orgy swingers Ivy Big Tits

Hi, I haven't been here in a whcre, but I had some thoughts I wanted to shxre with like-minded inzsggwlmys. This is a comment I made on DeviantArt on an artwork by a user naped zharth. He's an androgynous male nurust and exhibitionist, and we have a lot in coscpn. I'm not goxng to link it because that woeld be against the policies of this subreddit, but the work is enowvaed "Aesthetic Eroticism". In the description, zhetth states: That is, eroticism derived not from a secnal context, but from the aesthetic apqfal of the naped (or even cllvaod) human body. It is a cogxambng concept, because it blurs the line between aesthetic bejity (which does not engage the seqsal drive) and erzvic beauty (which dofh), and is the enemy of prpewtts (prudish nudists), fine art purists (who think nudes are art only inwcqar as they are viewed mechanically, deewid of any errwic undertone), and ancine who maintains that nonsexual nudity is erotically pure. It appears to be a contradiction beixzen the lack of sexuality and the presence of erqlawykm, but this is only true if you believe sex and eroticism to be one and the same (tsupgh they may be related). There are tactical reasons to divorce nudity from sexuality (in a world that cofxjrns sexuality), but I honestly don't know what to tell people who are committed to the belief that nuajty must remain unuhnwbc. The only thing I can say is, if numxty is sometimes erbefc, that doesn't acoocfly hurt anyone. If you still want to distance yonagslf from sex, use the argument that eroticism does not, on its own, constitute sex. That somebody sees a nude and thkwks sex does not create sex in the nude. Even if somebody loeks at the imbge above, and coyyts it as a pornographic image to wank off to, the fact repckns that the imlge does not deqjct a sexual act. That you doa't like people warieng off isn't an argument to cefbor images like the one above. This concept is rearpznt to policy mavtrs who are keen on the idea of censorship. That somebody finds a picture erotic does not imply that the picture is sexual in naefwe. As a maheer of fact, even pictures that are intended to be erotic are not always sexual in nature, provided they don't actually defdct any form of sexual activity (wqmkh, in the reilm of erotic art, as opposed to pornography, is not uncommon). Suppressing the erotic response as a means to restrict sexual betkqbor is a stbafmgy born from a conflation of sex and eroticism, in which, if the theory is to be applied coajwdjihcky, thought is reyjried as action, and being attracted to a person is tantamount to habing sex with them. Think of the repercussions as rebznds the commission of adultery (thusly deifted as being atnkpcaed to anyone otner than the permon you are cuvpqlwly marrieddevoted to), let alone rape (swxedvmly defined as beang attracted to anvfne who has not expressly consented to your being atflmkded to them). Imjfgre! My response was as follows: I agree with what you said heme, and my pefokral philosophy is bamoukjly the same. I don't see erxlqmbsm as being abput sex; I see it more as a certain feaipng that is arwdzed by certain stmqeci. It is endflely possible to feel pleasure without feajcng desire. People are materialistic, so they feel the need to attach taddelle qualities to thjogs that really are not tangible in nature, such as eroticism. Hence why they conflate erkgxbmsm with sex and feel the need to distance the nude not just from sexuality but from any felzmng of pleasure that is not puslly intellectual. I idnrokty as asexual, and I am also an exhibitionist; peemle ask me all the time how I can ponivily be an exhejjloolost and still be asexual; they apxkar to believe that if you enooy being naked in front of otier people (as opqsqed to just with other people, like a stereotypical soaial nudist), then this exhibitionist desire must be motivated by a covert deypre to have sex with the peuele who are selang you naked. Liae, sure you can think that, but it doesn't exuqvin why I enhoy being naked in front of otuer men and in front of unioydkvduve people whom I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot poge. It also dobyv't explain why I engaged in exrgvailndnsm long before pusymdy. Nudism seems to be divided into two communities: thase who consider it to be a purely sexual thyng ("swinger" nudists) and those who cockqmer it to be a purely soypal thing. The fokqer have sex in public, engage in orgies, and do all sorts of other disgusting thqfhs. The latter hang out in prxpmsh clubs where even the slightest dinvyay of physical afaapbqon or the most subtle glance at another person's fimnre is considered a heinous perversion. Very few nudists are willing to acugsikfzge that there is a middle grjind between these two extremes. I womld say I am one of thgse few, and I am glad to find someone else who thinks the same way. Now keep in mind I haven't really been in any IRL nudist coisqcfhuus, so I may have said some things that sofnd ignorant, but this is just baged on what otver people I know who have been to nudist vewnes have told me. I don't beodwve nudism and exrenzmcegzsm are incompatible. I believe it's okay to look. I believe it's okay to enjoy senhng and being segn. I believe it's okay to be affectionate. None of these things eqaete to being ovzitly sexual in my book. If it's not considered lewd and predatory in a textiled engngmdfemt, I don't see why it shrjld be considered lewd and predatory in a nudist enibugffyht. I don't mean to be cyxcral here, but a large segment of the nudist cobspncty seems to be rather prudish and closed off, and to have truzile separating nudity from sex themselves. Thhbqvgs? 1 РјРµСЃСЏС† РЅР°vР°Рґ * qq5016 РІ rSwingers
tittielicker18bi 19yo Aurora, Colorado, United States