what they wish they had.
Yeah, not many people wanna see a body that's consider ugly. But wouldn't those feelings die down at least even a little bit if it became common to see all kinds of bodies? Wouldn't we realize then that only a select few fit people's view of the ideal body? People would get used to not seeing their view of an ideal body and possibly become less judging. Wouldn't this help more then anything? Wouldn't the whole “I didn't wanted to see those sagging breasts” tone down a whole lot after awhile? Speaking of which, many people (usually men) seem to act like they can control what women are suppose to look like and that they must be their demands. It's almost as if women don't even own their own bodies anymore.
It should be noted that there are a lot more male nudists out there then female nudists. Their most likely heterosexual, since like I mentioned earlier, any sexually themes are almost non-existence. Again, add in the factor that these people have bodies of all shapes and sizes and you can almost rule out looking for that “hot chick”. Yes, there are a few female nudists that have a “perfect” body, but if your goal is to find only nudists like that, you're be disappointed and would be better off with looking for super models and stuff. Even nudists are not ruled out when it comes to looking for the ideal body. In a nudist setting that doesn't have an “equal amount of sexes” rule, it will likely be mostly full of males and a few females, especially if that come anyway close to having the normal view of the ideal body tend to get noticed a lot.
Why mostly men? I should make clear that this hardly has anything to do with sexually attraction. Men tend to have a lot less hung ups about their bodies, are not pressured to “wear this and get a boob job or else!”, and won't get hit on in the same way as women. Also in society a man has a lot less problems with showing skin then women, except maybe wearing belly shirts. A man wearing only shorts, not much of a problem, but a woman wearing only a bikini, a lot more problems. Same goes for a man's buttocks being exposed, other then a few “I didn't want to see that” comments. It's mostly sexual reasons in a woman's case of her buttocks being exposed.
But isn't it impossible to live a “normal” life being naked? Not in the case of many other cultures then America. Both old and even a few modern cultures live mostly nude in some form. Now I can't really say I know that much about those cultures or why nudity was so common and accepted. One thing for sure is they knew that nudity wasn't some evil or meant only for sexual reasons. They likely didn't walk around naked just to get their sexual needs fulfilled. One reason could be a lack of resources, that is, usually being poor. Others could include rituals and customs. They also may have seen that they didn't always needed clothes. Even today on TV on certain networks, when other cultures are being shown, they usually don't attempt to hide (maybe other then censoring "forbidden parts") that certain cultures had nudity as the norm.
How can it be unnatural as some people put it? Those same people usually consider natural to being something someone is born with. We're all born into the world naked. How is something that is man made considered more natural then how are bodies are with nothing added to it? Isn't it just one of those things that people tend to be against so much that they will made up anything to be against it? How is it natural for every other animal in the world to be naked, except for humans? What about those animals without fur? How can people accept seeing parts on an animal that they wouldn't accept seeing on humans? On the other hand, cartoon animals and most other drawn animals lack any of those parts.
Even referring to certain body parts by the "correct" name is a shock to many people. We usually only have one name for most body parts. Now how come for something like the penis, we have a ton of different names like pee pee, wee wee, “little buddy”, and more? Even people who refer to the penis as a dick or the vagina as a pussy, it seems to come to a bit of a shocker to them to hear the "correct” terms. Yet another form of body shame, which only seems to do more harm then good in the end seems to be the case. People tend to get more hung up over the “correct” terms for the sexual organs then talking about other sex related stuff.
As a little personal example, I remember how on the bus going home from school one day, some guy said something about getting into trouble for me saying penis, yet not anything about him talking about Playboy. So it's more acceptable to talk about soft-core porn magazines then the "correct" name of a body part? Does this not reinforce that people are hung up a lot about the human body, but not sex in some way? Sure that was just one guy, but I think many people feel the same way.
Isn't it amazing how we're ashamed of even our own bodies? Not counting those that don't feel that way. People, especially women (likely because of the media), are very uptight about their appearance, mostly weight. Many people tend to get shocked and feel offended when they see the nude body of someone of their own sex. A man will usually get upset and offended over seeing another man's penis. Isn't being ashamed of our bodies being ashamed of a big part of who we are? To say or act like something is wrong with our body is saying something is wrong with ourselves. I'm talking about mere appearance, not any actual health issues here. I won't deny that appearance is usually the first thing people know of someone before any of their personality and first impressions greatly affect people. I also won't deny that having a ton of weight isn't healthy either, but the other end of being underweight (which is much less common) also isn't. It could be argued that with certain body shapes and sizes, that the person may not care about themselves that much. However, I doubt eating healthy and working out makes moles on the body go away or have woman's breasts increase in size (with a thin body) while defining gravity. Besides, a body that looks healthy on the outside doesn't mean it is on the inside. The average body of a supermodel isn't considered healthy, since they tend to be very thin, at least females.
