In a previous posting, I talked about the stance taken by Daniel N. Paul, author of We Were Not The Savages concerning relations between the British and the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. Perhaps a little more context is in order.
I was “inspired” to write the preceding post after reading a series of letters published in the Chronicle Herald, a Halifax newspaper. In its Jan. 29, 2010, edition, the Chronicle Herald published a letter in which D.L. Nicholson, who says he is a descendant of a certain Charles Morris, said Morris’s residence in Halifax should be preserved as a historic site even though Mr. Morris had played a part in the Deportation of the Acadians. He was reacting to another descendant of Charles Morris who held the opposite view and had stated his case on a local radio station. Nicholson’s main point was that history should be preserved whether the events recalled are good or bad. As two examples, he noted the Auschwitz concentration camp and the monument to Edward Cornwallis, founder of Halifax, who offered a bounty for the scalps of Mi’kmaq when he was Governor of Nova Scotia in colonial times.
To this, a certain Eric Hamblin sent in a letter of his own, which was published Feb. 3. Among his statements: “Edward Cornwallis offered the ‘scalping bounty’ after Indians had descended upon a family of settlers in Dartmouth and had scalped the lot. It was rough justice of an eye-for-an-eye type that the Indians appreciated.”
This moved Daniel N. Paul to react with a more condensed version of what I wrote in previous post. From his letter, published Feb. 8: “During a time of war, to allow men to go into the woods unprotected bespeaks of military incompetence. To react by placing a bounty on the heads of a race of people, including innocent women and children, is barbarism in the extreme.”
Paul goes on to say that British Crown officials issued hundreds of scalping proclamations throughout their colonies in North America, and this led to the extinction of countless tribes.
Going back to Hamblin’s letter, he also contends that France had “transferred power in Canada” to the British after the battle of the Plains of Abraham, and that one of the consequences of this transfer was the expulsion of the Acadians. He says, “It was the normal practice of the victors in such conflicts to demand that inhabitants give allegiance to the new rulers. The Acadians refused.” He adds that “after due notice of the consequences of their refusal, they were shipped off to Louisiana.”
He ends by saying “... let’s not confuse the facts with what we would like them to have been.”
In the Feb. 8 edition, Zach Chisholm points out numerous instances where Hamblin got his “facts” entirely wrong. First, he notes that “Canada” (New France, actually) was not ceded to Britain until 1763, through the Treaty of Paris. He adds that the Acadian Deportation started in 1755, well before the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, and by the time Canada was ceded, most Acadians had already been deported.
Chisholm adds that Acadia was captured in 1710, and the Deportation started nearly 45 years later. Furthermore, Acadians who settled in Louisiana did so on their own. During the Deportation, they were sent to the New England colonies, for the most part, while others wound up in English internment camps, and others in France.
I sent in my own contribution which, as far as I know, was never published. Here is a condensed version of that letter after removing the arguments already presented – very competently, I might add – by Chisholm.
When the Deportation occurred, almost 42 years after the British officially took over the colony, most Acadians living at the time had actually been born in what the British themselves considered British territory. Therefore, the British deported people born on British soil without benefit of a trial. Whether their parents and grandparents swore allegiance or not is irrelevant. The Acadians, especially those aged 40 and under in 1755, were not foreigners, at least not any more so than the English settlers who followed.
A little footnote from Wikipedia: When the Treaty of Paris was being worked out France had to choose between holding on to New France or its Caribbean colonies. France chose the Caribbean colonies, probably because of their easily exploitable natural resources and also because defending the Caribbean colonies would be easier than defending New France against the prosperous British colonies.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
When Hairy Met Sally
The February 2010 issue of Scientific American has an interesting article: The Naked Truth: Why Humans Have No Fur. Here is a brief summary:
Among other things, fur is used to keep warm, to protect against abrasion, moisture, and harmful parasites and microbes. Also, it can be used for social displays, like when a dog raises the hair on its neck and back, a clear signal to stay away.
Most mammals have at least some hair. In some cases, the hair is so sparse and fine that it serves no function. Naked mole rats huddle to keep warm and since they can’t see each other, hair for social display would be useless. Whales and dolphins have no fur because it would cause drag when swimming long distances or when diving. Elephants, rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses are pretty much as naked as we are because they would otherwise be at a constant risk of overheating due to their size. Meanwhile, sea otters have fur that allows them to be buoyant in the water and float more easily, while playing its usual protective role on dry land. Of all primates, humans are the only ones largely without hair.
