Here we are again with his month’s off-the-wall ten things …
Ten Concepts I Try to Live by:
Following on from my post of yesterday, British Naturism (BN) are challenging those of us who are nudists/naturists to talk about it.
Their campaign is called “Just One Person” and we are being challenged to tell one person about our naturism. As their press release says
We hope to inspire those who do not talk about their Naturist lifestyle choice outside to tell just one person.
Many people don’t even know they know a Naturist and assume that we are still that fringe minority on the far edges of society. In fact, we are their next-door neighbours, their work colleagues, the people on the next table in the pub, in the aeroplane seats in the row in front, in the car hire queue behind them at the airport … everywhere.
We completely understand the individual fears and possible complications … but do want to encourage you to help Naturism in the UK to grow and to become normal. While it remains hidden, misguided and incorrect views of Naturism will continue … We want to escape from the association that nudity means sex, or even worse, perversion.
[The aims] are to:
– Improve the public understanding of Naturism by engaging people in conversation about it.
– Encourage more people to become involved in Naturism.
– Help increase people’s confidence in themselves (by having the conversation) and their bodies through experiencing non-judgemental social nudity.
So if you’re a naturist – even, like me, a solitary naturist (largely through force of circumstance) – or just someone who is not afraid of naturism and social nudity, go out and tell people. Help break down those unnecessary taboos – taboos about keeping naturism to yourself; taboos about not talking to people about naturism; taboos about the fear that naturism will deprave and corrupt. Even just a blog post or something on Facebook will help; but better to talk to people face-to-face and have an open conversation.
Today (Saturday 5 August 2017) is
I’ve just finished reading Brooke Magnanti’s The Sex Myth: Why Everything We’re Told is Wrong (review later) and she makes a useful point about pornography and obscenity.
The word ‘pornography’ comes from Greek roots: porno-, related to prostitution; graphos, to write. Stories about hookers, in other words … People in the nineteenth century became more worried about drawing a line between what was art and what was obscene. Those worries helped shape the view of what today is labelled ‘pornography’ versus what is labelled ‘erotica’ – even though few people, if any, can give a clear idea of the difference.
‘Obscenity’, meanwhile, comes from the Latin obscenus, meaning repulsive or detestable. Something obscene is something that is offensive to the morality of the time, something taboo. The definition of obscenity is different in different cultures, and even people in the same culture can disagree about what is obscene. Many laws have tried to define obscenity. While erotic imagery can be defined as obscene, it isn’t always considered so, and some laws recognise this
To which I would like to add the word ‘prostitute’: one who engages in sexual activity in exchange for money (payment).
Put that lot together and it means my world view goes something like this …
Technically pornography is stories about those who engage in sex for money. To me this means that any video (or other medium) which portrays a sexual act, where one can reasonably expect that (some of) the participants have been paid is pornography and (depending on one’s predilections) may also be erotic. Mere photographs of vulvas or penises may also be erotic, but are not a sexual act so are not (at least in my world view) pornographic; they aren’t ipso facto a sex act.
Whether one defines the pornographic, or the erotic, as obscene depends very much on one’s personal morality. We each have our own moral code, which may or may not align with that of society at large, and an act (image, description) doesn’t become obscene until it offends our morals and transgresses the line into being taboo. And that act doesn’t have to be sexual.
To use my own views as an example, I have no problem with the depiction of sexual acts, let alone the depiction of breasts, vulvas or penises. Pornography (as defined above) for me only becomes obscene when it crosses the boundary into being violent, non-consensual or involving minors or animals. There are sexual acts I greatly dislike (eg. male homosexuality), but that doesn’t per se make them obscene. But I do find many other things in this world obscene, amongst them the gratuitous killing of people and animals, blatant disregard for human rights, FGM, rape (of people and the environment), corporate greed and bankers mega-bonuses. YMMV.