Time to bring religion into this a little bit. I rather not go into too much details here, but it does relate to nudity. I can't really go into much details with other religions other then Christianity. Even a select few Christians are nudists. In fact, many of the arguments in support of nudity are from a Christian part of view. On the flip side, many arguments against nudity have also been from them, mainly due to the fear of lust and that humans are uncontrollable sexy animals at the sight of a naked human body. Which side is correct? That's up to you to decide. One thing to be said is why would a God who's creations are perfect, had made a flaw in the design of the human body, but not anything else, including animal bodies? Those in support of nudity generally say Adam and Eve only covered themselves in shame after sin. Also it's said that they were naked and unashamed before eating the forbidden fruit. Further more, those in support of nudity say God only punished lust and adultery, not merely being naked. Those and more have been debated heavily however and would take a much longer time to go into further details.
Remember the Super Bowl 2004? Had America not been so super uptight and ashamed of nudity, there likely would have never been a problem in the first place. I'm guessing if someone were killed during the half-time show instead, there would have been less problems. Sure it was unexpected, but many other unexpected events tend to cause less problems. Doesn't this reinforce that body shame only brings harm? A man could have took his shirt off and bam, no problems. This seems to have been a step backwards for the general public views about nudity = sex. Ok, so that wasn't exactly nudism, but it was a form of nudity nonetheless.
Reminds me of how seemingly many people say how nudity (again, believing that nudity = sex) is much more troublesome then violence. As far as the media goes, to have a bunch of people violently killed is “ok”, but a exposed female nipple is cause for major alarm. Despite the number of people who seem to believe this, it almost seems like this isn't the case at all. Why would this still be such a major issue if that many people feel that way? Is this a case of 49% feeling sex isn't worst then violence and 51% feeling otherwise?
Finally, the issue of children. Believe it or not, nudity actually helps children out if their taught it's nothing wrong with it. Of course their taught not to walk butt naked out in public. Their not born ashamed of their bodies, their taught to be ashamed. By seeing how others react to nudity, they pick up the same feelings and usually don't question them and if they do, not much. Parents tend to pass on their body shame issues to children. If they walk around naked or play doctor, their told it's a bad thing, even if not really given any reasons. Parents for some reason tend to feel ashamed if a child asks about their sexual organs, but not any other body parts. It's all in great fun to learn about the bodies and parts about animals, but a big no-no if it comes to their own bodies, the human bodies. Children naturally want to learn about stuff and many adults tend to fear that learning about sexual organs will lead only to bad things for them. If children are believed to be asexual, then what's the worry in them wanting to go out to do something sexual if they learned about their genitals? They might not have to be told the "birds and the bees", but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be told anything about their genitals at all.
People wonder why so many young people, especially young women, are so ashamed of their body and want to meet very hard if not almost impossible standards. They also wonder why those same young people are into Playboy and other porn so much. One reason I can say is because they have nowhere else to turn to for learning what other bodies look like, both their own sex for adults and the opposite sex. Not to mention people and the media reinforce the whole “nudity = sex” message and that during that period in life, their bodies to become a lot more sexually active.
Normally people say children would be confused about sex and all that if exposed to the "forbidden parts". This is shown almost everywhere in society. Like I said many times, this is based on the belief of "nudity = sex". I repeat, how would a newly born baby see a "forbidden part" and automatic get upset if their not taught? Is it not society that is confusing our children into thinking nudity and sex are interchangeable?
Believe it or not, children who grow up as nudists have very limited body hung ups that people around their age do. They don't see what the big deal is with people wanting to see and drool over naked bodies so much. They don't look at a naked body and think “how sexy” or “how ugly”. They also tend to have higher self-esteem. Why should a child be offended by something that they maybe sucked on (breast feeding) for awhile? I heard it's more healthy for a child to drink their mother's own milk then those in a bottle, not to mention it's cheaper for the parents. Nature had to have intended breast feeding somehow, with the steps leading up to it, like the breasts producing milk usually only after giving birth. However, there are people against breast feeding, mainly because “I don't wanna see a breast”, including things like “I didn't paid to see a boob sucking show here” or “that child is being forced into a sexual relationship.” Yes, the latter was an actual comment said somewhere. Why should a towel be put over a child or them and their mother forced into another place (like the restroom) just because some people can't get over the sight of a breast without thing it's only a sex toy? The mother is doing it for the child, not for those around her. People are not forced to look if their so offended by it. Body shame is suppose to be helping who here? What good does sending a child into a dirty restroom do just because people are very hung up about it? Since when did people have a right not to be offended? If you never been offended, you're not living in a free country.
Are nudist children in danger of sexual predators? Possibly not anymore then non-nudist children. If someone really want to sexually abuse a child, clothes would only be a short delay. Is a sexual predator really gonna try to do anything to someone else's child out in public view? Somehow, I have a feeling someone who is a sex offender wouldn't be allowed into a nudist resort. If someone is suspected by looking at a child “funny”, they will be dealt with before anything gets out of hand.
I gone over a lot because I believe this is big issue. It's amazing how viewing the issue from the other side puts things in a new light, well at least for some people. Of course, not everyone agrees with this, but whoever agrees with everything out there? I think America would be a lot better off if body shame issues would go away and that public nudity wasn't illegal. Again I would like to say that “who wants to see a grandma's sagging boobs?” wouldn't really be any problem with this mind frame. Wait, what about sexual crimes increasing? As soon as the “sex = nudity” message stops being reinforced, then those crimes should greatly decrease. Much more information can be found about this by looking for nudism. Make sure not to use incorrect words if you don't wanna find porn by mistake.
