Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, freedom of speech, memes, nudism, thoughts

Friday Five: Nudity

I’m amazed that it’s almost two weeks since I posted anything; guess you’ll just have to put it down to too much work. Anyway here’s this week’s Friday Five, which is one I couldn’t resist as it’s an old hobbyhorse of mine. 🙂

Nudity/Body Awareness
(aka “How comfortable are you in your skin, or with others?”)

1. Have you ever gone skinny-dipping?
Sadly no I haven’t. I’d like to but there seem to be no available facilities near here, and anyway most clubs require one to be a member of British Naturism as a bona fide (I don’t like BN; too cliquey and too club-centric, unless it has changed a lot in the last few years). Neither am I anywhere near a naturist beach. And no opportunities in my youth. Very sad.

2. When you’re home alone, do you strip down to get comfortable? Do you ever go out without underwear because it’s more comfortable?
I always wear as little as possible at home. Writing this I’m wearing just a pair of shorts and that only because I’m awaiting a grocery delivery from the supermarket. I just love the freedom of nudity and the air is good for the body — if it was good enough for Benjamin Franklin it is good enough for me. We have a naturally warm house so even in the middle of winter I’m often wearing nothing. And in summer I’ll sit in the garden in nothing, tho’ only close to the house so as not to frighten the neighbours; it doesn’t bother me but it probably would bother “them next door”.

I don’t often go out without underwear, but I certainly do in summer if wearing only shorts.

Basically I wear clothes only because (a) the rest of society demands it and (b) for warmth. Otherwise, why bother?

3. Have you ever/do you use the bathroom with the door open? Are you comfortable using public facilities?
The only time our bathroom door (or bedroom door) gets shut is if there are visitors in the house, and then for their benefit not ours. We’ve always been like this and we both wander in and out even if the other is in possession. It doesn’t bother either of us; it never has. I have no problem with public facilities and would have no problem with mixed sex facilities. I’m actually astonished at the number of men who clearly dislike peeing in public and always use a cubicle rather than a communal urinal; I reckon this affects 30-50% of men — very odd.

4. When getting intimate with your significant other, lights on or off?
Either; it depends on how we feel at the time. Actually it is more a question of glasses on or off! Mind you even if I say “lights off” we never draw our bedroom curtains (come to that, any curtains) and there is a street lamp outside, so the bedroom is never dark. And you’ll not be surprised to know that we both sleep in the nude; I have done since I was a student and managed to get out of living in conventional shared lodgings.

5. How comfortable are you with body exposure/nudity of others? Group shower rooms? Topless/nude beaches? Breastfeeding in public?
Absolutely no problem with any of this. I’m dismayed at the number of men who walk around group shower/changing rooms trying to hide behind their towels or swimming trunks. I’m one of those who walks around totally bare and thinks nothing of it. And the antics of the British on the beach trying to change out of wet swimming costumes behind a towel always amuses me.

Before you ask … Yes, of course one looks at other people in the nude. Why shouldn’t one? We look at each other clothed and admire nice bodies; so why not in the nude? Staring is objectionable whether you’re nude or not. I feel sure fewer girls would complain about having their tits stared at or being visually undressed if blokes were more used to seeing the naked human body. And it works both ways: girls you’d get a good look too!

I see no problem with nudity anywhere, anytime; public or private. What’s the problem? I can’t understand why people have a problem with nudity. Come on, let’s be honest: give or take the odd scar we all know what’s underneath that shirt, skirt, shorts. We would all be better off if we were more used to nudity; if we were brought up with nudity. We’d be much more comfortable with our bodies. That would make it easier for most people to talk to their doctors (and each other); they’d be less embarrassed. So in turn our health would be better because illnesses would get treated sooner, as we’d not be embarrassed/scared of going to the doctor. And we would be much less embarrassed and reticent about talking to each other — about anything, not just things sexual! — which would be good for most people’s relationships. Ultimately we’d all be more civilised. Besides, isn’t nudity a basic human right?

Go for it: Nudity for all!

[Brought to you courtesy of Friday Five.]

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, science

Blogging Code of Conduct

Another piece I picked up from this week’s New Scientist is the suggestion that weblogs should effectively be forced to adhere to a code of conduct or be “black marked”. Here are a few apposite quotes from the full article, Bloggers lash out at ‘code of conduct’:

