Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, nudism

Nudity is Good for You!

I make no apology (when did I ever?) for returning to the subject of nudity.

In the last couple of days I have seen two rational, reasonable and apparently well researched articles supporting the contention that nudity is actually good for you, does no harm to children etc.

The first was written by Lee Jenkins on the Backbencher blog.** In it Jenkins very briefly summarises the arguments against the main objections to public nudity:
* It’s harmful to children
* It’s unsanitary
* It will encourage rape and sexual assault
* I shouldn’t have to see it
* It’s just wrong
All of which are just plain wrong. Here is just one snippet:

[A]n 18-year longitudinal study [by Dr Paul Okami] showed that, if anything, [childhood exposure to nudity] was associated with slight beneficial effects …
“Boys exposed to parental nudity were less likely to have engaged in theft in adolescence or to have used various psychedelic drugs and marijuana … Girls were also less likely to have used drugs such as PCP, inhalants, or various psychedelics in adolescence.”

Public attitudes to sex and nudity are far more relaxed in Europe … Much like alcohol, the difference is cultural. Indeed, it’s rather telling that British and American attitudes to nudity are fairly similar, and both the US and UK have a teen birth rate far in excess of their European counterparts.


The second report, by Hank Pellissier at Immortal Life,** is more concerned with promoting the benefits of nudism, rather than refuting the objections. Under headings like “Weakened Bodies”, “Barefoot Medicine”, “Superior Socialisation”, “Soothe Away Your Crazies” and “Soak Up the Rays” he provides links to research and articles suggesting that nudity would improve our lot. Especially there appears to be evidence that the young would develop better (mentally and physically) from nudity, we would be better adjusted mentally and we would all benefit from time soaking up sunshine to counteract what is an increasing deficiency in Vitamin D.

As Jenkins observes, if you are genuinely troubled by the site of human form, it’s probably worth asking yourself why, rather than insisting others cover up. According to Pellissier’s article twenty million Europeans already go to nude beaches and spas. What’s stopping the rest of us?

** As far as I can see both these blogs are independent and not associated with any nudist or naturist organisation nor has any overt commercial axe to grind.

beliefs, nudism

Dress

Seen today on Facebook …

How to dress for your shape: are you human-shaped? play up your confidence and natural sex appeal by wearing whatever the fuck you want.

Life Tip: As the weather gets warmer, continue to wear whatever the fuck you want. Flaunt everything or keep it cool under cover. Dress to make yourself feel rad.

How to get a bikini body:put a bikini on your body

Want sexy own-the-beach summer legs? shave, or don’t because they’re your fucking legs.

The only thing to add is: Or wear nothing at all! ☺

beliefs, nudism

On the Offensiveness of Vaginas

A few days ago Naturist Vision fired a loud warning shot across the bows of all of society. In a post entitled Vaginas and Nudity the author points out that words such as “vagina”** must not be ostracised from the vocabulary just because a few puerile prudes deem it offensive. It’s a short article, but here is it’s essence:

[…] Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown’s use of [vagina] led to her censure. In the aftermath a state representative declared the word “vagina” so offensive that he wouldn’t say it in mixed company.

Now [a male] Idaho High School science teacher […] is being investigated for saying “vagina” during a sophomore science class […]

[…] it is time for us to pay attention. That our society finds the proper term for any body part offensive suggests we need to redouble our efforts to educate the public about body acceptance. That the “offensive” word refers to a specifically feminine body part is more evidence of the misogyny [in] our society.

We must find a way to normalize words that describe our bodies. Teaching our children to refer to their genitals as “wee wee” or “pee pee” […] is a huge mistake. Bowing to a misinformed public who prefers not to hear words like “penis” and “vagina” is another.

The underlying message is that women are bad, sex is bad and our bodies are bad. Turning the vagina into [something] whose name shall not be spoken can only have disastrous effects on our society as a whole […]

[…]

It stands to reason that if people are offended simply by hearing the word “vagina” they certainly wouldn’t want to see one live and in person!