Let's face it. The media mostly only shows that people get undressed for sexual reasons and not just simply another state of matter, like wearing clothes. For those who think nudity is only about sex, I'll ask you this. Do you ever think about sex when disrobing to bath? I wonder if there are any real cases of people being so ashamed and uptight about nudity that they bath with clothes on, even if barely covering their body in the process. The media has done such a good job of reinforcing the idea that nudity = sex into many people's minds. These people usually refuse to think there is another side to the story, which applies to more then just nudity, but that's beyond the current topic here. Nudists know nudity and sex are two very different things. In fact, many nudists tend to be anti-sex, or at least anti-porn. Also, nudist resorts have rules against any sexual actions going on, including a male getting turned on. They even flaw upon those dressed in a sexual way, like a woman wearing short shorts and a bra only. Even minor sexually stuff is a lot more flown upon then stuff among clothed people. Their anything but sex clubs.
Surely all the famous art work that has nudity in it was made only for sexual reasons right? No, that isn't the case. For some reason, people seem to accept art work with nudity, but almost nothing else, including photographs. They seem to act like it's impossible for non-classic art nudes to not be porn in some way. It's not like classic art couldn't show sexual acts. However, there have been complains even today about nude art work being in certain places, including places where children can see it, who usually tend to ignore it anyway. Isn't it ironic that these same people against nudity usually have nude (or at least implied) paintings and statues in their home, including being detailed with female nipples or a penis and sometimes even youth?
So what are the reasons for clothes? The main reason is to protect us from the elements. This expanded to make statements in different ways. Everything from social class (like being rich or poor) to written statements. For whatever reason, it became law to wear clothes. Modesty has been brought into the mix and to be without clothes is to be without respect. That doesn't mean the idea of modesty has to remain the same as it is now. It, like other moral issues, is subjective.
What are the reasons for swimsuits? Mostly modesty. Otherwise, what other purpose do that severe? They don't help us get any wetter or stay drier. Also, they carry the weight of the water after getting back on dry land and they can even carry sand which generally feels uncomfortable. They also tend to cost almost as much, if not more, then clothing that covers much more of the body. Lastly, it's usually much harder to dry with them on then if you were just naked, like after finishing bathing. Nudists mainly see swimsuits as pointless and even called them shame suits. In many swimsuits, you're pretty much naked except for what society considers immoral and harmful, the genitals and female breasts. The only other purpose is to severe as model suits, as hiding that “little secret”, which certain people are turned on more by then full nudity.
The first America swimsuits covered most of the body. Couldn't have been very comfortable to swim in could it? It was even illegal for men to go topless at beaches at one point. I believe it was around 1930's that when many men broke that law (with a cause), it was no longer illegal and hardly anyone fussed about it anymore. Yet, even over 70 years later, this is not yet truth of females.
Wait, not everyone has a perfect body. To many nudists, that's not an issue. To them, it's about accepting everyBODY. Far less people have perfect bodies then what we may think. Perfect, usually being what the media tell us it is. It may also be biological and something we're born with. But either way, there's a difference between accepting the non-ideal body and hated of it like “you're ugly!” It doesn't really help that much when we're only exposed to the ideal body, the ideal body being what people generally accepts. Of course, not everyone has the same idea of the perfect body, but we're often only shown the most common and accepted one. It's amazing how many female breasts are not large, “perfectly” round, or seemingly unaffected by gravity.
Nudists tend to be a whole lot less judging over someone's appearance and are hardly likely to have problems fitting within society's very hard to reach "perfect body" that usually involves very pricy breast implants. What good comes out of many young women stressing out trying to fit an idea that's very hard if not close to impossible to meet just because society is non accepting of anything less? How many women get breast implants other then for “many people think my breasts are too small to get turned on by”? Doesn't this only reinforce the idea that women must meet the ideal body or else? In a way that's a topic on it's own, but with nudism, people are generally happier with the bodies they have, not what they wish they had.
Yeah, not many people wanna see a body that's consider ugly. But wouldn't those feelings die down at least even a little bit if it became common to see all kinds of bodies? Wouldn't we realize then that only a select few fit people's view of the ideal body? People would get used to not seeing their view of an ideal body and possibly become less judging. Wouldn't this help more then anything? Wouldn't the whole “I didn't wanted to see those sagging breasts” tone down a whole lot after awhile? Speaking of which, many people (usually men) seem to act like they can control what women are suppose to look like and that they must be their demands. It's almost as if women don't even own their own bodies anymore.
It should be noted that there are a lot more male nudists out there then female nudists. Their most likely heterosexual, since like I mentioned earlier, any sexually themes are almost non-existence. Again, add in the factor that these people have bodies of all shapes and sizes and you can almost rule out looking for that “hot chick”. Yes, there are a few female nudists that have a “perfect” body, but if your goal is to find only nudists like that, you're be disappointed and would be better off with looking for super models and stuff. Even nudists are not ruled out when it comes to looking for the ideal body. In a nudist setting that doesn't have an “equal amount of sexes” rule, it will likely be mostly full of males and a few females, especially if that come anyway close to having the normal view of the ideal body tend to get noticed a lot.
