Category Archives: freedom of speech

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, pleasures, quotes, science, sexuality, thoughts, topographical

Quotes of the Week

A good selection of amusements amongst this week’s quotes …

The future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed.
[William Gibson]

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
[Thomas Jefferson]

Society places a great deal of importance upon “being concerned” about this, that or the other terrible thing going on somewhere in the world. I agree that a bit of this concern is useful in helping alleviate suffering in those places. But it strikes me that the vast majority of what we call “being concerned” involves getting into our own heads, turning over the information, imagining whatever we want to imagine, working up our emotions, wallowing in our feelings like a pig in mud. For some reason I’ve never been able to comprehend very clearly this makes us look good socially, like we’re doing the right thing. But I’m unable to see how watching endless reports […] about a disaster really helps anything.
[Brad Warner at http://hardcorezen.blogspot.com/]

You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals.
[George Mikes, How to be Decadent]

Cats are smarter than dogs. You can’t get eight cats to pull a sled through snow.
[Jeff Valdez]

Life is fragile. You and I are living lives just as precarious as those people who got swept away into the ocean last week. We just fool ourselves into believing otherwise. But that’s not a reason to live in fear. Life is a terminal disease.
[Brad Warner on the Sendai Earthquake at http://hardcorezen.blogspot.com/2011/03/japan-earthquake.html]

Every mountain; every rock on this planet; every living thing; every piece of you and me was forged in the furnaces of space.
[Prof. Brian Cox; Wonders of the Universe; BBC2 TV, 13 March 2011]

I hear the argument, and it is an ingenious argument only a lawyer of his brilliance could make …
[David Cameron replying in House of Commons to Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

Never play with a dead cat and above all never make friends with a monkey.
[Osbert Sitwell, quoting his father in Tales My Father Taught Me. Thanks to Katyboo for this one.]

The natural world is a living erotic museum filled with variations in male genitalia, illustrating how natural selection has paid nearly as much attention to the male member as Catholic priests have.
[http://zinjanthropus.wordpress.com/]

To you , I’m an atheist; to God, I’m the loyal opposition.
[Woody Allen]

“Are there circumstances in which the government might …?”
“Well there could be circumstances. To answer your question in any other way would preclude all possibilities.”
[William Hague, UK Foreign Secretary, answering a question from the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee; 16/03/2011]

beliefs, freedom of speech

Freedom of Blasphemy

2 Comments

I don’t normally delve into international politics, but this situation – see also here, here and here – is an absolute disgrace.

  • A Christian woman (Asia Bibi) is in jail, pending appeal against a death sentence for alleged blasphemy against Islam.
    [And yet Islam is supposed to be a tolerant religion.]
  • Her death sentence is being endorsed by the Pakistani media, and by implication if not in fact, by the government.
  • Her case cannot properly be tried in open court because to do so would mean repeating the alleged blasphemy, thus compounding the offence.
    [Clearly contrary to all the accepted rules of justice.]
  • A senior politician has been murdered by his bodyguard for supporting her.
    [Islam, just like Christianity, forbids murder.]
  • The murderer is being fêted by the Islamic community as a hero.
    [Is this not a sinful as the actual murder?]

That any country, or any (supposedly tolerant) religion, can allow such a state of affairs to come to pass is, at the very least outrageous. And every right-thinking government must surely put the utmost pressure on Pakistan to not just resolve this particular situation but to put in place safeguards against any repeats.** I just don’t know what more I can say and preserve some semblance of normal blood pressure and dignity.

As Heresy Corner says: What we are seeing in Pakistan – established under Jinnah as a secular country, but one explicitly for Muslims – is precisely what happens when you let religion (above all this particular religion) form the basis of political organisation.

And also, to quote Inayat: The truth is that Muslims in power are every bit as prone to abusing that power as non-Muslims. Only, most ‘Islamic states’ or ‘Islamic republics’ do not have anywhere near the same legal safeguards and restrictions on power that most modern secular states do. (And, heaven knows, ours are far from foolproof.) Inayat also describes it as the moral collapse of a nation.