OK, so this is religiously prudish America and the post is partly about the loss of rights to nudity and nudism. That makes the general thrust no less apposite, in America or the UK, or indeed anywhere else.

It is becoming increasingly important, as I observed again the other day, that nudity and sexuality are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised, and that this would actually be to the benefit of the whole of society.

** For now we’ll gloss over the fact that most times folks use “vagina” they actually mean “vulva”.

beliefs, current affairs, nudism, ramblings

Kids and Nudity

I’m getting increasingly worried about society’s attitude towards children and nudity. Both allowing kids to see adults nude and adults to see children nude.

Neither is actually a problem, but society is making it into one.

There’s an interesting opinion piece by Laura over at Catharsis under the title Why NOT Being Naked In Front Of Your Kids Is Weird:

[A] single father, recently found himself under Child Protective Services investigation after some mothers of his 6-year-old son’s friends reported him for showering with his child.

These mothers apparently think because the dad showers with his son, he’s a pedophile. NOT because the kid reported his dad touched him inappropriately or because the kid reported his dad demanded to be touched inappropriately by his son.

Simply because the dad showered with his 6-year-old son. Period.

You know what I think about that? I think that’s bullshit. And I think anyone who takes an innocent act like being naked around a child to the level of pedophilia ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

There are real cases of sexual abuse out there — cases of children being seriously harmed by the adults around them. THERE ARE REAL PREDATORY ABUSERS OUT THERE SCARRING CHILDREN PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. Simply because a parent is naked in front of his children does NOT make him an abuser, and threatening a parent’s custody of his child with no evidence of such activity is both negligent and irresponsible.

(Emphasis in the original.)

Which, of course, is absolutely right.

OK, so that’s in America. But we’re very little different in this country.

I am concerned at the vilification of artist Graham Ovenden for his portrayal of naked children. OK, Ovenden has recently been convicted of inappropriate conduct with some girls many, many years ago. I don’t know how much abuse, if any, really did occur; I wasn’t there at the time, I wasn’t at the trial and I haven’t seen the evidence only some of the press reports. But the very fact that an artist can be pilloried in the way he has, so long after the event, and when he appears to have taken care that children he was drawing/painting were chaperoned, is deeply worrying. The fact that the charges relate to events 30-40 years ago, and in large part it seems to be the girls’ word against Ovenden’s, smacks of trumped up complaints and something which probably should never have got to court. Although as I say I’ve not followed the details closely, so I may be wrong. But it has been enough to set my alarm bells ringing.

That’s not to condone paedophilia; far from it. As Laura says (above) there are predatory abusers out there; and it is right that where there is sufficient evidence they are brought to justice. But I worry that we are straying into witch-hunt territory, where merely making an allegation is enough for a conviction and that having to provide evidence and to prove a case “beyond reasonable doubt” has gone by the board. This is gutter-press, mob justice.

Merely painting, drawing or photographing a child naked, or showering with a child (yours or anyone else’s) does not constitute paedophilia. Just as a mixed, nude, adult sauna (the norm in Scandinavia!) does not ipso facto mean there is sexual abuse.

We are rapidly approaching the stage where it will be a criminal offence for anyone to see any child nude at any time: parents will not be allowed to bath their newborns; and doctors will not be able to examine child patients. Clearly this is a nonsense and would lead to a major deterioration in health.

As I have observed before nudity and sexuality need to be normalised, not marginalised and ciminalised. I have always maintained that if we had a healthier understanding and acceptance of desires, sexuality, nudity and our bodies it would have far reaching positive effects on our health and our attitudes. Bring children up to understand their bodies, their sexuality and to accept nudity as something normal and they will be more balanced as individuals; more able to discuss their inner feelings and worries; more at ease discussing their medical problems with their doctor. All of which has to be good, if only in terms of catching serious disease earlier and when it is more easily, and more cheaply, treated. But I believe it would also be of great benefit psychologically.

beliefs, ramblings

Four Agreements

A few weeks ago, quite by chance, I came across The Four Agreements.