Why mostly men? I should make clear that this hardly has anything to do with sexually attraction. Men tend to have a lot less hung ups about their bodies, are not pressured to “wear this and get a boob job or else!”, and won't get hit on in the same way as women. Also in society a man has a lot less problems with showing skin then women, except maybe wearing belly shirts. A man wearing only shorts, not much of a problem, but a woman wearing only a bikini, a lot more problems. Same goes for a man's buttocks being exposed, other then a few “I didn't want to see that” comments. It's mostly sexual reasons in a woman's case of her buttocks being exposed.
But isn't it impossible to live a “normal” life being naked? Not in the case of many other cultures then America. Both old and even a few modern cultures live mostly nude in some form. Now I can't really say I know that much about those cultures or why nudity was so common and accepted. One thing for sure is they knew that nudity wasn't some evil or meant only for sexual reasons. They likely didn't walk around naked just to get their sexual needs fulfilled. One reason could be a lack of resources, that is, usually being poor. Others could include rituals and customs. They also may have seen that they didn't always needed clothes. Even today on TV on certain networks, when other cultures are being shown, they usually don't attempt to hide (maybe other then censoring "forbidden parts") that certain cultures had nudity as the norm.
How can it be unnatural as some people put it? Those same people usually consider natural to being something someone is born with. We're all born into the world naked. How is something that is man made considered more natural then how are bodies are with nothing added to it? Isn't it just one of those things that people tend to be against so much that they will made up anything to be against it? How is it natural for every other animal in the world to be naked, except for humans? What about those animals without fur? How can people accept seeing parts on an animal that they wouldn't accept seeing on humans? On the other hand, cartoon animals and most other drawn animals lack any of those parts.
Even referring to certain body parts by the "correct" name is a shock to many people. We usually only have one name for most body parts. Now how come for something like the penis, we have a ton of different names like pee pee, wee wee, “little buddy”, and more? Even people who refer to the penis as a dick or the vagina as a pussy, it seems to come to a bit of a shocker to them to hear the "correct” terms. Yet another form of body shame, which only seems to do more harm then good in the end seems to be the case. People tend to get more hung up over the “correct” terms for the sexual organs then talking about other sex related stuff.
As a little personal example, I remember how on the bus going home from school one day, some guy said something about getting into trouble for me saying penis, yet not anything about him talking about Playboy. So it's more acceptable to talk about soft-core porn magazines then the "correct" name of a body part? Does this not reinforce that people are hung up a lot about the human body, but not sex in some way? Sure that was just one guy, but I think many people feel the same way.
Isn't it amazing how we're ashamed of even our own bodies? Not counting those that don't feel that way. People, especially women (likely because of the media), are very uptight about their appearance, mostly weight. Many people tend to get shocked and feel offended when they see the nude body of someone of their own sex. A man will usually get upset and offended over seeing another man's penis. Isn't being ashamed of our bodies being ashamed of a big part of who we are? To say or act like something is wrong with our body is saying something is wrong with ourselves. I'm talking about mere appearance, not any actual health issues here. I won't deny that appearance is usually the first thing people know of someone before any of their personality and first impressions greatly affect people. I also won't deny that having a ton of weight isn't healthy either, but the other end of being underweight (which is much less common) also isn't. It could be argued that with certain body shapes and sizes, that the person may not care about themselves that much. However, I doubt eating healthy and working out makes moles on the body go away or have woman's breasts increase in size (with a thin body) while defining gravity. Besides, a body that looks healthy on the outside doesn't mean it is on the inside. The average body of a supermodel isn't considered healthy, since they tend to be very thin, at least females.
Time to bring religion into this a little bit. I rather not go into too much details here, but it does relate to nudity. I can't really go into much details with other religions other then Christianity. Even a select few Christians are nudists. In fact, many of the arguments in support of nudity are from a Christian part of view. On the flip side, many arguments against nudity have also been from them, mainly due to the fear of lust and that humans are uncontrollable sexy animals at the sight of a naked human body. Which side is correct? That's up to you to decide. One thing to be said is why would a God who's creations are perfect, had made a flaw in the design of the human body, but not anything else, including animal bodies? Those in support of nudity generally say Adam and Eve only covered themselves in shame after sin. Also it's said that they were naked and unashamed before eating the forbidden fruit. Further more, those in support of nudity say God only punished lust and adultery, not merely being naked. Those and more have been debated heavily however and would take a much longer time to go into further details.
Remember the Super Bowl 2004? Had America not been so super uptight and ashamed of nudity, there likely would have never been a problem in the first place. I'm guessing if someone were killed during the half-time show instead, there would have been less problems. Sure it was unexpected, but many other unexpected events tend to cause less problems. Doesn't this reinforce that body shame only brings harm? A man could have took his shirt off and bam, no problems. This seems to have been a step backwards for the general public views about nudity = sex. Ok, so that wasn't exactly nudism, but it was a form of nudity nonetheless.