Perhaps inevitably, some bloggers have criticised a proposed “code of conduct” designed to curb the harshest online criticism.
A pair of internet luminaries suggested the code after a prominent blogger complained of threatening messages posted on her own blog and other sites.
Publisher Tim O’Reilly […] and Jimmy Wales […] proposed the Blogging Code of Conduct after Kathy Sierra [received] threatening messages [on her weblog].
[…]
A first draft was released this week […] has riled some bloggers, who accuse its authors of acting like media overlords and disregarding free speech.
[…]
The proposed code calls for bloggers to ban anonymous comments and delete messages if they are abusive, threatening, libellous, false, and if they violate promises of confidentiality or an individual’s privacy. “We take responsibility for our own words and for comments we allow on our blog,” the draft code states. […] The code also calls for ignoring “trolls” […]
[…] bloggers who adopt […] the code would adorn their websites […] a sheriff’s badge […] those who chose not to […] mark their websites with an icon of a stick of dynamite […]
[…]
“I like civility but prefer the ‘anything goes’ badge […] Censorship is a slippery slope […]”
Some other bloggers also complain that even a crude bar on anonymity could help control comments in countries with governments that are intolerant of free speech.
David Sifry, founder of Technorati [says] “One of the core principles that the Internet is built on is the principle of free speech […] If you really are a jerk, I don’t have to read what you say.”
“I’m not sure a code of conduct is the answer […] It makes about as much sense as me wearing a badge to have a conversation […]” [adds Mike Tippett].

Here’s a link to the draft “code of conduct”. Having read the “code of conduct” it isn’t as draconian as the news articles I’ve seen imply. But I’m still not hugely in favour. No, correction, I am still against.

I have a fundamental belief in free speech and civil liberty for everyone, however uncomfortable it may be. And any such code of conduct strikes me as censorship by the back door. As previous readers of this weblog will know I have a deep rooted moral objection to anyone making impositions on what someone may read, write, say or think. Either we have freedom of speech or we have censorship. And in my book there is already too much censorship (mostly covert) in the world. I may not like or agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If I disagree with you I can either engage you in debate or I can ignore your views.

Equally no-one – at least no-one of right thinking – would want to abuse or upset someone else. But sadly there are too many out there who aren’t right thinking. By focusing on them we give them the attention they mostly crave. As with “trolls” the best thing is to be grown up and ignore them. Let’s lead by example and not by diktat.

And this weblog? Well it would instantly be “dynamited” because of the occasional references to sex and equally occasional use of words like “fuck” and “bollocks”. Now just how pathetic is that!?

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, science

Circumcision and Morality

2 Comments

Two pieces I picked up from this week’s New Scientist. First a report of moves to “encourage” male circumcision:

New York is […] considering whether promoting circumcision among the city’s men might help limit the spread of HIV there. The procedure has worked wonders in Africa, cutting the infection rate by 60 per cent in circumcised Ugandans, Kenyans and South Africans compared with their intact compatriots. On 28 March, the World Health Organization and UNAIDS endorsed it as a means of reducing HIV spread.
So far […] the procedure has only been shown to work in Africa and in men who only have sex with women. So could a similar strategy work in New York, where sex between men and infection through intravenous drug use are more prevalent?

As this quote implies male circumcision isn’t just actively under consideration in NY but also in the whole of Africa. And now to female circumcision:

The painful and dangerous practice of female circumcision has been outlawed in […]Eritrea, where around 94 per cent of women are circumcised […] anyone who requests, incites or promotes female genital mutilation [will] be punished with a fine and imprisonment.

I appreciate that there is a difference of scale between male and female circumcision, but it seems to me there is a disconnect here. How can it be immoral to (seek to) mutilate female genitalia but yet moral to (seek to) mutilate the male penis?

Yes, OK, male circumcision may reduce the incidence of HIV amongst a defined section of the population: males who have sex with females without condoms. But it worries me that there is clearly going to be (political, medical and peer) pressure applied to men to get circumcised, and on parents to have baby boys circumcised. Worse I can see circumcision of male babies becoming an unquestioned part of perinatal care with parents not even being asked if they consent. And for adult men (at least in Africa) I can foresee the scenario there was in India some years ago where men were effectively bribed to have vasectomies. If I choose circumcision of my own free will, then fine. But how dare the medical profession, let alone politicians, decree that I must (or even should)? And how dare parents inflict it on a baby? If the same situation was being applied to women there would be the most almighty outcry — and rightly.

Let’s stand by our human rights and be very clear that all body mutilation (whether medically induced or not) which is not chosen of the subject’s own free will is immoral and (probably) illegal under international law.

When will politicians and the medical profession learn?

