With the end of the deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Québec, the opponents are claiming victory for the People. Time will tell whether we’ve won the battle only to lose a war.
In the March 31 edition of the Telegraph Journal, columnist David Campbell puts the NB Power debate in a different perspective.
Near the end of the 19th century, communities in the United States were looking at ways to develop their economies further. They reasoned that if there was a supply of relatively cheap electricity, the industrialists and their projects would come, and so would prosperity in some of the poorer areas. Canadian authorities started doing the same thing soon after.
For a long time, even New Brunswick could offer competitive rates, but this started to change in the early years of this new century. Large industry was becoming less competitive in New Brunswick, and was seriously thinking of pulling out. The deal with Hydro-Québec was meant to put things back on track.
Many people thought large industry was bluffing and they decided to call its bluff by opposing a deal that saw rates being reduced substantially for industrial customers, but only a rate freeze for residents and small business. We’ll now have to see if industry was merely bluffing.
Different people opposed to the deal had their own reasons for opposing it. Some opposed anything that had to do with a French province. Some opposed doing anything with Quebec given what Newfoundland has to say about Quebec’s bad faith in a deal which proved to be too beneficial to Quebec and not beneficial enough to Newfoundland. Some opposed the deal because Quebec “might” separate. At least one person wrote to say that scrapping the deal would keep jobs and money in New Brunswick, forgetting that most of the fuel for the generators comes from outside New Brunswick and has to be paid for.
But Campbell is probably right when he says many simply opposed the fact that industry would be getting a big rate cut. “Unfair!” they said.
Not that long ago, the New Brunswick government said a competitive tax regime would help stimulate economic growth. I doubted that very much since companies won’t move just for a better tax regime. But companies WOULD move if the infrastructure meets their needs, and electricity at competitive rates is an important part of the infrastructure.
I’m not pro-business per se, and I do have concerns with labour issues in some respects. But if we want the economy to grow, business must have access to the tools it needs to thrive. We can’t just say no without taking a closer look at the larger picture.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Not without my name
A woman in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, went missing for 27 days. As most people feared the worst, she was suddenly found on a city street and quickly brought to police. Later in the day, a man named Roméo Jacques Cormier was arrested, and the following morning, he was charged with many criminal acts, including one count of sexual assault.
Before he appeared in court, the name of the accused was unknown, but the kidnapped woman’s name was on everyone’s lips. For weeks people called in with possible tips, and every effort was made to keep her name and face in the media. When it was announced that she had been found alive, an entire province breathed a collective sigh of relief.
However, it would seem that was the last time we would see her name in print or hear it on the radio or on TV. You see, Canadian criminal law says a judge must grant an order prohibiting the publication of a victim’s name or any information that might lead to her identification upon request from the victim or, in this case, the prosecutor if the alleged offender is charged with a “sexual offence.”
For now, then, we will have to settle for She-who-must-not-be-named. The accused is known to have been charged with kidnapping, unlawful confinement, theft of money using violence, assault with a knife, uttering death threats, and – you guessed it – sexual assault. He is now named, but even if She-who-must-not-be-named must not be named, we all know who it is.
The judge’s order is routine and is meant to encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of undue exposure given the nature of the charge. Most sexual assault victims aren’t given this much publicity before escaping from their kidnapper. In those cases, an order to prevent the victim from being identified makes sense. (Some people don’t agree with such practices at all, but that’s another story entirely.)
However, in this case, one must wonder if there is an element of overkill. I mean, really, are we supposed to just forget who she is?
Then again, I just discovered some media have taken another path. They continue to name her but avoid all reference to sexual assault. Technically, the alleged victim of a sexual assault cannot be identified in relation to the charge. If the charge is not mentioned in a media report, and none of the reporting speaks of sexual assault, then perhaps naming her is allowed. I must admit that in all my years as a reporter and, later, as one who follows news, I never imagined a scenario like this. Another item of interest: Those who continue to name the victim are French-language media, while the English media are mentioning the sexual assault and, thereby, avoiding the victim’s name.
For those who want to know, the section of the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with publications bans in cases of sexual offences is to be found in Part XV, which deals with, among other things, “General Powers of Certain Officials.” As of the most recent consolidation, the section dealing with an “Order restricting publication –sexual offences” was numbered 486.4.
Paragraph 486.4(1)(b) does provide for a publication ban for two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is covered in the preceding paragraph. Paragraph 486.4(1)(a) lists the different offences for which there can be a publication ban. I’m not sure how they can skirt this since the other offences would theoretically be tried at the same time. Then again, the trial has yet to occur. Perhaps this early in the game, it’s possible to avoid sanctions this way.
Before he appeared in court, the name of the accused was unknown, but the kidnapped woman’s name was on everyone’s lips. For weeks people called in with possible tips, and every effort was made to keep her name and face in the media. When it was announced that she had been found alive, an entire province breathed a collective sigh of relief.
However, it would seem that was the last time we would see her name in print or hear it on the radio or on TV. You see, Canadian criminal law says a judge must grant an order prohibiting the publication of a victim’s name or any information that might lead to her identification upon request from the victim or, in this case, the prosecutor if the alleged offender is charged with a “sexual offence.”
For now, then, we will have to settle for She-who-must-not-be-named. The accused is known to have been charged with kidnapping, unlawful confinement, theft of money using violence, assault with a knife, uttering death threats, and – you guessed it – sexual assault. He is now named, but even if She-who-must-not-be-named must not be named, we all know who it is.