Humans live neither underground nor in the water, nor are they as large as elephants and rhinos. Why are we so naked, then? It turns out even smaller animals risk overheating in some circumstances if their cooling system can’t cope.
The human way of cooling off is to sweat profusely. There are primarily three types of sweat glands: sebaceous, apocrine and eccrine. In most mammals, the sebaceous and apocrine glands are the dominant sweat glands, and they are found near the base of hair follicles. The secretions mix to coat animals with an oily, sometimes foamy, mixture. While this can cool an animal, its capacity to dissipate heat is limited because evaporation occurs at the surface of the fur, not at the surface of the skin itself. The more the furry animal sweats, the less effectively heat is evaporated, because the fur becomes matted and evaporation is hampered.
Humans, in addition to being without fur, have more eccrine sweat glands than animals with fur. Instead of clustering near hair follicles, eccrine glands are relatively close to the surface of the skin and sweat comes out through tiny pores. The combination of naked skin and the watery sweat produced mainly by the eccrine glands allows humans to cool down more easily. A human being can produce up to 12 litres of this thin watery sweat each day.
Why did humans turn out this way? The theory is there was a global cooling period, which led to drier conditions in East and Central Africa, where the earliest ancestors of humanity are believed to have lived. As the climate became drier, the plant food (fruit, leaves, tubers, seeds) and sources of fresh water became scarcer, and the forest gave way to grasslands. Our ancestors had to give up leisurely foraging and travel greater distances to find edible plants and water. The need for extra calories eventually led to eating meat. Studies have shown that if the greater presence of eccrine glands and the loss of fur hadn’t occurred, these ancestors of ours would have continually been in danger of overheating due to their increased physical activity.
Since humans walked upright, the only area where hair had to be preserved was on the head, as protection against the sun. The dense head hair creates a barrier of air between the sweating scalp and the heat at the surface of the hair.
Hair in the armpits and in the groin area may combine with sweat to produce pheromones, as well as to provide lubrication in those areas when traveling from place to place. Everywhere else, hair generally disappeared, or became so thin and sparse as to be ineffective, while the skin became more waterproof and scuff-resistant.
The more efficient cooling system also allowed the brain to expand over time. Australopithecines had a brain of an average size of 400 cubic centimetres, about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. Homo ergaster’s brain was twice that size. The homo sapiens brain had expanded yet another 400 c.c. Each size increase means extra heat is being produced by the brain. If the brain’s heat has nowhere to go in a hurry, the danger of overheating and seriously damaging the brain is very high. Without a highly efficient cooling system, humans could never have evolved to have such a highly developed brain, nor the intelligence that comes with it.
Another part of the article on why humans don’t have fur concerns how long we have existed BOTH without fur and without clothes. The answer is to be found in lice.
Unlike head lice, body lice feed on blood but live in clothing. Analyses of gene sequences in lice show that while head lice have always been with us, body lice evolved much later. The best estimate at this point is that body lice appeared about one million years after our fur disappeared. This means that for one million years, we were truly naked.
Among other things, fur is used to keep warm, to protect against abrasion, moisture, and harmful parasites and microbes. Also, it can be used for social displays, like when a dog raises the hair on its neck and back, a clear signal to stay away.
Most mammals have at least some hair. In some cases, the hair is so sparse and fine that it serves no function. Naked mole rats huddle to keep warm and since they can’t see each other, hair for social display would be useless. Whales and dolphins have no fur because it would cause drag when swimming long distances or when diving. Elephants, rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses are pretty much as naked as we are because they would otherwise be at a constant risk of overheating due to their size. Meanwhile, sea otters have fur that allows them to be buoyant in the water and float more easily, while playing its usual protective role on dry land. Of all primates, humans are the only ones largely without hair.
Humans live neither underground nor in the water, nor are they as large as elephants and rhinos. Why are we so naked, then? It turns out even smaller animals risk overheating in some circumstances if their cooling system can’t cope.
The human way of cooling off is to sweat profusely. There are primarily three types of sweat glands: sebaceous, apocrine and eccrine. In most mammals, the sebaceous and apocrine glands are the dominant sweat glands, and they are found near the base of hair follicles. The secretions mix to coat animals with an oily, sometimes foamy, mixture. While this can cool an animal, its capacity to dissipate heat is limited because evaporation occurs at the surface of the fur, not at the surface of the skin itself. The more the furry animal sweats, the less effectively heat is evaporated, because the fur becomes matted and evaporation is hampered.