Reminds me of how seemingly many people say how nudity (again, believing that nudity = sex) is much more troublesome then violence. As far as the media goes, to have a bunch of people violently killed is “ok”, but a exposed female nipple is cause for major alarm. Despite the number of people who seem to believe this, it almost seems like this isn't the case at all. Why would this still be such a major issue if that many people feel that way? Is this a case of 49% feeling sex isn't worst then violence and 51% feeling otherwise?
Finally, the issue of children. Believe it or not, nudity actually helps children out if their taught it's nothing wrong with it. Of course their taught not to walk butt naked out in public. Their not born ashamed of their bodies, their taught to be ashamed. By seeing how others react to nudity, they pick up the same feelings and usually don't question them and if they do, not much. Parents tend to pass on their body shame issues to children. If they walk around naked or play doctor, their told it's a bad thing, even if not really given any reasons. Parents for some reason tend to feel ashamed if a child asks about their sexual organs, but not any other body parts. It's all in great fun to learn about the bodies and parts about animals, but a big no-no if it comes to their own bodies, the human bodies. Children naturally want to learn about stuff and many adults tend to fear that learning about sexual organs will lead only to bad things for them. If children are believed to be asexual, then what's the worry in them wanting to go out to do something sexual if they learned about their genitals? They might not have to be told the "birds and the bees", but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be told anything about their genitals at all.
People wonder why so many young people, especially young women, are so ashamed of their body and want to meet very hard if not almost impossible standards. They also wonder why those same young people are into Playboy and other porn so much. One reason I can say is because they have nowhere else to turn to for learning what other bodies look like, both their own sex for adults and the opposite sex. Not to mention people and the media reinforce the whole “nudity = sex” message and that during that period in life, their bodies to become a lot more sexually active.
Normally people say children would be confused about sex and all that if exposed to the "forbidden parts". This is shown almost everywhere in society. Like I said many times, this is based on the belief of "nudity = sex". I repeat, how would a newly born baby see a "forbidden part" and automatic get upset if their not taught? Is it not society that is confusing our children into thinking nudity and sex are interchangeable?
Believe it or not, children who grow up as nudists have very limited body hung ups that people around their age do. They don't see what the big deal is with people wanting to see and drool over naked bodies so much. They don't look at a naked body and think “how sexy” or “how ugly”. They also tend to have higher self-esteem. Why should a child be offended by something that they maybe sucked on (breast feeding) for awhile? I heard it's more healthy for a child to drink their mother's own milk then those in a bottle, not to mention it's cheaper for the parents. Nature had to have intended breast feeding somehow, with the steps leading up to it, like the breasts producing milk usually only after giving birth. However, there are people against breast feeding, mainly because “I don't wanna see a breast”, including things like “I didn't paid to see a boob sucking show here” or “that child is being forced into a sexual relationship.” Yes, the latter was an actual comment said somewhere. Why should a towel be put over a child or them and their mother forced into another place (like the restroom) just because some people can't get over the sight of a breast without thing it's only a sex toy? The mother is doing it for the child, not for those around her. People are not forced to look if their so offended by it. Body shame is suppose to be helping who here? What good does sending a child into a dirty restroom do just because people are very hung up about it? Since when did people have a right not to be offended? If you never been offended, you're not living in a free country.
Are nudist children in danger of sexual predators? Possibly not anymore then non-nudist children. If someone really want to sexually abuse a child, clothes would only be a short delay. Is a sexual predator really gonna try to do anything to someone else's child out in public view? Somehow, I have a feeling someone who is a sex offender wouldn't be allowed into a nudist resort. If someone is suspected by looking at a child “funny”, they will be dealt with before anything gets out of hand.
I gone over a lot because I believe this is big issue. It's amazing how viewing the issue from the other side puts things in a new light, well at least for some people. Of course, not everyone agrees with this, but whoever agrees with everything out there? I think America would be a lot better off if body shame issues would go away and that public nudity wasn't illegal. Again I would like to say that “who wants to see a grandma's sagging boobs?” wouldn't really be any problem with this mind frame. Wait, what about sexual crimes increasing? As soon as the “sex = nudity” message stops being reinforced, then those crimes should greatly decrease. Much more information can be found about this by looking for nudism. Make sure not to use incorrect words if you don't wanna find porn by mistake.
Monday, January 22, 2007
More information on The Deviant One.
Well, last post I didn't say much about who I was. Well, I think it's time for such an event. If I didn't already say it before, I'm am many things that are considered taboo. I'll kind of go over them. Full details on each should come in future posts.