Much as I am personally areligious, I would never deny anyone their right to believe and worship as they wish providing they live within the moral precepts agreed by society at large (which in this day and age means globally!). Should the state, therefore, not be a mechanism for living together rather than promoting or securing an ideology? Thus it seems to me all this whole situation does is to reinforce the argument for secularism of both state and individual.

Wither now free speech and justice?

** Note I do not say “It must never happen again” because whatever safeguards are put in place cannot ensure 100% effectiveness. That, my friends, is life.

current affairs, freedom of speech, history, thoughts

On Democracy

1 Comment

WARNING: this has turned into a post of epic proportions!

One of the things which marks out the western world from the rest is our democracy, much of which (excepting many European countries) is based on the British model. This predominance of the British model arises because (a) we were probably the first country to develop such an all-encompassing democracy and (b) because of the huge influence of the British Empire. This has meant that many countries which have been under the influence of British democracy have been able to establish their own democracies largely fully formed just by taking the book of rules off the shelf.

However it seems to me that it is often assumed our (British) democracy emerged fully formed overnight – although no-one can quite say when that was, although many will point to the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell isn’t actually such a bad guess, although a gross over-simplification. British (and, may one thus suggest, world) democracy has evolved over a period of approaching 800 years. Like all evolution it is a rocky road with progress and reverses along the way. This evolution is something I had long believed but which I had never fully crystallised in my mind, so I set about developing a time-line to prove my case. Here it is:

1215. Magna Carta. The nobles force King John to sign Magna Carta which creates the English Parliament and the notion that the king may not levy or collect taxes without the consent of the royal council (embryonic parliament).
1216. Death of King John; accession of the infant Henry III. Leading nobles governed on behalf of Henry III thus ensuring Magna Carta is enshrined.
1258. Henry III forced to accept Provisions of Oxford thus abolishing the absolutist Anglo-Norman monarchy and giving power to a council of 15 barons overseen by a thrice-yearly parliament.
1264. Barons, led by Simon de Montfort, defeat Henry III at Battle of Lewes. Simon de Montfort summons the first English Parliament with no royal authority. As well as the barons, bishops etc. there were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough, the latter mostly elected according to some locally devised process.
1265. First elected parliament meets. Simon de Montfort introduces the idea that power-holders are responsible to an electorate.
1295. Edward I adopts Simon de Montfort’s ideas about parliament in the Model Parliament.
1341. Commons meets separately from the nobility & clergy for the first time, thus creating the Upper and Lower Chambers.
1376. The Good Parliament. Presiding Officer (Sir Peter de la Mare) demanded accounting of royal expenditure and criticises the king’s management of the military and the heavy taxation. The Commons impeaches some of the king’s ministers.
1430. Franchise is limited to Forty Shilling Freeholders.
1485. Accession of Henry VII who is no longer a member of either house of parliament.
1536-41. Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII reduces the number of Lords Spiritual by the removal of Abbots and Priors from the House of Lords. For the first time there are more Lords Temporal than Lords Spiritual.
1544. Upper Chamber becomes known as the House of Lords, and the Lower Chamber the House of Commons; collectively the Houses of Parliament.
1628. Petition of Rights stipulated that the king could no longer tax without Parliament’s consent. Charles I later dissolved Parliament and, believing in the divine right of kings, ruled without them for 11 years thus precipitating the Civil War.
1642-51. Civil War and the Levellers movement.
1649. Execution of Charles I
1649-60. Interregnum. House of Lords abolished. Oliver Cromwell, as Lord Protector, convenes several (mostly unicameral) parliaments. Cromwell gave much freedom to parliament (which is based on the Elizabethan model) but without the ruler’s influence being exerted; in consequence parliament became troublesome to the regime.
1653. Humble Petition and Advice. Parliament offers Cromwell the crown which he refuses. But the model of parliament contained in the Humble Petition is essentially that which still pertains: an elected House of Commons, the House of Lords containing peers of the realm and a constitutional monarchy subservient to parliament and assisted by a Privy Council. Cromwell thus inadvertently presided over the creation of the basis for the future parliamentary government of England.
1659. Rump Parliament dissolves itself and calls democratic elections which pave the way for the restoration of Charles II in May 1660.
1681. Charles II gambles by dissolving parliament and ruling without them for four years.
1688. James II deposed.
1689. Accession of William & Mary. Parliament approves the Bill of Rights, upholding the pre-eminence of parliament (plus freedom of speech and banning of cruel and unusual punishments) thus beginning the English constitutional monarchy.
1707. Act of Union merges English and Scottish Parliaments.
1801. Parliament of Ireland merged with that of Great Britain.
1832. Great Reform Act. Purges many of the Rotten Boroughs, reforms constituencies and considerably extends the (male only) franchise.
1867. Second Reform Act completes the purge of Rotten Boroughs, establishes constituencies of roughly equal numbers of electors and again extends the franchise.
1872. Ballot Act establishes the secret ballot.
1884. Third Reform Act doubles the size of the (still all male) electorate.
1918. Almost all men over 21, and women over 30 who met property owning qualifications, granted the right to vote.
1928. Representation of the People Act enfranchises all men and women over 21.
1970. Age of majority reduced to 18.