So pornography is essentially, technically, amenable to definition. Obscenity is not readily definable so easily in anything other that one’s personal world view. Pornography is (should be) a largely objective measure. Obscenity can only ever be subjective. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that legislation cannot prohibit certain acts because the moral view of the majority of the legislature is that they are obscene for them – that’s how our collective, social, morality works and it is only by iconoclasts like me pushing the boundaries that such collective views are shifted.
Michael Puett & Christine Gross-Loh
The Path: A New Way to Think about Everything
(Penguin, 2017)
This purports to be a self-help book of a new kind: one which encourages us to change our philosophy, and hence our actions, by doing small, simple things. As the cover blurb says:
The first book of its kind, The Path offers a profound guide to living well. It reveals for the first time how the timeless wisdom of ancient Chinese philosophers can transform the way we think about ourselves. Covering subjects from decision-making to relationships, it shows how making small changes in our everyday routines – as simple as showing weaknesses in meetings or greeting people differently – can make us happier and more productive.
The idea is good and the book should have been interesting, but I found it facile and superficial: like cheap brawn, lots of aspic with very little meat. I had to give up on it half way through.
As Ambrose Bierce once commented in a review “The covers of this book are too far apart”. It is a book of 200 pages, which frankly should have been no more than a third of that.
First off it suffers from the current publishing malaise of an over-large typeface, excessive leading, and wider than needed margins; ie. much too much white space. It is also, typically of Penguin, printed on appallingly cheap and nasty paper which is not going to withstand the ravages of time.
But for me, worse than all that, it is written is a very simplistic, almost dumbed-down, laborious style which I found it hard to read – it is so wishy-washy I had trouble picking out the key concepts. Consequently it gave me nothing to think about and take away. It needed a robust editor.
In a way I don’t blame the authors: the concepts are sound and the content would be a good subject of a single philosophy seminar. But it isn’t a book, and for that the publishers have to shoulder the blame.
Overall Rating: ★☆☆☆☆
As a quick follow-up to yesterday’s post on the fears surrounding radiation, I came across an item, by science journalist Geoff Watts, from a couple of years ago: Is your fear of radiation irrational? This considers the whole question in rather more detail. It’s a long read but worth the effort.
Something completely different this month …
Ten Scientific Discoveries that were Later Proven Wrong by Religion:
In today’s society sex and nudity are used to sell products and casual nakedness is frowned upon if not actually criminalised. (Incidentally nudity, per se, is not illegal in the UK.) This is harmful in many ways, body shame being amongst the least of them. So little wonder that naturism is perceived by society as being different, and even a thin cover for rampant sexuality.
Nudism is generally considered the act of being naked, while naturism is a lifestyle which may embrace more than just nudity. Actually I would define both a being lifestyles; it depends on one’s attitude. Both can be social or practised individually, although naturism is generally more social than individual (at least in my estimation) and often encompasses other environmentally aware beliefs. In what follows I’ve been lazy and tend to use the terms “nudism” and “naturism” fairly interchangeably.
I would define myself as a nudist; I am comfortable being nude, both privately and socially, but I’m not one for the wider naturist lifestyle if only from a lack of opportunity and a dislike of the regimentation so often expected by clubs and organisations. I like the ideas of naturism, but clubs etc. don’t work for me; so my nudism tends to be private. I would like that we could live in a world where nudity was accepted anywhere and at any time and we think nothing of practising social nudity with friends and family. Until then I wear clothes to cover other people’s embarrassment.
Nudism and naturism as lifestyles are all too often frowned upon by society; this is often as a result of fear and misunderstanding of what they’re about. Contrary to what many people think, naturism and nudism are definitely not sexual lifestyles; they are holistic, bringing about many physical, mental and societal benefits.
At the end of the day, give or take the odd scar or mole, we all know what’s under my, and your, t-shirt and jeans. So really, where is the problem?
See also:
https://zenmischief.com/on-nudity-and-naturism/
https://zenmischief.com/nudity-and-naturism-quotes/
British Naturism
Is there a human “need” for being naked?