Humans, in addition to being without fur, have more eccrine sweat glands than animals with fur. Instead of clustering near hair follicles, eccrine glands are relatively close to the surface of the skin and sweat comes out through tiny pores. The combination of naked skin and the watery sweat produced mainly by the eccrine glands allows humans to cool down more easily. A human being can produce up to 12 litres of this thin watery sweat each day.
Why did humans turn out this way? The theory is there was a global cooling period, which led to drier conditions in East and Central Africa, where the earliest ancestors of humanity are believed to have lived. As the climate became drier, the plant food (fruit, leaves, tubers, seeds) and sources of fresh water became scarcer, and the forest gave way to grasslands. Our ancestors had to give up leisurely foraging and travel greater distances to find edible plants and water. The need for extra calories eventually led to eating meat. Studies have shown that if the greater presence of eccrine glands and the loss of fur hadn’t occurred, these ancestors of ours would have continually been in danger of overheating due to their increased physical activity.
Since humans walked upright, the only area where hair had to be preserved was on the head, as protection against the sun. The dense head hair creates a barrier of air between the sweating scalp and the heat at the surface of the hair.
Hair in the armpits and in the groin area may combine with sweat to produce pheromones, as well as to provide lubrication in those areas when traveling from place to place. Everywhere else, hair generally disappeared, or became so thin and sparse as to be ineffective, while the skin became more waterproof and scuff-resistant.
The more efficient cooling system also allowed the brain to expand over time. Australopithecines had a brain of an average size of 400 cubic centimetres, about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. Homo ergaster’s brain was twice that size. The homo sapiens brain had expanded yet another 400 c.c. Each size increase means extra heat is being produced by the brain. If the brain’s heat has nowhere to go in a hurry, the danger of overheating and seriously damaging the brain is very high. Without a highly efficient cooling system, humans could never have evolved to have such a highly developed brain, nor the intelligence that comes with it.
Another part of the article on why humans don’t have fur concerns how long we have existed BOTH without fur and without clothes. The answer is to be found in lice.
Unlike head lice, body lice feed on blood but live in clothing. Analyses of gene sequences in lice show that while head lice have always been with us, body lice evolved much later. The best estimate at this point is that body lice appeared about one million years after our fur disappeared. This means that for one million years, we were truly naked.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Who were the savages?
“Whereas, notwithstanding the gracious offers of friendship and protection made in His Majesty's Names by us to the Indians inhabiting this Province, (…) on Saturday the 30th of September, a body of these savages fell upon some men cutting wood and without arms near the saw mill and barbarously killed four and carried one away.” (My emphasis.)
This is a section from the Scalping Proclamation of 1749 issued by then Nova Scotia Governor Edward Cornwallis. The “Indians” probably don’t look like very nice people, do they?
But, what if we’re just seeing one side of the story?
In We Were Not The Savages, author Daniel N. Paul puts forth an argument which is almost never heard in histories written by historians of European stock: The land of the Mi’kmaq was never ceded, only occupied. To support his claim, he notes that France never actually negotiated any surrender of land from the Mi’kmaq (nor apparently the Maliseet). Instead, the French authorities took great pains to not interfere in Mi’kmaq life other than to maintain good relations (and gain a few souls for Christianity). Rather than try to subjugate the Mi’kmaq, they simply tried to get on their good side. And being good neighbours, the Mi’kmaq accepted them.
The land called Acadia, which roughly covers present-day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, was certainly considered by France to be its own possession. However, France went out of its way to maintain good relations with the natives, including the withholding of that vital piece of information. We can certainly fault the French for not being more honest in their intentions. But the policy at least had the benefit of avoiding open hostilities.
When the British won the war to take over Acadia for the last time, the land was said to have been ceded by France to the British. However, when British colonial authorities tried to impose their will on the natives, they reacted by saying France couldn’t cede what it didn’t own in the first place. Colonial authorities refused to deal with the Mi’kmaq as a sovereign nation and insisted that the land was now British. At that point, the Mi’kmaq, among others, considered themselves at war with Britain.
Viewed in this context, another interpretation is possible. In the midst of this war the British foolishly sent some unarmed woodcutters to do some work at a distance from the settlement without benefit of an armed escort. As far as the Mi’kmaq were concerned, they were fair game.