For one, I have Asperger Syndrome. This likely has the greatest effect on my thinking. Many people (out of the not so many that might have heard of it) consider it a disorder or a disability. I say it's not a disorder and also, I say it's a different ability. So why is it considered a disorder? Likely because people with it have a hard time functioning in society. From what I'm understanding, "different = bad" and "it's not normal, so something must be wrong with it" is the root of it. In my experience, it's usually not the person with it that has the problem, but rather, how they are treated. They usually only have a hard time functioning in society because society makes it very hard for anyone that doesn't fit in
Nudism... It's rather silly to me that out of all the animals who are naked, including being able to see a penis and humanoid butt on some of them, that only humans deny themselves the same thing. Then there is the whole “nudity = sex” and “female breasts are a lot worse then violence” issues. Of course, I can see the replies now, "it's bad for the children" and more. Many people many not realize it, but children have to be taught that it's bad. How can a body part that children feed on hurt them? Seriously, men have breasts too, including nipples, their just usually flat. So how does a difference in shape suddenly cause problems? Again, the media and society makes them out to be sex objects and thus, have been taught as bad. Clothes do have their purpose, from protection from the elements, but I feel like "clothes makes the man" is too much. How does our appearance say everything about us? When protection from the environment isn't needed, neither are clothes, but for whatever reason, society became ashamed of their own bodies and made such a sight against the law. People also confuse nudity and sex as the same thing. Even classic art with nudity is considered porn sometimes. What good does body shame do and how does it help us? Furthermore, how does a man or a woman choose to get offended by body parts they likely have?
Sex Positive... The main purpose of sex seems to be procreate, but it also somehow turned out to be one of the biggest sources of pressure. However, society insisted that true love is only between a single man and woman. It also only values sex as a means of procreation and doing it for pressure is wrong. However, love expands to far more then what society wants to believe or accept. I should make clear love and sex isn't the same thing and either can exist without the other. Love that doesn't fit within society's norms is a lot more taboo then almost any kind of non-sexually violence. How is two people sexually enjoying themselves worse then much of the violence that goes on in society? Why is hate being promoted over love? Why is it perverted for a man to show in almost any form that he sexually likes women? There's a difference between admiring them and treating them like an object, but it's usually the former that is meant with such hate and more.
Genderqueer... People who don't fit within the binary system of only male or female. Also includes transsexualism, which certain countries have special names for them and values, like Two-Spirit. Unlike what society wants to believe, there is in fact not only two sexes or genders. Society usually fails to understand the difference between sex and gender and both words are usually used interchangeable. Sex is your biological make up. Gender is what you act and feel like. Society believes if you're born male, you will act male and desire a woman and vice versa. While it's usually true for a lot of people, it doesn't apply to all. Sexual orientation is more complex then heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It also includes asexual and more. For those who don't believe me about there being more then two sexes, there's something called Intersexuality. However, society considers it a mistake and doctors "correct" it. I feel like this is harmful for those type of people, as there is nothing wrong with them, but society's inability to believe anything other then male or female is. Gender isn't limited to only feeling male or female. As for me, I feel like an androgyne (or genderqueer). I don't wanna fit one extreme or the other. Kate Bornstein comes to mind for me who said... "I know I'm not a man...and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman, either...The trouble is, we're living in a world that insists we be one or the other." My thoughts exactly. Thus, I'm rather upset when you force to display that you're male or female, with no way of choosing neither or hiding it from viewers.
Anti-School... I'm against the system because it wants to be a one size fits all (but isn't) and more. A well rounded education doesn't work out so well when the student doesn't want to learn certain subjects and is forced to. Forcing students to unwillingly learn something will likely lead them to forgetting it soon anyway. Yet, teachers wonder why they don't do so well or sleep in class. Also once children learn how to learn on their own, they can easily learn the subjects they want without feeling forced. With the Internet, it's easy to learn what you want when you want. Even without the Internet, there's still books that almost anyone should be able to get a hold of at the library. Forcing children to remember a bunch of facts doesn't do them much good. Learning advanced math that only a few fields requires doesn't really help most students. Plus, their likely to forget those kind of subjects, sometimes right after a test, which is suppose to prove you learned and know the stuff. Certain people back during history saw this and realized how school slowed them down. As for me, I pretty much broke free of the system after much arguing with my mother to go ahead and go for my GED, which means no more dealing with teenagers who act “cool” and bully all the non “cool” students (who, the non "cool" students are likely overall smarter then those bullies anyway). I hated going everyday dealing with those people for hardly anything in return when I could have learned the same stuff easily on my own. I feel like schools doesn't teach one of the most important lessons, acceptance of those who are “different”, which everyone is in their own ways, yet society insists that everyone fits inside a small "one true path" box that's simply impossible to match. I'm not anti-learning, just the way that it's forced on people. How is it suppose to feel like a gift if it's forced like this? Many things that I have and plan to type are things I never learned in school or likely stuff that school would never teach.