(Oh and by the way, no I’m not circumcised and I’m very glad my parents didn’t inflict it on me.)

beliefs

Gong Xi Fa Chai

Happy Chinese New Year. Today is the first day of the year of the Pig, Red Fire Pig to be accurate. I’m not going to write lots here about Chinese New Year because there is a pretty comprehensive item on Wikipedia.

amusements, beliefs, current affairs, science

Worst Inventions

According to BBC Focus magazine the 10 most loathed inventions of all time are (in reverse order):

10. Religion
9. Speed cameras
8. Fast food
7. Television
6. Cigarettes
5. The car
4. Sinclair C5
3. Nuclear power
2. Mobile phones
1. Weapons

Do not ask how they arrive at this conclusion. I can see why most of these things get on the list, even if I personally wouldn’t have nominated them. However I wouldn’t even have thought to mention the Sinclair C5, it was so pathetically a no-hoper, let alone put it in the top ten most loathed. I’d far rather see things like politics, the aeroplane, the iPod, non-essential plastic surgery and fireworks on the list. But what do I know: I’m an educated thinker!? 🙁

beliefs, environment, medical, science

Thought-provoking Science

There have been a number of interesting articles recently in the more popular scientific magazines.

First of all, catching up on the December 2006 issue of Scientific American, there was a one page item by Michael Shermer “Bowling for God” in which he asks “Is religion good for society? Science’s definitive answer: it depends”. Along the way he supports my theory that more secular and less rigidly moral societies have lower rates of teenage pregnancy and STD infection. Shermer concludes “Moral restraints on aggressive and sexual behaviour are best reinforced by the family, be it secular or sacred”.

This week’s issue of New Scientist also contains some interesting articles. Ed Douglas, in “Better by Design” asks “If only we built more lasting relationships with the tings we buy. Could better design cure our throwaway culture?” Douglas’s thesis is that we need to go back to a culture which doesn’t throw things away and doesn’t build everything with built-in obsolescence. One way to fix our environmental problems is to build products which we cherish and can sensibly repair, and/or which can be reused and recycled when we have finished with them. Almost all products these days are ephemeral; little has a useful life of more than 6 months. And yet it wasn’t always like this. Remember the teddy bear you had, and cherished, as a child? Bet you still have it! What if we cherished all products in the same way? Yes, OK there would be fewer manufacturing jobs. But we’d see an increase in service jobs: repairing and recycling stuff. Wouldn’t this make more economic and environmental sense?

Another article I found interesting, “Under the Cover of Darkness”, is all about how animals see in the dark. Scientists have discovered that, unlike most animals which can see only in shades of grey in the dark, geckos see in colour even in low light situations.

Following that is an article on “Extreme Childbirth” and the move by some women, so called “freebirthers”, to give birth without any medical intervention whatsoever. While our forebears would not have had the medical intervention we have it seems to me that women would normally have given birth with at least a help-mate (later to become the midwife) to hand — as I believe is still the case today in primitive societies. Freebirthers don’t necessarily shun the presence of a help-mate, although there are groups who insist on being alone — something the article suggests is dangerous because of the peculiarities of human anatomy. The article even contains a box on “How to recycle a placenta”! Interesting, but not tea-table reading.

Unfortunately New Scientist doesn’t provide access to its current articles unless you subscribe, so I can’t link direct to their articles here.

beliefs, memes

Friday Five: Its beginning to smell a lot like Christmas…

1. Will you be having a white Christmas?
If we do it’ll be because most of England is fog-bound. In all my 50+ years I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single snow-flake on Christmas Day; heavy frost, yes; and heavy snow on Boxing Day; but never on Christmas Day.

2. Best present you could get/have already received this season?
A £2M+ lottery win.

3. Egg nog or snogging under the mistletoe?
Definitely snogging. Egg nog — yeuch!

4. Is time on your side?
Nope. But then it probably never was.

5. Favorite holiday tradition?
Opening presents on Christmas morning with a large G&T.

[Brought to you courtesy of Friday Fiver]

amusements, beliefs

Zen Mischievous Moments #120

Three men died on Christmas Eve and were met by Saint Peter at the pearly gates.
“In honor of this holy season,” Saint Peter said, “you must each possess something that symbolizes Christmas to get into heaven.”
The first man fumbled through his pockets and pulled out a lighter. He flicked it on. It represents a candle, he said.
“You may pass through the pearly gates,” Saint Peter said.
The second man reached into his pocket and pulled out a set of keys. He shook them and said, “They’re bells”.
Saint Peter said, “You may pass through the pearly gates.”
The third man started searching desperately through his pockets and finally pulled out a pair of women’s panties.
Saint Peter looked at the man with a raised eyebrow and asked, “And just what do those symbolize?”
The man replied, “They’re Carols”.

[With thanks to Sophie Clissold]

amusements, beliefs

Zen Mischievous Moments #119

Jokes from our Christmas Crackers.

Q: How do snowmen get around?
A: On their icicle.

Q How can you tell a snowman from a snow-woman?
A: Snowballs

Q: What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus?
A: Claustrophobic.

Q: What do you get when you cross a snowman with a vampire?
A: Frostbite.

Q: What do snowmen eat for breakfast?
A: Snowflakes.

Q: What do you get if you eat Christmas decorations?
A: Tinsilitis.

[With thanks to Sophie Clissold]