In any case, the proclamation put a price on the head of every man, woman and child who happened to be Mi’kmaq. The idea of punishing just those responsible for the attack, if considered at all, was soon dismissed. Authorities wanted to get rid of the Mi’kmaq completely.
"… The Indians who scalped your forefathers were open enemies, and had good reason for what they did. They were fighting for their country, which they loved, as we have loved it in these latter years." The man who made that statement was Joseph Howe, whose efforts in other fields would eventually lead to Nova Scotia becoming the first colony in present-day Canada to have responsible government.
This is a section from the Scalping Proclamation of 1749 issued by then Nova Scotia Governor Edward Cornwallis. The “Indians” probably don’t look like very nice people, do they?
But, what if we’re just seeing one side of the story?
In We Were Not The Savages, author Daniel N. Paul puts forth an argument which is almost never heard in histories written by historians of European stock: The land of the Mi’kmaq was never ceded, only occupied. To support his claim, he notes that France never actually negotiated any surrender of land from the Mi’kmaq (nor apparently the Maliseet). Instead, the French authorities took great pains to not interfere in Mi’kmaq life other than to maintain good relations (and gain a few souls for Christianity). Rather than try to subjugate the Mi’kmaq, they simply tried to get on their good side. And being good neighbours, the Mi’kmaq accepted them.
The land called Acadia, which roughly covers present-day Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, was certainly considered by France to be its own possession. However, France went out of its way to maintain good relations with the natives, including the withholding of that vital piece of information. We can certainly fault the French for not being more honest in their intentions. But the policy at least had the benefit of avoiding open hostilities.
When the British won the war to take over Acadia for the last time, the land was said to have been ceded by France to the British. However, when British colonial authorities tried to impose their will on the natives, they reacted by saying France couldn’t cede what it didn’t own in the first place. Colonial authorities refused to deal with the Mi’kmaq as a sovereign nation and insisted that the land was now British. At that point, the Mi’kmaq, among others, considered themselves at war with Britain.
Viewed in this context, another interpretation is possible. In the midst of this war the British foolishly sent some unarmed woodcutters to do some work at a distance from the settlement without benefit of an armed escort. As far as the Mi’kmaq were concerned, they were fair game.
In any case, the proclamation put a price on the head of every man, woman and child who happened to be Mi’kmaq. The idea of punishing just those responsible for the attack, if considered at all, was soon dismissed. Authorities wanted to get rid of the Mi’kmaq completely.
"… The Indians who scalped your forefathers were open enemies, and had good reason for what they did. They were fighting for their country, which they loved, as we have loved it in these latter years." The man who made that statement was Joseph Howe, whose efforts in other fields would eventually lead to Nova Scotia becoming the first colony in present-day Canada to have responsible government.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Oppression of Nudists
In the Vol. 15, No. 2 issue of Skeptic, there is an article entitled Why Religions Turn Oppressive: A Perspective from Evolutionary Psychology. At the risk of oversimplifying things, here’s what I got out of that article:
By and large, people tend to help others when it benefits them, harm others when it either benefits them or prevents being harmed or disadvantaged, and be totally indifferent to others when what they do neither helps nor harms. An exception to this general rule is the domain of morality.
Morality consists of a large number of arbitrary rules. While obeying some can certainly be of benefit for individuals and the group, others don’t seem to be of any benefit, and can sometimes be nonsensical when viewed objectively, especially where they actually hinder the improvement of our welfare.
Where religious groups become oppressive, the targets are usually people who can’t fight back easily because of their small numbers and low social status. When a religious group condemns non-members of its group, it can lead to collective bullying. For example, when antiabortionists try to induce shame on teenage girls who go to an abortion clinic, they are also telling people in their own group where the line is drawn and that the line must be toed to avoid similar shame.
In the past, some societies would allow dominant religious groups to harm and kill non-members in the name of morality or to impose certain theological beliefs. These sometimes took the form of public executions.
If we take away the word “religion” and replace it with “dominant social group,” could not the same thing be said of nudism? There are so few of us and we seem to promote something so opposite to the prevailing norms that we become an easy target.
By and large, people tend to help others when it benefits them, harm others when it either benefits them or prevents being harmed or disadvantaged, and be totally indifferent to others when what they do neither helps nor harms. An exception to this general rule is the domain of morality.