What are they? Well that depends on who you are and how you view them.

According to Everyday Wisdom they are based on ancient Toltec (an archaeological Mesoamerican culture) wisdom and

offer a powerful code of conduct that can rapidly transform our lives and our work into a new experience of effectiveness, balance and self supporting behaviour.

Everything we do is based on agreements we have made. In these agreements we tell ourselves who we are, what everyone else is, how to act, what is possible and what is impossible. What we have agreed to believe creates what we experience. When these agreements come from fear obstacles develop keeping us from realizing our greatest potential.

According to others they are four principles to practice in order to create love and happiness in your life or for stress management and personal growth.

Yeah OK, that’s what they all say!

What is clear is that they are based on the thinking of Mexican shaman and new age spiritualist Don Miguel Ángel Ruiz and they seem to be the cornerstones of whatever wacknut religious beliefs he holds. They have made him lots of money as he sells “self-help” books about thee agreements by the million.

All of which leaves me feeling very sceptical and mis-trusting.

However when you read the four agreements they do make a lot of sense and they aren’t too far apart from my own personal modus vivendi (see here and here).

Now I don’t propose that anyone goes out and lines Ruiz’s pocket with more money by buying his books. It should be enough to lay out the four agreements and leave you to think about them. They are:

1. Be Impeccable with Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

2. Don’t Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

3. Don’t Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

4. Always do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgement, self-abuse, and regret.

What’s so special about them? Actually very little. They are pretty much what most belief systems boil down to if you analyse them deeply enough. They can also be pretty damn difficult to adhere to! Not making assumptions is especially hard — the whole of western culture is based upon everyone making assumptions.

Not taking things personally is hard too. I know, from recent experience, that it is all too easy to get upset when someone close reacts emotionally apparently as a result of something you did. But you have to be able to stand back and realise that their emotions are their problem to deal with, not yours, and come from within them. They are not your emotions; you cannot control the other person’s emotions, nor are you responsible for them. Yes that can be hard.

But none of that means the four agreements aren’t worthwhile. Indeed if everyone could just strive towards them society would be a whole bunch better. And you don’t need to believe in some peculiar religious practice to make sense of them; they fit atheists just as well (maybe better?) than they do believers — atheists have no overlying dogma to contend with.

beliefs, current affairs, nudism

Stephen Gough

Interesting press release from British Naturism (BN) on the charade of the Stephen Gough case: Life imprisonment for dressing naturally. They’re right on the money. This is a farce, even if Mr Gough is being wilfully confrontational.

So “life imprisonment” is an over-reaction? No, because apparently a Scottish judge has made it clear that he will continue to be imprisoned until he gives in. Given that everyone agrees he is harmless, that is crazy and obscene treatment. Indeed I could suggest that under the international convention on human rights it amounts to (in the legal phraseology) “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Apart from the fact that Mr Gough clearly has little money, why has this case never been referred to the European Court of Human Rights?

Whether you like nudity or not, the whole affair is a disgrace of the first order.

beliefs, current affairs

Banning Circumcision

1 Comment

So a German court has found a legality upon which to effectively ban the circumcision of baby boys — but only because it leaves doctors open to prosecution on a fairly general charge of “mistreatment”. That at least is the way I read the BBC News report.

My immediate reaction is that this is about time. In my view, as regular readers will know (see here and here), circumcision of boys is as much an abuse as circumcision of girls. It is forcible removal/mutilation when the “victim” is not able (not of an age) to give consent. And at least some parts of the German media agree.