Youth Rights... the group of people who are treated as lesser then adults. Ageism seems to be something that most people take part in and not even realize it. It's suppose to "protect the children", but is it really doing more harm then good? Age seems to be used to judge people a bit too much. While it's false to say age means nothing, it's also false to say and act like age means everything. Children are thought of not having the ability to think for themselves and more. A lot of it has to do with how their raised. Children are so valued in society, but also treated as lesser beings. Even calling them minors is a form of saying their lesser. Yes, I am aware that the minds of young children and adults are not the same. Many things are limited to adults only, believing that no child can handle it. I know this is not truth for a fact, as many children, particularly teenagers, have viewed and got into adult rated things and didn't suffer the whole “they can't handle it and it will scar them for life” thing. As for them getting hooked on it, doesn't that happen to many adults, who likely have much more their suppose to do? Many adults are not quite able to handle the adult rated stuff, but children are not even given the option. Sure it's easier to put age limits on things and not do any case by case basics or other check systems, but it was also easier for only white men to have legal rights. My point is, children (particularly teenagers) are not given enough credit. Somehow a 17 "can't handle sex and stuff", but a year magically makes a difference. I really don't understand the year difference logic in ratings. Somehow, people sexually enjoying themselves in X rated stuff is considered a lot worse then the violence of 17 rated stuff. Let's be honest, how many teenagers looked at porn and enjoyed it, without the "it's gonna scar them and confuse them for life" stuff? If they don't like it at that age, I don't think there is much of a chance of that changing once they become older. Another thing is websites with "proof of age" by having to sign up for a free account. To me, it's just a waste of time on both ends, slowing down adults who meet the age and want to see such stuff, and doesn't stop teenagers from entering who can easily lie on "enter your birthday" boxes despite any warnings.
That's just a taste of things to come. I'll go into more full details about the above and more in future posts. Well, that's all planned anyway and I hope it goes according to plan.
For one, I have Asperger Syndrome. This likely has the greatest effect on my thinking. Many people (out of the not so many that might have heard of it) consider it a disorder or a disability. I say it's not a disorder and also, I say it's a different ability. So why is it considered a disorder? Likely because people with it have a hard time functioning in society. From what I'm understanding, "different = bad" and "it's not normal, so something must be wrong with it" is the root of it. In my experience, it's usually not the person with it that has the problem, but rather, how they are treated. They usually only have a hard time functioning in society because society makes it very hard for anyone that doesn't fit in
Nudism... It's rather silly to me that out of all the animals who are naked, including being able to see a penis and humanoid butt on some of them, that only humans deny themselves the same thing. Then there is the whole “nudity = sex” and “female breasts are a lot worse then violence” issues. Of course, I can see the replies now, "it's bad for the children" and more. Many people many not realize it, but children have to be taught that it's bad. How can a body part that children feed on hurt them? Seriously, men have breasts too, including nipples, their just usually flat. So how does a difference in shape suddenly cause problems? Again, the media and society makes them out to be sex objects and thus, have been taught as bad. Clothes do have their purpose, from protection from the elements, but I feel like "clothes makes the man" is too much. How does our appearance say everything about us? When protection from the environment isn't needed, neither are clothes, but for whatever reason, society became ashamed of their own bodies and made such a sight against the law. People also confuse nudity and sex as the same thing. Even classic art with nudity is considered porn sometimes. What good does body shame do and how does it help us? Furthermore, how does a man or a woman choose to get offended by body parts they likely have?
Sex Positive... The main purpose of sex seems to be procreate, but it also somehow turned out to be one of the biggest sources of pressure. However, society insisted that true love is only between a single man and woman. It also only values sex as a means of procreation and doing it for pressure is wrong. However, love expands to far more then what society wants to believe or accept. I should make clear love and sex isn't the same thing and either can exist without the other. Love that doesn't fit within society's norms is a lot more taboo then almost any kind of non-sexually violence. How is two people sexually enjoying themselves worse then much of the violence that goes on in society? Why is hate being promoted over love? Why is it perverted for a man to show in almost any form that he sexually likes women? There's a difference between admiring them and treating them like an object, but it's usually the former that is meant with such hate and more.
Genderqueer... People who don't fit within the binary system of only male or female. Also includes transsexualism, which certain countries have special names for them and values, like Two-Spirit. Unlike what society wants to believe, there is in fact not only two sexes or genders. Society usually fails to understand the difference between sex and gender and both words are usually used interchangeable. Sex is your biological make up. Gender is what you act and feel like. Society believes if you're born male, you will act male and desire a woman and vice versa. While it's usually true for a lot of people, it doesn't apply to all. Sexual orientation is more complex then heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. It also includes asexual and more. For those who don't believe me about there being more then two sexes, there's something called Intersexuality. However, society considers it a mistake and doctors "correct" it. I feel like this is harmful for those type of people, as there is nothing wrong with them, but society's inability to believe anything other then male or female is. Gender isn't limited to only feeling male or female. As for me, I feel like an androgyne (or genderqueer). I don't wanna fit one extreme or the other. Kate Bornstein comes to mind for me who said... "I know I'm not a man...and I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably not a woman, either...The trouble is, we're living in a world that insists we be one or the other." My thoughts exactly. Thus, I'm rather upset when you force to display that you're male or female, with no way of choosing neither or hiding it from viewers.