So what is the alternative to democracy?

Yes, that’s right, it is essentially a dictatorship, whether in the form of an absolute monarchy (for example Saudi Arabia, Tsarist Russia), a military dictatorship (for example Burma, North Korea), a political dictatorship (think China, Soviet Russia) or a civil dictatorship (eg. Libya, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Zimbabwe). These countries have no tradition of democracy; most wouldn’t know it if it hit them in the face. And yet we, the Western World, expect to go stomping into these countries, telling them to become democracies (well that’s what works for us, so we know best) and then wonder why (a) they aren’t overjoyed and (b) fail to make it work overnight – think Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, sure, there are other countries which are trying to get from dictatorship to democracy on their own, Russia being a case in point. It is hard (so kudos to them for trying) because the dictatorship mindset (however much disliked) is ingrained in not just all their administrative systems but also in the people. No wonder they find it hard, however strong their will, and flip-flop into and out of dictatorial tendencies.

As I say, the road to democracy is long, winding and rocky. It’s taken Britain almost 800 years. What makes the Western World think non-democratic countries can achieve democracy overnight? Should we not expect it to be a long-term project for them, taking maybe 20-50 years? Even assuming that is what they want!

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, history, topographical

Freedom to Disrespect

Several friends have today posted this on Facebook:

Yesterday a group of Muslims broke the 2 minutes silence in central London, with banners “British Soldiers Burn In Hell” & the burning of a poppy. If you don’t like us English people paying respect for our brave fighters, then you know where the airport is. Disgusting, disrespectful b***ards. Copy and paste this if you’re English, and proud. RIP all those who lost their lives.

Much as I dislike the current sycophantic “poppy-fest” (see here) I too find such reactions (by anyone) disrespectful and even obscene. However the objectors have every right to their opinions and to voice them – however distasteful it is to us. Just as we have every right to call them (probably untruthfully) “b***ards” etc. – however much they dislike it. It is called “freedom of speech” and is what we pay our “brave fighters” to defend and uphold. Freedom of speech works both ways! And to see it thus makes me no less proud to be British.

Let’s keep in mind the words of two old-time great Americans, perhaps two of the world’s greatest ever statesmen …

Love your enemies, for they tell you your faults.
[Benjamin Franklin]

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
[Abraham Lincoln]

… and finally …

The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.
[Benjamin Franklin]

beliefs, freedom of speech, science, thoughts

Accountability of Religious Leaders

1 Comment

Prof. Lawrence Krauss writes a typically hard-hitting column in the August 2010 issue of Scientific American. I’m not sure if the piece is available online without subscription (I have access as I subscribe to the paper version of the magazine) so here are the key paragraphs.