Morality consists of a large number of arbitrary rules. While obeying some can certainly be of benefit for individuals and the group, others don’t seem to be of any benefit, and can sometimes be nonsensical when viewed objectively, especially where they actually hinder the improvement of our welfare.
Where religious groups become oppressive, the targets are usually people who can’t fight back easily because of their small numbers and low social status. When a religious group condemns non-members of its group, it can lead to collective bullying. For example, when antiabortionists try to induce shame on teenage girls who go to an abortion clinic, they are also telling people in their own group where the line is drawn and that the line must be toed to avoid similar shame.
In the past, some societies would allow dominant religious groups to harm and kill non-members in the name of morality or to impose certain theological beliefs. These sometimes took the form of public executions.
If we take away the word “religion” and replace it with “dominant social group,” could not the same thing be said of nudism? There are so few of us and we seem to promote something so opposite to the prevailing norms that we become an easy target.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Decline of the North American Naturist Centres
There was some discussion on the truenudists.com Forum regarding the decline of naturist centres in North America. So many of them are either closing completely or are sold to non-naturist operators because no interested naturist party could be found to keep the centre going.
While the decline is unfortunate, it also signals the need to change the direction of naturism. For so long we have relied on business people and business organizations to run centres and resorts. But if the lifestyle is to reach a larger audience, we will eventually have to come out of hiding.
In the past, this was exceptionally difficult. Today, we have Web-based social networks, both nudist ones and others, to spread the message of social, non-sexual nudity. Some find nude beaches too dangerous because they aren’t all properly supervised by safety officers or lifeguards. Yet that’s one of the places we have to go. In today’s economy and considering the priorities of young people today, we have to have beaches, parks and other centres that are RELATIVELY CHEAP and EASILY ACCESSIBLE. To some degree, we have to claim some spaces. Our small numbers don’t exactly help.
If one or two of us show up at a relatively secluded section of beach and are found out, we get arrested. But what if 50 of us showed up? Or even 100? The three most important elements in any political or social struggle are numbers, numbers and numbers. We have to reach people and get the message out.
I don’t have all the answers, though. Any suggestions?
While the decline is unfortunate, it also signals the need to change the direction of naturism. For so long we have relied on business people and business organizations to run centres and resorts. But if the lifestyle is to reach a larger audience, we will eventually have to come out of hiding.
In the past, this was exceptionally difficult. Today, we have Web-based social networks, both nudist ones and others, to spread the message of social, non-sexual nudity. Some find nude beaches too dangerous because they aren’t all properly supervised by safety officers or lifeguards. Yet that’s one of the places we have to go. In today’s economy and considering the priorities of young people today, we have to have beaches, parks and other centres that are RELATIVELY CHEAP and EASILY ACCESSIBLE. To some degree, we have to claim some spaces. Our small numbers don’t exactly help.
If one or two of us show up at a relatively secluded section of beach and are found out, we get arrested. But what if 50 of us showed up? Or even 100? The three most important elements in any political or social struggle are numbers, numbers and numbers. We have to reach people and get the message out.
I don’t have all the answers, though. Any suggestions?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
It’s the economy, stupid!
None of my job-search tips ever came from school. More to the point, though, school never really prepared me for what the job world was. I had a rather nebulous understanding that people had to work to put food on the table. What I hadn’t fully understood was that there is something called the economy, which is, at its most basic level, the production, selling and buying of goods and services. Whether we like it or not, the basics of life and society are dependent of and subsumed by this.
It’s either that or we go back to the days of hunting and gathering.
Businesses are what keep the economy going. No one ever told me that. Maybe it was just too obvious to them. All I knew was that business people never seemed to pay their employees enough, and they only paid lip service to the idea that the customer was always right. It was never made clear that business people were the ones who created jobs in the first place, and that while some business owners do become millionaires, the vast majority aren’t so lucky.
It also took me most of my adult life to finally understand that money is NOT the root of all evil. Money is simply a tool which makes it easier to trade for goods and services. Otherwise, we’d be bartering all the time. Can you imagine your hairdresser trying to convince you that you need a second haircut in as many weeks just so he can trade that for some gas from your gas station?
When I went to school, the existence of money was acknowledged but never really explained. These days, various Internet entities with agendas of their own will give their own spin on how money came to be. Official publications from national banks seem geared towards specialists, so the common people are left with the special interest groups which may oversimplify things, deliberately misinform us, or just be misinformed themselves.
