Category Archives: freedom of speech

Some Thoughts on Social Nudity (Again!)

A while back, over on Medium and on Quora James Grigg posited the question:

Why do men seem more comfortable with nudity?

As well he might; there is historically a greater preponderance of “single men” in the nudist movement. But why?

Grigg is an artist and photographer who does a lot of nude positive work, photographing ordinary people, including himself, in the nude in ordinary poses. So in some ways he is in a good position to judge. In other ways, because he’s male, he isn’t (and neither am I!).

His basic thesis is that women tend to avoid social nudity because

Slut shaming and rape culture are not conducive to women being able to be naked … comfortably.

This is based on the misplaced but widespread belief that nudity and sex are interchangeable, and that

Women … are expected to gatekeep sex from men who apparently … have no control over their … desires or actions.

There’s also the question of objectifying the female body, such that perfectly ordinary bodies are not seen as adequate. All of which basically says to me: lads you need to grow up.

While I wouldn’t disagree this is a significant element of the problem, I think there are other factors at play although perhaps not as predominant. Let’s turn the arguments somewhat on their head and look at the male side of the question. I see a further three possible reasons why men are more comfortable with social nudity, but they’re big generalisations.

First there is the macho need to show off, to be top lad, and attract a mate – the biological need to be the alpha male. This is not necessarily about shagging any eligible nubile (attractive though that might be!); it’s more about male pecking order. This makes nudity below the waist acceptable, even essential, for bragging and showing off; and above the waist neutral or irrelevant as there’s nothing much to show off. Females are the opposite: it is (mostly) OK to be bare above the waist (bragging rights or showing off, again, maybe?) but there’s no imperative for nudity below the waist – again because there is nothing very visible to show off (although the fashion for removing pubic hair does change that).

The second factor – which goes along with this – is all about physical comfort, and not having all your appendages constrained within clothing. Hence, simplistically, females are more likely to be physically comfortable bare chested, and not having their tits clad in armour. Conversely males are more comfortable with their dangly bits free to air – especially as ventilation also mitigates against the annoyances of jock itch etc.; something of which many blokes appear unaware.

I also suspect there is another, subconscious, factor at play. As a very big generalisation, guys tend to experience spontaneous desire: they’re always up for it even from a cold start. Contrarywise females mostly have responsive desire: they need warming up, enticing, encouraging, before they become actively aroused and eager. Yes, that is a generalisation, and there are many who don’t conform to this model, but it could be another factor playing into the “alpha male culture”.

I’ll accept that most guys and girls probably don’t actively think very much about any of this – it’s mostly subconscious. Basically therefore, while I don’t disagree with James Grigg’s thesis, I think the situation may well be more complex than he makes out – although, given our social conditioning, much of the time the reasoning will be entirely subconscious.

Getting this levelled out – as we should if we’re going to have a really well balanced society – will take time, and a willingness on everyone’s part to adjust and to grow up. Much as we’d like it to, it won’t happen overnight. Which just amplifies my oft repeated belief in respecting one another and treating everyone the same. We’re all people. No-one is better (or worse) than anyone else. And, give or take, we all know what’s under each other’s t-shirt and jeans. So, really, there shouldn’t be a problem with nudity, should there!

Sex is Binary

About three weeks ago there was an article in Wall Street Journal [paywall] under the headline:

The Dangerous Denial of Sex

The first half of the article crystallised what I’ve been thinking for a while: that although there are rare instances of intersex individuals, to insist that biological sex is a spectrum is erroneous. Supplanting biological sex with a subjective and fluid “gender identity” arrived at “by the whim of the owner” (my deliberately slightly irreverent words) is unrealistic and impractical. To quote just one paragraph of the article:

There is a difference … between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct”. Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary.

From here on I dislike the tone of the article which to me sounds very right-wing, misogynistic and derogatory. Added to which I’m far from convinced the authors’ arguments follow logically.

That is not to deny (a) that some individuals’ biological sex is ambiguous, nor (b) that some individuals may self-identify to a different gender than their biological sex. While I will admit to not fully understanding this (cis-hetero male privilege and all that), it seems to me that the disconnect between an individual’s biological sex and their gender identity begins in some way as a psychological process. My gut feeling is that the medicalisation of this to sex reassignment is not sufficiently controlled or counselled (especially in adolescents), and is thus somewhat dangerous – as the quoted article goes on to imply.

This is also not to deny the psychological stresses that those affected go through in coming to terms with their situation, leading up to gender-reassignment, and that they encounter during transition – this latter is something I’ve witnessed in a work context and which was quite disconcerting even to a completely uninvolved bystander.