I don’t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo.
[…]
Last May I attended a conference on science and public policy at which a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a keynote address. When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church – from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy – I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.
[…]
[In] Arizona, Sister Margaret McBride, a senior administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, recently authorized a legal abortion to save the life of a 27-year-old mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe complications of pulmonary hypertension; she made that decision after consultation with the mother’s family, her doctors and the local ethics committee. Yet the bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olm­sted, immediately excommunicated Sister Margaret, saying, “The mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s.” Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.
[…]
Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.

For my part I’m not sure which is more worrying: Krauss being shouted down at a scientific conference or the Bishop of Phoenix.  Both are very worrying.

beliefs, freedom of speech, people, personal, quotes, sexuality, thoughts

Post 1000: Apologia

As this is, as best I can calculate, my 1000th weblog posting, I figured I ought to say something significant.

A few days ago we were in a restaurant with friends and the discussion turned to blogging. One of them asked why people blog, as she had never felt the need to. Naturally this made me think about why I blog.

Journal. It acts as a sort of (in my case informal) journal for ideas. A way of documenting things I find amusing, interesting or important and which I probably wouldn’t otherwise capture, if only because I’m lazy about writing things down cogently and I’m trying to get rid of mountains of paper, not collect more.

Enjoyment. Yes, this is something I enjoy doing. I wouldn’t enjoy having to write something to order every day, hence the London bus irregularity with which items appear here. I do it when I want to do it, not to some schedule.

Catalysis. As a practising catalyst, blogging gives me a way to spread my ideas, albeit to a small and self-selecting audience (which is fine by me!).

So what’s all this about then?

Noreen and I chose not to have children but to be available to help our friends, family and their children (hereinafter “friend”). This is, to me, part of being a catalyst and a facilitator, and part of why I’m here (assuming there is some “purpose” to life).

Why? Because no parent, however good (and most do a thankless job brilliantly), can ever provide everything their child needs. We don’t live in an ideal world – that would be so boring – so there will always be something a kid doesn’t want to talk to parents about, whether that’s girl/boyfriends, bullying, sexuality, money, dropping out of university, or whatever. (And of course the equivalent applies to adults too!) We offer to be there if any of our friends needs to talk about anything (literally, anything), needs a refuge, needs someone to stand bail – and all in confidence, of course. We always make this offer to our friends’ children as soon as they are old enough to understand what this really means (usually in their early to mid-teens).

Part of this is so the friend has that needed ear/refuge/whatever. But also so that they can have a different perspective on their situation, different ideas, which hopefully will help them resolve their situation and develop. Blogging is another aspect of this, albeit at a slight remove.

Democracy. I’ve observed elsewhere (see, for instance, here and here) that in a (democratic) society, morals and ethics are the consensus of the beliefs of the people, and that progress and change are made by those with differing views challenging that consensus.

As one of the working thinkers in such a democratic society I see it as my professional duty to challenge the consensus view where I believe it to be in error. (Equally when I was working I saw it as my professional duty to challenge management stupidity and misunderstanding when I came across it. Not popular, but for me the moral obligation of a conscientious professional.)