Anti-School... I'm against the system because it wants to be a one size fits all (but isn't) and more. A well rounded education doesn't work out so well when the student doesn't want to learn certain subjects and is forced to. Forcing students to unwillingly learn something will likely lead them to forgetting it soon anyway. Yet, teachers wonder why they don't do so well or sleep in class. Also once children learn how to learn on their own, they can easily learn the subjects they want without feeling forced. With the Internet, it's easy to learn what you want when you want. Even without the Internet, there's still books that almost anyone should be able to get a hold of at the library. Forcing children to remember a bunch of facts doesn't do them much good. Learning advanced math that only a few fields requires doesn't really help most students. Plus, their likely to forget those kind of subjects, sometimes right after a test, which is suppose to prove you learned and know the stuff. Certain people back during history saw this and realized how school slowed them down. As for me, I pretty much broke free of the system after much arguing with my mother to go ahead and go for my GED, which means no more dealing with teenagers who act “cool” and bully all the non “cool” students (who, the non "cool" students are likely overall smarter then those bullies anyway). I hated going everyday dealing with those people for hardly anything in return when I could have learned the same stuff easily on my own. I feel like schools doesn't teach one of the most important lessons, acceptance of those who are “different”, which everyone is in their own ways, yet society insists that everyone fits inside a small "one true path" box that's simply impossible to match. I'm not anti-learning, just the way that it's forced on people. How is it suppose to feel like a gift if it's forced like this? Many things that I have and plan to type are things I never learned in school or likely stuff that school would never teach.
Youth Rights... the group of people who are treated as lesser then adults. Ageism seems to be something that most people take part in and not even realize it. It's suppose to "protect the children", but is it really doing more harm then good? Age seems to be used to judge people a bit too much. While it's false to say age means nothing, it's also false to say and act like age means everything. Children are thought of not having the ability to think for themselves and more. A lot of it has to do with how their raised. Children are so valued in society, but also treated as lesser beings. Even calling them minors is a form of saying their lesser. Yes, I am aware that the minds of young children and adults are not the same. Many things are limited to adults only, believing that no child can handle it. I know this is not truth for a fact, as many children, particularly teenagers, have viewed and got into adult rated things and didn't suffer the whole “they can't handle it and it will scar them for life” thing. As for them getting hooked on it, doesn't that happen to many adults, who likely have much more their suppose to do? Many adults are not quite able to handle the adult rated stuff, but children are not even given the option. Sure it's easier to put age limits on things and not do any case by case basics or other check systems, but it was also easier for only white men to have legal rights. My point is, children (particularly teenagers) are not given enough credit. Somehow a 17 "can't handle sex and stuff", but a year magically makes a difference. I really don't understand the year difference logic in ratings. Somehow, people sexually enjoying themselves in X rated stuff is considered a lot worse then the violence of 17 rated stuff. Let's be honest, how many teenagers looked at porn and enjoyed it, without the "it's gonna scar them and confuse them for life" stuff? If they don't like it at that age, I don't think there is much of a chance of that changing once they become older. Another thing is websites with "proof of age" by having to sign up for a free account. To me, it's just a waste of time on both ends, slowing down adults who meet the age and want to see such stuff, and doesn't stop teenagers from entering who can easily lie on "enter your birthday" boxes despite any warnings.
That's just a taste of things to come. I'll go into more full details about the above and more in future posts. Well, that's all planned anyway and I hope it goes according to plan.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Enter the mind of a deviant one
This blog likely won't be like anything you seen before. If you're expecting the norm or anything similar, you're in the wrong place. I'm almost nothing like the average person, I'm so many things that are considered deviant and I don't quite mean that in a unlawful way. My mind and thinking are so much different from other people in so many ways. I have very different beliefs and views on various topics that most people likely wouldn't share. If everything goes according to plan (which admittedly, usually doesn't because I'm a bit lazy), I should be posting many of my different thoughts and beliefs on various topics.
Here's a taste of what's to come... nudism, sex-positive, youth rights, anti-school, genderqueer which includes Androgyny and transgender, and more. Many of these topics are taboo and things that people usually don't think about or don't want to hear about. I'll say here that I'm not into many "general" topics, like TV shows, pop culture, and more related to that.
Before finishing this post off, I'll like to say a few things about myself. It wasn't that long ago that I realized many things about myself that took people I knew by surprise. While my friends mostly don't know anything, I told my older sister and mother about some of the stuff and they didn't know what to make of a lot of it. I'm at the point in my life where I want to make many changes so I can fully live my life in the future, hopefully that isn't too far off. This right here is the first step, but to me, it feels more like a "beta" stage of my life that I soon want to end and really take off with living.
Here's a taste of what's to come... nudism, sex-positive, youth rights, anti-school, genderqueer which includes Androgyny and transgender, and more. Many of these topics are taboo and things that people usually don't think about or don't want to hear about. I'll say here that I'm not into many "general" topics, like TV shows, pop culture, and more related to that.
Before finishing this post off, I'll like to say a few things about myself. It wasn't that long ago that I realized many things about myself that took people I knew by surprise. While my friends mostly don't know anything, I told my older sister and mother about some of the stuff and they didn't know what to make of a lot of it. I'm at the point in my life where I want to make many changes so I can fully live my life in the future, hopefully that isn't too far off. This right here is the first step, but to me, it feels more like a "beta" stage of my life that I soon want to end and really take off with living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