So basically I’d say: by all means gender identify however you please, but in the vast majority (not all) of cases biological (anatomical) sex is binary, not a social construct. Yes, gender reassignment surgery is possible, and some require it. However it is not something I’m personally comfortable with – just as I’m not comfortable with IVF etc.

As with so many other things, while I may not agree with you or be comfortable with your views, I would defend and support anyone’s right to gender identify however they wish. It’s your life, not mine.

Of course, YMMV.

Art, Nicety and the Patriarchy

Over recent months there has been a certain amount of fuss over the appearance (or not) of art which is deemed inappropriate for public spaces (metro systems and the like) but which is acceptable in a museum context.

Elle Hunt’s article …

Repulsive to children and adults: how explicit should public art get?
Censorship in metro stations and other public places reveal limits
to how far we’re prepared to be challenged by art

… was printed in the Guardian on 8 October and looks at some of the recent controversies including the refusal of advertising regulators in Germany, US and UK to allow explicit, uncensored images by Schiele, and the brouhaha in Stockholm over images by Liv Strömquist depicting menstruation on their metro (below). To this I would add Carolina Falkholt’s giant penis mural in New York.

I’m sorry guys, I don’t get it. There really should not be a problem.

  1. It’s art, and art is supposed to reflect life.
  2. Even if it isn’t art, it still reflects life – and life that we all know exists.
  3. I know, it pollutes children’s minds. Pah! That’s about as likely as me being Chinese. Just as they do nudity, children take these things in their stride unless they’ve been taught not to. Children know about these things and they’re curious; if they don’t know then they need to learn, and/or have an explanation. That way they become well adjusted adults.
  4. As I keep saying, sex, bodily functions, anatomy, nudity etc. need to be normalised for the good of our health – mental and physical. They do not need marginalising and criminalising.
  5. Isn’t the ability to display such images all part of freedom of speech?
  6. Obscenity, pornography etc. exist only in the mind of the beholder. There is no external arbiter. It’s down to you, and what you were brain-washed into believing.
  7. Why do public institutions (like metro companies) think they can be the arbiters of what’s appropriate? If some people get upset, so what? There are many things I find distasteful from dog shit to rococo architecture, but I’m not about to have a hissy fit if there’s a poster of one on my local bus shelter; nor would I expect it to have been censored – I may not like it, but that’s my problem not yours. No-one is responsible for another’s thoughts, emotions or beliefs. We have to trust people to make up their own minds and look after their own emotions – ie. treat them as adults.

But let me go one step further. Is all this concern that people might get upset not all part of the patriarchy controlling people and keeping them in their place so the great, the good, the white and the male remain in their dominant positions?

It’s long overdue that everyone woke up and realised there was coffee brewing; lots of flavours of coffee too!

Womanhood: The Bare Reality

Laura Dodsworth, author of Manhood: The Bare Reality has a new book coming out, but unfortunately not until next February.

Its title: Womanhood: The Bare Reality.

You can, of course, pre-order it on Amazon or from the publishers Pinter & Martin.

The book promises to do for women, what Manhood did for men: tell of the variety and the stories of man and manhood. As the blurb an Amazon says:

100 women bare all in an empowering collection of photographs and interviews about Womanhood.

Vagina, vulva, lady garden, pussy, beaver, c**t, fanny … whatever you call it most women have no idea what’s ‘down there’. Culturally and personally, no body part inspires love and hate, fear and lust, worship and desecration in the same way.

From smooth Barbie dolls to internet porn, girls and women grow up with a very narrow view of what they should look like, even though in reality there is an enormous range. Womanhood departs from the ‘ideal vagina’ and presents the gentle un-airbrushed truth, allowing us to understand and celebrate our diversity.

For the first time, 100 brave and beautiful women reveal their bodies and stories on their own terms, talking about how they feel about pleasure, sex, pain, trauma, birth, motherhood, menstruation, menopause, gender, sexuality and simply being a woman.

Laura comments further in a recent Facebook post:

“A major issue for women is that men and society are really interested in defining womanhood for us and without us. A lot of the time, women don’t have an awful lot of input into the definition of womanhood, yet we’re judged against it. Women have to make choices that men don’t ever have to make.”
From Womanhood: The Bare Reality

A bold first quote to share from Womanhood. I’ve already been #notallmen-ed on Twitter, so let me say, I love men, this is not anti-men. (I LOVE men.) Remember Manhood?