I cautiously recommend a video entitled “Money As Debt,” easily available on most Internet video sites. I say cautiously because the first half or so of the video explains, or at least gives a plausible explanation of, how the modern banking system came into being, and is probably as accurate as one can expect. I’m less sure about the rest. Take it with a grain of salt.
I often wondered why a national government with a large debt couldn’t just print more money and pay those debts off once and for all. To understand why requires a certain explanation of economics and of how national banks, or entities like the U.S. Federal Reserve, work. Why none of this is required learning in school is beyond me. If we want the people to make wise decisions, especially when election time comes around, they need to know how the economy works.
It’s either that or we go back to the days of hunting and gathering.
Businesses are what keep the economy going. No one ever told me that. Maybe it was just too obvious to them. All I knew was that business people never seemed to pay their employees enough, and they only paid lip service to the idea that the customer was always right. It was never made clear that business people were the ones who created jobs in the first place, and that while some business owners do become millionaires, the vast majority aren’t so lucky.
It also took me most of my adult life to finally understand that money is NOT the root of all evil. Money is simply a tool which makes it easier to trade for goods and services. Otherwise, we’d be bartering all the time. Can you imagine your hairdresser trying to convince you that you need a second haircut in as many weeks just so he can trade that for some gas from your gas station?
When I went to school, the existence of money was acknowledged but never really explained. These days, various Internet entities with agendas of their own will give their own spin on how money came to be. Official publications from national banks seem geared towards specialists, so the common people are left with the special interest groups which may oversimplify things, deliberately misinform us, or just be misinformed themselves.
I cautiously recommend a video entitled “Money As Debt,” easily available on most Internet video sites. I say cautiously because the first half or so of the video explains, or at least gives a plausible explanation of, how the modern banking system came into being, and is probably as accurate as one can expect. I’m less sure about the rest. Take it with a grain of salt.
I often wondered why a national government with a large debt couldn’t just print more money and pay those debts off once and for all. To understand why requires a certain explanation of economics and of how national banks, or entities like the U.S. Federal Reserve, work. Why none of this is required learning in school is beyond me. If we want the people to make wise decisions, especially when election time comes around, they need to know how the economy works.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Whenever I feel afraid, I hold my head... ?
My previous post concerning “That Rude Problem” is a revamped version of a post first sent to the Forum at truenudists.com. In the original post I tried, perhaps clumsily, to put things into perspective by saying the following:
“If some naturists/nudists have problems with the fact that some men have involuntary erections at times, then they aren’t true nudists. To put a new spin on an old saying, “Its presence doesn’t matter; it’s what you do with it!”
It wasn’t my intention to say that erections should be on display, just that we shouldn’t be so uptight about them. Clearly, this was unacceptable to some. One wrote, "Bollocks!" and proceeded to say, essentially, that I was completely wrong in thinking that involuntary erections even existed. Good thing I’m no longer an impressionable teenager or young adult, or I might have believed him!
He also asked, "Are you going to think that if some guy with an "involuntary erection" walks past your eight your old child?"
Further on, he wrote, "The line of thought that erections are natural and should be accepted in the nudist environment is complete horsesh*t (sic). It’s a libertine’s argument and nothing to do with nudism."
I responded by saying I wanted to keep an open mind and asked if he could provide sources to support his statements. I then mentioned a few of my own and stated emphatically that I refused to judge others on whether or not they had erections.
I noted also that my “eight-year-old son” (he has aged seven years since) could very well become an unwitting victim if he ever had an erection at a naturist centre, despite his young age and the low probability he would have “naughty thoughts” at that age.
The person to whom I replied didn’t bother writing back.
In a different but related thread, the topic came up again and I think I was able to make a better point. I started out tongue-in-cheek by saying that www.sexualityandu.ca, which is administered by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), says erections sometimes happen for no reason at all, and may even occur before birth! I then suggested we strike a committee to visit the SOGC and ask them to revisit that statement.
Naturally, someone wrote in to say I had “missed the point.” If an erection occurs in a social setting, don’t draw attention to it and, if needed, cover it. As I stated in my reply, that was EXACTLY my point. I noted that experienced nudists weren’t making the necessary nuances in their posts, and that this could scare away potential members.
Involuntary erections do occur. They are exceedingly rare, even for a first timer, and usually should not be a problem for anyone, and certainly shouldn’t be encouraged. But every now and then, especially in younger men and teens, it can happen.
