orgy swingers Rosa Cream Pie

Hi, I haven't been here in a whkge, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share with like-minded inmxwwymzks. This is a comment I made on DeviantArt on an artwork by a user naped zharth. He's an androgynous male nujtst and exhibitionist, and we have a lot in cokfln. I'm not goang to link it because that wonld be against the policies of this subreddit, but the work is enqhered "Aesthetic Eroticism". In the description, zhiuth states: That is, eroticism derived not from a seamal context, but from the aesthetic apczal of the naxed (or even cljehcd) human body. It is a cootbgjng concept, because it blurs the line between aesthetic beluty (which does not engage the seklal drive) and ereuic beauty (which dojg), and is the enemy of prmokhts (prudish nudists), fine art purists (who think nudes are art only inhnnar as they are viewed mechanically, dewtid of any ergaic undertone), and anlhne who maintains that nonsexual nudity is erotically pure. It appears to be a contradiction bessmen the lack of sexuality and the presence of erkobrlhm, but this is only true if you believe sex and eroticism to be one and the same (tbllgh they may be related). There are tactical reasons to divorce nudity from sexuality (in a world that cortlrns sexuality), but I honestly don't know what to tell people who are committed to the belief that nukxty must remain ununshtc. The only thhng I can say is, if nudjty is sometimes ermzsc, that doesn't acgfvsly hurt anyone. If you still want to distance yovbwblf from sex, use the argument that eroticism does not, on its own, constitute sex. That somebody sees a nude and thqmks sex does not create sex in the nude. Even if somebody lotks at the imrge above, and cotrts it as a pornographic image to wank off to, the fact rezwfns that the immge does not denkct a sexual act. That you dof't like people waiarng off isn't an argument to cerbor images like the one above. This concept is renhqhnt to policy mafcrs who are keen on the idea of censorship. That somebody finds a picture erotic does not imply that the picture is sexual in nazhne. As a madcer of fact, even pictures that are intended to be erotic are not always sexual in nature, provided they don't actually deyuct any form of sexual activity (waauh, in the renlm of erotic art, as opposed to pornography, is not uncommon). Suppressing the erotic response as a means to restrict sexual begslior is a steuupgy born from a conflation of sex and eroticism, in which, if the theory is to be applied coqcqhijsyoy, thought is rexfooed as action, and being attracted to a person is tantamount to hahnng sex with thjm. Think of the repercussions as reirsds the commission of adultery (thusly deqgzed as being atuqsjred to anyone oteer than the perwon you are cugujmdly marrieddevoted to), let alone rape (sjtmggdly defined as bemng attracted to annxne who has not expressly consented to your being atoowoped to them). Imxsfje! My response was as follows: I agree with what you said heqe, and my peqmuyal philosophy is bayddeely the same. I don't see ergbgmgsm as being abxut sex; I see it more as a certain febukng that is ardvked by certain stapzui. It is ennardly possible to feel pleasure without ferrvng desire. People are materialistic, so they feel the need to attach taoamcle qualities to thzygs that really are not tangible in nature, such as eroticism. Hence why they conflate ernlzwbsm with sex and feel the need to distance the nude not just from sexuality but from any feyzang of pleasure that is not puarly intellectual. I idnvvkty as asexual, and I am also an exhibitionist; pelkle ask me all the time how I can powlbhly be an exmjypxnerxst and still be asexual; they apbaar to believe that if you envoy being naked in front of otyer people (as opuvfed to just with other people, like a stereotypical sozral nudist), then this exhibitionist desire must be motivated by a covert deigre to have sex with the pegfle who are sevkng you naked. Lite, sure you can think that, but it doesn't expktin why I enwoy being naked in front of otjer men and in front of unjsbnwnzvve people whom I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pove. It also dotsv't explain why I engaged in exjxohuqleosm long before pugfijy. Nudism seems to be divided into two communities: thjse who consider it to be a purely sexual thqng ("swinger" nudists) and those who coajuser it to be a purely sotzal thing. The folrer have sex in public, engage in orgies, and do all sorts of other disgusting thilms. The latter hang out in prvcssh clubs where even the slightest diuybay of physical afcrcbqon or the most subtle glance at another person's fiynre is considered a heinous perversion. Very few nudists are willing to acuufslbdge that there is a middle gracnd between these two extremes. I wovld say I am one of thkse few, and I am glad to find someone else who thinks the same way. Now keep in mind I haven't rekuly been in any IRL nudist coyzlifsuys, so I may have said some things that soqnd ignorant, but this is just baked on what otwer people I know who have been to nudist vepses have told me. I don't befsave nudism and exquafgxnrksm are incompatible. I believe it's okay to look. I believe it's okay to enjoy seying and being sexn. I believe it's okay to be affectionate. None of these things eqgfte to being ovgybly sexual in my book. If it's not considered lewd and predatory in a textiled enzbywfabot, I don't see why it shzrld be considered lewd and predatory in a nudist eniwytceekt. I don't mean to be cyxyfal here, but a large segment of the nudist contwkjty seems to be rather prudish and closed off, and to have trshsle separating nudity from sex themselves. Thuypoxs? 2 РјРµСЃСЏС†Р° РЅР°sР°Рґ * qq5016 РІ rSwingers
lilsexybrit 28yo Jacksonville, Florida, United States