But this is the point; Womanhood is an exploration of female experience through the embodied stories of 100 women. We define Womanhood on our own terms and in our own words. We reveal ourselves to ourselves and to each other. And it’s about time.

Laura’s previous books (Manhood: The Bare Reality and Bare Reality: 100 Women, Their Breasts, Their Stories) were amazing, revealing and informative, so I’m really am looking forward to reading Womanhood: The Bare Reality. My copy is already on order.

Full disclosure: I was one of the 100 men featured in Manhood.

Trickery from PC Plod

There was a sneakily released Home Office press release in the early hours of last Saturday:

Police trial new Home Office mobile fingerprint technology
New mobile fingerprinting technology will allow frontline officers across the country to use their smartphones to identify people in less than a minute …

Needless to say Liberty are up in arms as there is no parliamentary oversight nor any proper public consultation.
Anyone who is stopped and fingerprinted on the street (and anyone could be at the whim of PC Plod) will have no opportunity to seek legal advice beforehand, there does not seem to be any discussion of consent, nor is there any indication of whether the information obtained will be retained and if so for how long or for what.
PC Plod is all too good at being ham-fisted and over-zealous with such initiatives, which is why it is important there should be oversight and consultation.
I find this especially disturbing as there is no scientific basis for the certainty with which fingerprints are used for identification. See, for example, this October 2017 article from Science Daily which reports this scientific examination.
As Liberty’s blog post says:

If you have been affected by these new measures, please tell Liberty about it and get legal advice quickly.

Thoughts on #metoo

I’ve been thinking about all the recent posts. While in one way I’m not surprised, in another it is frighteningly disturbing to realise the level of abuse that we men inflict and remain totally unaware of. But from what I’ve seen (and I may be misinterpreting) I don’t think most women are saying that every man harasses them or is a sex offender.
(On the other hand, in some senses maybe we all are offenders, if only in our heads. Be honest, which of us doesn’t look at a pretty girl and think some variant of “I wonder what she’d fuck like?”. But then there is a line between thinking it and grabbing it.)
However if even 50% of women have experienced men being inappropriate (and 50% seems to be a very low estimate) then it isn’t just a tiny minority of men doing it.
We are all thoughtless and stupid towards others at times, whatever our gender and whatever the gender of the other person. (This isn’t just men on women, although that is almost certainly the vast majority or the “action”.) That’s not an excuse – there are no excuses – but a fact of life. We will never totally eradicate it, just as we can never be completely certain that our actions can ensure “X never happens again”. There will always be outliers. But we can all work hard to ensure our thoughtlessness and stupidity is reduced to an absolutely minimal level and those few outliers are all that remain.
I’m not conscious of ever having done anything wrong physically – though I will concede I probably have unknowingly. But I know that at times I have said, either verbally or in writing, and mostly without meaning to, something stupid, thoughtless or just plain badly worded. At times I’ve been called for it; at times I’ve realised myself I’ve overstepped the mark. I hope that on all such occasions I’ve apologised, learnt something, improved; and hopefully we have all been able to move on with some level of dignity restored. Even so there are a few of these occasions which still haunt me.
And for those occasions where I still don’t realise I’ve overstepped the mark, I apologise now!
Obviously as, I hope, a considerate being I would never deliberately set out to harass or abuse anyone; something I outlined in my post earlier in the year on my personal ethics and morals.
I feel sure that very often men don’t realise they’re behaving inappropriately; but I don’t buy the “that’s just because it’s the way men are” non-excuse. I suggest it’s because we’ve never been taught to be aware of such things – how can we have been when previous generations of men haven’t been aware of the problem and women have been too frightened to speak up, so no-one could teach us – and we’ve been too lazy to think about it for ourselves?
Hopefully the new, heightened, awareness can help change this, but realistically it isn’t going to happen overnight. Hopefully men can start to trust and believe what women say; they can start thinking about how they behave; and they can learn about being generally more sensitive, considerate and thoughtful human beings. Many – the more thoughtful men – will. But I do worry that the majority, who go through life relying only on their animal cave-man instincts, are just going to say “fuck off” and carry on regardless. They are going to need a lot of work by the rest of us – men and women. We all have to be brave and stand up to them, and that in itself isn’t always going to be easy – but if we’re being considerate human beings we have to try, pro bono pubico.

Personal Ethics and Morals

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.