Almost every individual – excluding perhaps those insane persons who have no sense of right and wrong, but certainly including everyone from religious leaders to gangsters and serial killers – has a set of ethics.
… … …
Each person draws portions, sometimes bits and pieces, of their personal … ethics from an almost random variety of sources, such as their childhood upbringing, a dramatic or otherwise pivotal life experience, religious beliefs, discussions with family, colleagues, and friends, and the ethical teachings of whatever philosophers [they] may have read.
https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/where-our-ethics-come-from
I’ve written a number of times before about ethics and morals (see for example here and here). But stimulated by a conversation with one of my friends (yes, somehow I do still have one or two!) some days ago I’ve been moved to return to the subject at a more personal, rather than philosophical, level.
What follows is a summary of some of those “bits and pieces” I’ve garnered over the years as my personal ethics and morals. These are the things which I try to live by.
That’s the high level stuff and I feel sure I’ve left something out. I can’t think any of it is very startling, but it is interesting to put it all together – something I’ve never done in quite this way before – as it really does make one consider whether the whole is self-consistent. Of course, I’ve not yet made any attempt to integrate this with my core constructs (such as I know them).
And below all that are my personal beliefs, like the legalisation of sex work and marijuana; nudity and body acceptance; the scientific method; the absence of deities; etc.
Heavy stuff. I need a gin & tonic.
There’s been this meme circulating recently, especially on Facebook, about people having an “open door policy”. Leaving aside that I generally don’t get involved in such viral nuisances, I’ve not engaged with this because (a) the wording felt wrong and (b) it is not new for us and should not need saying.
About 35 years ago Noreen and I made a deliberate and considered decision not to have children. Instead we said that we would always be available for our friends, their children, etc. if and when they needed us.
All our friends know this (at least they all should know this!); most have been told at some appropriate time. And as the younger ones reach an age to properly understand (generally around 15-16, but sometimes earlier), we have a quiet conversation with them about it. What we say is ad lib but generally something like:
Know that we are here if you ever need us. No parents, however good they are (and our friends really are brilliant parents) can provide everything a child needs. However open, frank and honest your relationship with your parents there will always be something you don’t want to talk them about – but something you would like to discuss with someone detached and outside the family. That is what we are here for. You can come and talk to us at any time and about anything; literally anything: boyfriend/girlfriend problems, exam worries, sexuality; if you’re in trouble and need bailing out of the police station; if you need a bed for the night; if you want to talk about life and what direction you’re going; or you just want someone to talk to. Remember, we may be geriatrics, but we’ve been there ourselves. We were students in the heady hippie days of the late-60s/early-70s so we’ve either done it or we have a friend who has. You are very unlikely to shock us – one way or another we’ve encountered most things. We don’t do judgement. And we aren’t going to tell you what you must do. We’re here to listen and to help you work through whatever is worrying you. Just pick up the phone or turn up on our doorstep (call first if you can to ensure we’re at home) at any time; day or night. And most importantly anything you tell us is in complete confidence; it will not be repeated to your parents/family/friends unless you specifically ask that it is. This is what we are here for and why we chose not to have children of our own. Here’s a card with our contact details; put it in your wallet and keep it in case you ever need it.
Yes, this is indeed a part of why we are here. Having someone detached to talk to is important. (It’s like mentoring at work: I always did it and vowed that I always would even if management told me not to.)
Over the years we’ve helped a number of friends in various stages of separation and relationship problems, medical worries, and confusion about life. We’ve even been called at 3AM by a friend about to appear in court and who expected to end up in jail (they didn’t). More than one of our friends has said to us that although they’ve never needed to take us up on this, it is a great comfort just knowing we’re there if needed. There are several friends for whom we are either “spare parents” or “spare siblings”, which is a good way of looking at all this.
This is more than just having an “open door policy” or “a friend in need”. It is about the meaning of life; being a true friend; and being ethical.