[splunge]

I'm always baffled when people act as if there's a heavy, thick line between "sexual" and "non-sexual" nudity. Since sexual feelings seep into most of what we think and feel and do, I wonder if people mean by "sexual" just the sex act. I can see a woman bound up in a very heavy coat walking down the street and some of those feelings will be strongly sexual. Those feelings of freedom one gets from nudity, I understand that completely, and I find freedom itself to be sexually tinged. It's a sort of spirit of life.

If other people are even remotely like me, then there is plenty of sexual feeling going on in the riders and photographers, but much of it on both sides isn't of the raunchier porn kind (though a lot is, obviously). A lot of people seem to be unnecessarily going out of their way to deny any sexuality being involved whatsoever, which I think is impossible. Embrace it and exalt in it, I think, but discourage the photographers who are jerks, and set an example that we can be naked and free and even yes, to some extent sexual, without the usual raunchiness.

And being naked in public is exhibitionism, by definition. We just need to remove the stigma about some kinds of exhibitionism, at least, and make it a more innocent, better sort of idea. I love the joy in the faces of women especially, in these rides, and much of that has to do with being seen. It's not bad. That's freedom, and the enjoyment of it.

Anyway, that's why these arguments are confusing to me. Maybe it's just a word definition thing.