For me this is especially important in matters where I see the repressive moralities of others trying to close down freedom of choice, expression, belief; for example the moral right’s crusades against sexuality, nudity and perceived pornography. This was interestingly highlighted in a recent article in The Register; here are a few salient quotes [with my comments in italics]:

Censorship does more harm than good
…
A moral panic around childhood sexualisation and the dangers of the internet is closing down important channels of debate
…
The real problem, though, is that no one knows what “sexualisation” is: it is a convenient label used to position the child as always the victim, and then to pile every problem imaginable on top, including paedophilia, body image, sex trafficking and self-esteem. Once that particular juggernaut gets rolling, it is almost impossible to have a sensible debate about what’s really going on. [People become so frightened of being ostracised and/or victimised by the authorities that they daren’t speak and free speech disappears]
…
as soon as someone declares an image erotic [or pornographic, or violent], it is then analysed in that context, as opposed to being viewed for whatever it is
…
a major issue was the way in which childhood activity was being viewed through the looking glass of adult eroticism. “Showing your bum” is not a sexual activity for most eight-year-olds and should not be treated as such. [Arguably it isn’t a sexual activity for most 18-, or indeed 88-, year-olds either] “Sexting” is nothing new, but merely a modern manifestation of habits as old as dating and courtship [you show me yours and I’ll show you mine].

That was not to ignore the real danger of what happens when an image taken from one context (childhood play) becomes taken up in another (adult sexual interest). [It’s a question of balance and perspective, something we seem to have mislaid]
…
A moralising attitude makes it very dangerous for young people [read “anyone”] to discuss sexuality on the net [read “anywhere”] – and certainly to discuss sexual issues … closing off an important channel for exploration and seeking knowledge to teenagers.

Unless those of us who are more libertarian push back against challenges from the conservative right, society will regress to the more hypocritical behaviour patterns of Victorian Age, with its strict pater familias figures allowing no freedom except their freedom and no dissension from their moralising diktats, while sexuality in all its guises goes back underground thus ensuring more (not less) abuse for the under-privileged majority.

How much better to have everything accepted, in the open, with people free to choose what they do and believe, thus reducing the scope for abuse and improving the opportunities for better (physical and mental) healthcare by making everything visible.

We didn’t fight the revolutionary war of the 1960s and ’70s only to see these hard won freedoms given away again.

Some people feel strongly about militarism, third world poverty, climate change or whatever, and hence blog or campaign about that. I feel strongly about the liberalisation of sexuality, body freedom, so-called pornography, free speech and the loosening of the stranglehold of religion and politics. So that’s mostly what I choose to write my more serious blog posts about and a part of why I blog.

I’m not the sort of person who in the 17th and 18th centuries would have had the confidence or money to publish salacious pamphlets – pamphlets were, after all, the blogs of their day. By creating weblogs, technology has opened up pamphleteering for many orders of magnitude more writers and audiences. Using that facility is, to me, all part of being a working thinker. And I choose to do it quietly rather than being out on the streets and “in yer face”.

Vanity. Belatedly I realised that there is also an element of vanity and attention seeking in why I blog. One of the things it seems my childhood has left me with is a need for attention. No, I don’t know why! Maybe one day I will. Or maybe it’s something to do with being male? I suspect this is a subtle reason why I blog, but I don’t think it is the main reason; if it were I would be productive of a whole lot more rubbish.

Would I have analysed this if it weren’t for blogging? No! So there’s another reason: self-discovery. What better reason
could one want?

beliefs, freedom of speech, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

Questions about Sex Images

2 Comments

This post is about pornography and a couple of current fashions in same that I don’t understand. But first let’s get something fundamental out of the way …

What do I mean by pornography in this context? I mean the normal, relatively sane, heterosexual material which can be bought legally in the UK over the counter of the corner shop or licensed sex shop or found easily on the internet. I do not mean anything involving extreme violence, abuse, lack of consent, drugs, children, animals, unpleasant bodily excretions or anything illegal – none of which I would ever condone.

Yes, I admit it, I look at pornography. Well so what? I’m a normal red-blooded male, I still have a pulse and I’m a sexual libertarian (as long as it’s consensual). Most of us have seen (if not actively used) pornography at some point of our lives, with American research showing that almost 90% of young men and over 30% of young women actually use pornography – now translate that into how many have ever seen pornography. So it’s there, we all know it’s there, we all know what it contains and we all know that at the level I’m discussing it does next to bugger all harm.