What matters is dealing with it in a respectful way. That’s the message that should be getting out. Young people generally don’t have the life experience we older people have. And they would be the future of the movement.
“If some naturists/nudists have problems with the fact that some men have involuntary erections at times, then they aren’t true nudists. To put a new spin on an old saying, “Its presence doesn’t matter; it’s what you do with it!”
It wasn’t my intention to say that erections should be on display, just that we shouldn’t be so uptight about them. Clearly, this was unacceptable to some. One wrote, "Bollocks!" and proceeded to say, essentially, that I was completely wrong in thinking that involuntary erections even existed. Good thing I’m no longer an impressionable teenager or young adult, or I might have believed him!
He also asked, "Are you going to think that if some guy with an "involuntary erection" walks past your eight your old child?"
Further on, he wrote, "The line of thought that erections are natural and should be accepted in the nudist environment is complete horsesh*t (sic). It’s a libertine’s argument and nothing to do with nudism."
I responded by saying I wanted to keep an open mind and asked if he could provide sources to support his statements. I then mentioned a few of my own and stated emphatically that I refused to judge others on whether or not they had erections.
I noted also that my “eight-year-old son” (he has aged seven years since) could very well become an unwitting victim if he ever had an erection at a naturist centre, despite his young age and the low probability he would have “naughty thoughts” at that age.
The person to whom I replied didn’t bother writing back.
In a different but related thread, the topic came up again and I think I was able to make a better point. I started out tongue-in-cheek by saying that www.sexualityandu.ca, which is administered by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), says erections sometimes happen for no reason at all, and may even occur before birth! I then suggested we strike a committee to visit the SOGC and ask them to revisit that statement.
Naturally, someone wrote in to say I had “missed the point.” If an erection occurs in a social setting, don’t draw attention to it and, if needed, cover it. As I stated in my reply, that was EXACTLY my point. I noted that experienced nudists weren’t making the necessary nuances in their posts, and that this could scare away potential members.
Involuntary erections do occur. They are exceedingly rare, even for a first timer, and usually should not be a problem for anyone, and certainly shouldn’t be encouraged. But every now and then, especially in younger men and teens, it can happen.
What matters is dealing with it in a respectful way. That’s the message that should be getting out. Young people generally don’t have the life experience we older people have. And they would be the future of the movement.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Ring, Ring
Hi, I am Gerry, and I hate the Olympics.
I wasn’t always that way. I used to watch the games from the comfort of my living room whenever I had the chance. I especially enjoyed the Winter Games as Canada seemed to have a better chance of winning medals at that event, but I also enjoyed the Summer Games.
Then came a series of scandals starting at the 1988 Games in Seoul, South Korea. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson had set a new world record in the 100-metre dash, but would later be disqualified for a doping offence. Prior to this, the only people I had ever heard of failing doping tests were weightlifters from behind the Iron Curtain. Suddenly, the media talked about doping problems throughout all types of sports.
One expert was recently asked about doping in sports. He said that many athletes are often told about the possible effects of drugs, such as sterility, skin disorders, earlier death, etc. Unfortunately, it is the athlete’s nature to want to win, and those around him or her often share that attitude.
I later heard of María José Martínez Patiño, a Spanish female elite hurdler who was stripped of almost everything, including scholarships, when a routine sports test revealed she had a both an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. As far as sports organisers were concerned, she was not a woman and could not compete in female sports. It turned out she had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). Others with AIS had been found out in the past and given the opportunity to fake an injury and fade out of the limelight. She decided to compete anyway, and after the race the results of the “sex test” were revealed and she was promptly disqualified. Specialists were needed to show that her body was insensitive to the action of androgens and developed fully into that of a girl, and then a woman, instead of a boy, and then a man. This, of course, meant the test was not sufficient for determining whether someone should be allowed to take part in the Games as a woman. She was eventually reinstated, but only after suffering much humiliation.
Finally, as I continued to observe and analyse world events and the way politics often made their way into the Olympics, I suddenly realised (and I’m slow when it comes to this, I know) that the Olympics had become nothing more than a cold war playground. The goal wasn’t so much to win medals or perform personal bests, but to beat the tar out of THEM! We didn’t just want our athletes to win. We wanted them to beat those from the USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, China and other countries with communist regimes. (Note that three of the above-mentioned countries don’t even exist anymore under those names.)