The judgement is right — all protests to the contrary. The circumcision of young boys just for religious reasons is a personal injury. Muslims and Jews should decide themselves — but not before the age of 14.
[Matthias Ruch, FT Deutschland]

The circumcision of Muslim boys is just as heinous as the archaic custom of the genital mutilation of little girls. It is an instrument of oppression and should be outlawed.
[Die Welt]

Unfortunately because of the niceties of the case the judgement is not open to being tested in a higher court. That’s shame because such a legal precedent should be tested. So German medics are left in limbo: unable to perform the operation (unless, one assumes, as a medical necessity, which is rare) for fear of prosecution but unable to test the validity of the precedent. Highly unsatisfactory.

Needless to say both the Jewish and Muslim communities are up in arms. At least the German Muslim leader who is quoted in the BBC report is being sensible: I do not want my people to (have to) go abroad and/or to backstreet surgeons to have this done; I would prefer it done under proper medical supervision. The Rabbis quoted seem to be able to say nothing except wail “we’ve always done it this way” and “it’s our right”. Hmmph.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, appears to be of the opinion that circumcision is a part of freedom to practice religion. I disagree, and not because I am areligious. In my book no religion (no person) should be able to mutilate someone who is unable to freely give informed consent. If any religion chopped off the left hand, fingers or nose of every baby boy (or girl) this would soon be outlawed, as it would if the children were permanently tattooed at a few days old with a cross in the middle of their forehead. After all the Baptists were established (as antipaedobaptists) precisely because they were opposed to infant baptism when the child was unable to give consent.

But where does one draw the line? Should parents be prohibited from cutting a child’s fingernails or hair on the grounds that this is abuse? Probably not as these regrow; foreskins don’t, just as female genitals don’t regrow nor scarification scars heal fully. That seems, at least on the face of it, to be a sensible test and place to draw the line.

Medical necessity excepted, of course, which is legally testable if necessary.

While I don’t like the way this has been done, I think the German decision is the right one.

beliefs, ramblings

Cross Spotters

1 Comment

Oh dear! The Christians are fluttering in their olive trees again. Various clerics, most notably Cardinal O’Brien, Roman Orthodox Archbishop of all Scotland, are telling their flocks to wear a cross to signify their faith.

Why? Why do they have to be told? Are they sheep? [No, don’t answer that!]

And why do they need to do this? I don’t give a flying wombat what fictions you believe. I’m glad to say that’s your problem, not mine.

And yet most true believers already wear their faith on their sleeves and — very rudely — make sure we’re not allowed to forget it. But sure, if they want to wear an emblem, why shouldn’t they?** Who is to stop them going around adorned with badges and looking like a bus spotter? Moreover I’m sure the monasteries could find enough spare saints’ fingers for them all to have a few poking out of a breast pocket to complete the bus spotter look. The same applies to believers in any other faith, or no faith.

Most of us don’t need to advertise our beliefs on our lapels. But if others are sufficiently insecure in their faith that they have to remind everyone, including themselves, what harm? None really if they stick to just wearing a badge. But I bet they don’t. The harm is if, as so often, it becomes another nauseating means of proselytising beliefs. That’s something the rest of us have no need to do; indeed don’t believe in doing. We’re secure enough in our beliefs; beliefs which are personal and not to be imposed on others. We don’t need lots of other like-minded fools around us to convince us we’re right.

Yes, OK, fine if you want to wear a discrete cross, pentacle, Star of David, swastika or whatever on a chain round your neck. But is it just me who finds badges, bumper stickers, prayer beads hanging from driving mirrors etc. somewhat nauseating? And I don’t draw the line at religious symbolism. Badges for the Rotary Club, football club, train spotters guild are just as annoying. Why do we need to advertise our allegiances in this way? If we can’t spread our faith (whatever that is) by shining example then pretty poor show. Good works and humility, not faith alone.

Who are we to deny such poor benighted souls their comforts? Although can you imagine the outcry if they were forced to wear some identification, as were the Jews in Nazi Germany? They’d be up in arms quicker than a ferret down a drain-pipe.

Maybe I should have a supply of “There is no god” badges made? Or should we all have 42 forceably tattooed on our foreheads?

** There will always be employers who, rightly, ban jewellery for safety reasons. But that is really a side issue.