Having cleared that up, can we now have an adult conversation about it, please?

So there are two things which seem to be fashionable in current pornography which I fail to understand, and which I would welcome someone knowledgeable explaining to me.

Firstly … Why does every female (and a significant minority of men too) have to have their pubic area clean shaven? Yes, it’s a fashion. It didn’t used to be this way. Look at porn images from 30-40 years ago and everyone is hairy. OK, I understand that the lack of hair gives a better view of the genitals, but that doesn’t require complete depilation. I also understand that depilated females are supposed to look younger and more virginal, but given the current concerns with child pornography I would have thought this is something most men (and women) would want to avoid! And I also know that some people prefer a lack of hair as it increases skin contact during sex. But that does not explain why 99% of females are significantly if not totally depliated. Yes by all means tidy the hairy bits up round the edges. We all get a haircut from time to time but we don’t all go around with our heads shaved, so why shave our pubes? What is it about our naturally hairy state that is so unacceptable? Is this something more than pure fashion? If so, why? I don’t get it.

Actually now I think about it I have a subsidiary question. Why is it that the majority of women appear to prefer non-hairy men. Many times I have heard girlies interviewed and give an “Eeeuuwwwww” reaction to the idea of a hairy man – particularly hairy chests and backs. What is it about hairy men that’s such a turn-off? Or again is this just fashion, perpetuated by the likes of the Chippendales?

OK, here’s my second question. One of most men’s dreams (GOK why) is being on the receiving end of fellatio given by some nubile sex goddess (or god). And of course this appears regularly as a pornographic image. But why, oh why, do the girls (I don’t look at the men!) performing the act always look at the camera and look bored? Oh, OK, they probably are bored. But wouldn’t it be a whole sight more erotic if they were concentrating on the job in hand and look as if they are enjoying it? Why must they look at the camera in that desultory way? Sure, eye contact is important to communication, but even at a time like this? Again, I don’t get it.

Now can anyone knowledgeable explain either of these phenomena, please? Are they just fashions or am I missing something deeper?

PS. If I start getting abusive comments they will be deleted, as will any comment which unnecessarily links to pornographic images. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and to express it, but you are not entitled to do so in an abusive way. My rules! OK?

freedom of speech, medical, people, science, sexuality, thoughts

Obscene …

3 Comments

… and obscene is not a word I use often or lightly, but I am horrified at the story which is circulating of a New York doctor who is reducing the clitorises of young girls in the belief that they are abnormally large. In deference to my blood pressure I shall say no more here but refer you to the story over on The F-Word. If this is even half true the man (yes, a man, of course) is in my view a paedophile and child abuser.

Hat-tip: jillysheep.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, science, sexuality, thoughts

Nudity, Sex and Sex Education,

2 Comments

I started this post with a dilemma. Do I write it as one long “review” post or split it into several so I can write more in depth about each topic. In the end I decided on the former if only to ensure that the articles I highlight actually get air time and not consigned, by default or laziness, to Bin 101.

In the last week or so there have been a number of items on the intertubes about nudity, sexuality and sex education. Regular readers (What? You mean I have regular readers?) will be aware of my liberal views and my belief that we need to break down society’s taboos in these areas (very much in the Dutch-mode) so my choice of items should come as little surprise.


We Need to Stop Circumcision
Written by Christine Northrup, herself an obstetrician and gynaecologist, this item in the Huffington Post makes a passionate case for not circumcising infant boys, as well as girls. Here are few extracts:

In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?

[C]ircumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation.

Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable … the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it’s done to girls or boys.

[M]isleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on … these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection [as has been done in Africa] has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That’s because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with [their foreskin] are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love.