  1. Causality. Things are as they are for a reason which is seldom disclosed to us. There are more things in heaven and earth than we can ever know or understand.
  2. Respect People. Always treat others as you would wish them to treat you – with respect, dignity, kindness, equality, compassion and integrity. Essentially this is the old adage: do as you would be done by. Or in the words of Matthew 7:12, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Or to spin it the other way: if it harm none, do as you will. If you can do this one thing, all the rest pretty much follow.
  3. Respect Nature. We are but a small part of this Earth. It is not ours, it was here long before us and it should be here long after us. We are merely it’s current custodians and as such we should behave as ethically towards the Earth, Nature and all living creatures as we should to other human beings. Do not rape our natural resources or screw the environment. That doesn’t mean being vegetarian, living off-grid or the like – after all eating plants and felling trees can be considered murder just as much as eating animals – but it does mean respecting what you do eat (we almost always raise a glass to the animal we’re eating), recycling as much as possible, and not consuming for the sake of it. Do not play god; there is no reason to suppose we know better than Mother Nature.
  4. Be Honest. Be open, honest and truthful in all things and at all times. Open government and fair dealing. Admit it when you don’t know; don’t guess.
  5. Respect Relationships. Never do anything to unhook or put in jeopardy anyone else’s relationship. This is something I formulated for myself as a teenager: that I would never do anything to harm or unhook another relationship. It didn’t matter how much I fancied the girl (and for me it always has been girls) in question, nor how strongly or loosely committed the relationship; if there was a relationship the parties were strictly off-limits as anything more than friends. It just seemed to me to be ethical, kind and respectful not to meddle while the relationship existed. (This is one reason Noreen and I knew each other for several years before we started dating.) I have continued to live by this, not just as student on the pull, but as an adult where others might have seen/wanted an opportunity for adultery.
  6. Freedom of Speech. Be liberal and relaxed in dealing with other people’s views and beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and is entitled to express those opinions even if I don’t like it. I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death, your right to hold and express your opinion. To do otherwise is but a short step to censorship.
  7. Beliefs. Each of us is entitled to believe whatever we like. Just don’t expect anyone else to share your beliefs. It’s not what you believe that’s the problem, but what you think I should believe.
  8. Use Your Abilities. Do everything to the best of your ability.
  9. Don’t Judge. Don’t be judgemental: you can never know how someone else feels inside, what motivates them, nor how their relationship works, so don’t assume or judge.
  10. No Revenge. Don’t hold grudges or be vengeful – be compassionate and forgiving; understand the other person’s position and move on. It’s OK to be angry; it’s never OK to be cruel.
  11. Admit Errors. If you’re wrong, be strong enough to admit it, apologise and if possible do something to remediate the error. Never blame others for your failings.
  12. Never Regret. Do not regret anything which has happened, even if you now know it was not the best thing to do. If it’s good, that’s great. If it isn’t, it’s experience to learn from and move on. We all do things that with hindsight we wish we hadn’t; but they cannot be undone and rarely properly repaired. Regret is unhelpful and destructive.
  13. Be Responsible. You are responsible for what you do, say and think; accept that responsibility. However you are not responsible for other people’s emotions, beliefs, actions and reactions; nor they for yours.

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.

Idea Rights

I’ve just come across this on Twitter …


Click the image for a larger view

It’s clear, concise and correct.
Although as a couple of people have pointed out in the comments
people have the right to ideas, thoughts, according to UN Declaration of Human Rights

and
people actually have the Human Right to think what they want

Which is right — the abstract (ideas) and the non-living (eg. rocks, buildings, cars) cannot have rights per se although in some circumstances the living might be said to have rights on their behalf (think, burial of the dead). It is people — in fact arguably all living things (people, cats, cockroaches, trees) — which have rights.

Don't Criminalise Us …

The fight to get governments to decriminalise sex work (and sex workers) continues. Here’s a piece which highlights the views of Europe’s sex workers — most of whom are (voluntary, not trafficked) migrants.


It is notable that it isn’t just the sex workers who are saying sex work should be decriminalised. This view is backed by

major human rights organisations such Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the World Health Organization and several other United Nations agencies such as UN Women and the UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work are also calling for the decriminalisation of sex work, noting that decriminalisation guarantees better working conditions, and reduces the social vulnerability and marginalisation of sex workers.

And as that implies many are now warning that the basic human rights — as covered, for instance, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — are being violated; and that those violations are state sanctioned the world over.
When are people going to wake up to what’s going on around us? It’s being done in our name, and yet how many of us agree with it?

Nanny State

Atlantic Insight has an interesting interview (podcast & transcript) with Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He’s not at all impressed by the nanny state or public health lobbyists.
It’s worth a read, or listen: Interview with Christopher Snowdon