On top of all that, the 2010 Vancouver Games have gotten a lot of pre-games coverage, including how the homeless are essentially uprooted and moved away just to somehow make the area look better. The City of Vancouver has even passed by-laws that prohibit anyone from protesting over a forty-block area of the city. No signs, no shouting slogans if authorities believe it might disturb people’s experience of the games. Imagine what the penalty might be!
This is for the glory of sport? Sorry. I can no longer buy that argument. Especially now that professional athletes are competing as well.
I wasn’t always that way. I used to watch the games from the comfort of my living room whenever I had the chance. I especially enjoyed the Winter Games as Canada seemed to have a better chance of winning medals at that event, but I also enjoyed the Summer Games.
Then came a series of scandals starting at the 1988 Games in Seoul, South Korea. Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson had set a new world record in the 100-metre dash, but would later be disqualified for a doping offence. Prior to this, the only people I had ever heard of failing doping tests were weightlifters from behind the Iron Curtain. Suddenly, the media talked about doping problems throughout all types of sports.
One expert was recently asked about doping in sports. He said that many athletes are often told about the possible effects of drugs, such as sterility, skin disorders, earlier death, etc. Unfortunately, it is the athlete’s nature to want to win, and those around him or her often share that attitude.
I later heard of María José Martínez Patiño, a Spanish female elite hurdler who was stripped of almost everything, including scholarships, when a routine sports test revealed she had a both an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. As far as sports organisers were concerned, she was not a woman and could not compete in female sports. It turned out she had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). Others with AIS had been found out in the past and given the opportunity to fake an injury and fade out of the limelight. She decided to compete anyway, and after the race the results of the “sex test” were revealed and she was promptly disqualified. Specialists were needed to show that her body was insensitive to the action of androgens and developed fully into that of a girl, and then a woman, instead of a boy, and then a man. This, of course, meant the test was not sufficient for determining whether someone should be allowed to take part in the Games as a woman. She was eventually reinstated, but only after suffering much humiliation.
Finally, as I continued to observe and analyse world events and the way politics often made their way into the Olympics, I suddenly realised (and I’m slow when it comes to this, I know) that the Olympics had become nothing more than a cold war playground. The goal wasn’t so much to win medals or perform personal bests, but to beat the tar out of THEM! We didn’t just want our athletes to win. We wanted them to beat those from the USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, China and other countries with communist regimes. (Note that three of the above-mentioned countries don’t even exist anymore under those names.)
On top of all that, the 2010 Vancouver Games have gotten a lot of pre-games coverage, including how the homeless are essentially uprooted and moved away just to somehow make the area look better. The City of Vancouver has even passed by-laws that prohibit anyone from protesting over a forty-block area of the city. No signs, no shouting slogans if authorities believe it might disturb people’s experience of the games. Imagine what the penalty might be!
This is for the glory of sport? Sorry. I can no longer buy that argument. Especially now that professional athletes are competing as well.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Naturist Qualification
A member of a naturist social networking site wondered about how to choose a nudist centre which truly lived up to its name, such as not being a venue for swingers. Many posts followed, including suggestions to check out whether they are on a list of American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) approved resorts, as this organization will disassociate itself from any centre that does not live up to its standards.
The concern is obvious and well-founded. There are clubs where naturist/nudist values simply aren’t on the owner’s radar. This attracts people of a more sexually oriented bent and would not be appropriate for non-swinging couples and, especially, children.
The way I see it, clubs may well hold whatever activities they like, but if they do not uphold the high standards of naturism (i.e., no sex in a public setting, no overt sexual advances, etc.), then they have forfeited the right to call themselves a naturist club/centre/resort/etc.
Swingers clubs or erotic clubs may very well be clothing-optional or not, but that doesn’t make them naturist venues. Part of our collective work should include identifying and blacklisting those clubs who use the term naturist when they clearly shouldn’t.
The concern is obvious and well-founded. There are clubs where naturist/nudist values simply aren’t on the owner’s radar. This attracts people of a more sexually oriented bent and would not be appropriate for non-swinging couples and, especially, children.
The way I see it, clubs may well hold whatever activities they like, but if they do not uphold the high standards of naturism (i.e., no sex in a public setting, no overt sexual advances, etc.), then they have forfeited the right to call themselves a naturist club/centre/resort/etc.
Swingers clubs or erotic clubs may very well be clothing-optional or not, but that doesn’t make them naturist venues. Part of our collective work should include identifying and blacklisting those clubs who use the term naturist when they clearly shouldn’t.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)