More Sex Education Please, we’re British
This was an article in the Times on 24 February, in which Alice Thomson argued that we (the British) have the highest rate of teenage STDs, abortions and pregnancies in Europe and that the only way this will be reduced is by very open and frank sex education conducted in an adult way. Sniggering behind the bike-sheds, as we British always have done, has gotten us into this mess and won’t get us out of it. Again a telling quote or two:

British children shouldn’t be getting their sex education from Ashley and Cheryl [Cole] but from their parents and teachers. I was once one of those prissy, prudish parents pussyfooting around the question until I was sent to the Netherlands by this newspaper to discuss procreation.

As I walked to De Burght junior school in Amsterdam to talk to the headmaster about his policy, I bumped into eight-year-old Carla carefully balancing a dish. It was a sample of her father’s sperm for “show and tell”. [I bet that had Tunbridge Wells choking on its Shredded Wheat! – Ed.]

In the Netherlands, sex and children aren’t a taboo subject. As pupils play mummies and daddies in the playground they know exactly what they might have been doing last night … a 12-year-old at the senior school showed me how to roll a condom on to a broomstick while her friend asked me if I masturbated.

The British, meanwhile, expect their children to learn about sex and relationships from the playground, internet porn, WAGs and celebrities, and are amazed that we have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions among the under 21s in Europe.

We need to talk about the subject until we can say various anatomical parts without sniggering.

For the first time, I found myself agreeing with Ed Balls [same here – Ed.], the Schools Secretary, on the Today programme yesterday [23 Feb] that sex education should be compulsory in all schools. Of course five-year-olds need to learn about sex, the earlier the better, and from parents as well as teachers.

The Dutch are more religious than the British and still manage to reach consent among Calvinists, Catholics and Muslims that children should be provided with all the facts to make their own informed decisions, not just lectured on morality and the missionary position.

Thoughts on the “hook-up culture,” or what I learned from my high school diary
This appeared on Scarleteen (an excellent site which addresses all sorts of sexuality questions and is aimed at teens and young adults, in a mature and adult way) and elsewhere on 2 March. In it the female writer discusses dating, sex and relationships and how they relate to our current views of feminism and gender roles. A couple of comments particularly struck home with me.

We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up – and that’s okay.

Girls deserve to discover themselves sexually at their own pace, to be neither rushed into having sex nor shamed into not having it. They deserve to have their very own “This is bullshit” moments without wearing a chastity belt.

My only comment is something we’re in danger of forgetting: that (despite all the machismo) just the same applies to boys!  If anything it is more important for boys as they first have to slough off that machismo.

Psychology and the Shock of Nudity
This item on the Academic Natuirist weblog addresses the problem of guilt surrounding being discovered naked. For most people the one discovered appears to carry the guilt, which in the view of the writer (and me) is stupid. Again a couple of excepts:

Naturists have a different attitude … You’ve seen me naked? Good! That means I don’t have to get dressed next time you come over …Why should Alice feel bad about seeing Bob naked, if Bob didn’t care at all about it? Alice is not guilty of embarrassing Bob. 
[Equally why should Bob feel guilty at being seen naked if Alice doesn’t care about it? – Ed.]

Getting textiles to not feel guilty about seeing nudity would be a good step for general acceptance [of nudity] … Maybe we’re wrong about how we notify others? The signs … warn “ATTENTION – BEYOND THIS POINT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER NUDE BATHERS” Perhaps the right approach is something like “There’s friendly naked people beyond this sign, and we won’t mind if you stop over and chat with us!”

Naked People – Your Version
Finally a challenge. On 18 February Dairy of a Nudist invited us to take part in a new phase of Sebastian Kempa’s ongoing Naked People project: Naked People Your Version. All you have to do is to submit a pair of identically posed photos of yourself, one clothed the other nude. The idea is, of course, “to help further break down the barrier of clothing which society has imposed to imprison our natural bodies”. I’ve not yet submitted my photos, but I have every intention of doing so in the next week or so. Dare you? – For each one of you who convinces me you’ve submitted your photos (I may ask you for evidence; depends how well I know you!) I’ll make a small donation to charity.  Who’s up for it?