The judge’s order is routine and is meant to encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of undue exposure given the nature of the charge. Most sexual assault victims aren’t given this much publicity before escaping from their kidnapper. In those cases, an order to prevent the victim from being identified makes sense. (Some people don’t agree with such practices at all, but that’s another story entirely.)
However, in this case, one must wonder if there is an element of overkill. I mean, really, are we supposed to just forget who she is?
Then again, I just discovered some media have taken another path. They continue to name her but avoid all reference to sexual assault. Technically, the alleged victim of a sexual assault cannot be identified in relation to the charge. If the charge is not mentioned in a media report, and none of the reporting speaks of sexual assault, then perhaps naming her is allowed. I must admit that in all my years as a reporter and, later, as one who follows news, I never imagined a scenario like this. Another item of interest: Those who continue to name the victim are French-language media, while the English media are mentioning the sexual assault and, thereby, avoiding the victim’s name.
For those who want to know, the section of the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with publications bans in cases of sexual offences is to be found in Part XV, which deals with, among other things, “General Powers of Certain Officials.” As of the most recent consolidation, the section dealing with an “Order restricting publication –sexual offences” was numbered 486.4.
Paragraph 486.4(1)(b) does provide for a publication ban for two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is covered in the preceding paragraph. Paragraph 486.4(1)(a) lists the different offences for which there can be a publication ban. I’m not sure how they can skirt this since the other offences would theoretically be tried at the same time. Then again, the trial has yet to occur. Perhaps this early in the game, it’s possible to avoid sanctions this way.
Monday, March 22, 2010
So what’s the problem?
I wrote a series of posts following a documentary called What’s The Problem With Nudity?
This TV documentary was produced in 2008 for a BBC show called Horizon. This video came to my attention after I had first read The Naked Truth: Why Humans Have No Fur in the Feb. 2010 edition of Scientific American. (See my summary here.) Eight volunteers, one of each sex, took part in an experiment to study their reactions to nudity, their own and that of others. All eight of them were textiles, that is, non-nudists. Many of the themes explored in the article were also explored in the video.
I wanted to post these much earlier but I needed time to translate them since I always present them in both languages, in English here, and in French on my French blog.
I've posted the articles in reverse order so that those interested can read them one after another in ordre on a same web page.
This TV documentary was produced in 2008 for a BBC show called Horizon. This video came to my attention after I had first read The Naked Truth: Why Humans Have No Fur in the Feb. 2010 edition of Scientific American. (See my summary here.) Eight volunteers, one of each sex, took part in an experiment to study their reactions to nudity, their own and that of others. All eight of them were textiles, that is, non-nudists. Many of the themes explored in the article were also explored in the video.
I wanted to post these much earlier but I needed time to translate them since I always present them in both languages, in English here, and in French on my French blog.
I've posted the articles in reverse order so that those interested can read them one after another in ordre on a same web page.
When Hairy Met Sally II
This is the first post of a series on the documentary What's The Problem With Nudity?
All other primates and most mammals are covered with fur. The fur coat provides protection against water, cold and the sun’s rays. This is one of the greatest achievements of mammalian evolution. Why did humans abandon an advantage that tool millions of years to acquire?
Charles Darwin’s theory is our ancestors simply preferred less hairy sexual partners as they seemed more attractive. As an experiment, pictures of men’s torsos were shown to volunteers, and they had to rank them according to how attractive they looked. (No faces were shown.) The participants were not told that some torsos appeared twice, once in their natural state and once after having been completely shaved. But all shaved torsos were ranked in the top half, while the more hairy ones were in the bottom half. When asked to comment, the women expressed a preference for little to no hair.
But scientists say sexual selection cannot be the only explanation. Humans and their most closely related living species, the chimpanzee, branched off from a common ancestor about six million years ago. Chimpanzees still have fur, so it stands to reason that the common ancestor would also have been a furry animal. Our earliest ancestors would selected mates thick, glossy fur and would have stayed away from those with less fur. This is part of evolution’s strategy to weed out weaknesses and disease. Before humans could prefer less hair, this would have to have become an advantage.
To see what this might be, two volunteers, one naked, the other wearing loose clothing, are placed in a room where they are subjected to the intense heat of industrial radiators. At first, the clothed volunteer has the advantage because his clothes protect him from the intense heat and keep the covered parts cooler. This is what fur does to protect the body from the sun's heat.
However, the two volunteers soon begin to sweat profusely. The clothed one sweats just as much as the naked one, but his clothes start absorbing the sweat. The effect of cooling air on the clothed body is considerably reduced as evaporation of sweat is impeded by the clothes. Once again, the clothes are mimicking what fur would do. The naked man retains less heat because the sweat evaporates more easily.
Humans have the largest number of sweat glands of any animal and can produce about one litre of sweat per hour. The surface of our body is a high performance cooling system which no other animal has developed so far. How would this have been necessary or beneficial?
Penn State University professor Nina Jablonski presents the case of the Patas monkey, which lives in the African savannah, in an open environment much like that of earlier human species. Its body has similar proportions to that of our ancestors, including long limbs for covering great distances. The Patas’ range is the largest of all primates.
Like other primates, the Patas is covered with hair. Unlike other primates, the hair is thin and coarse, and it sweats profusely. Its evolution may well be echoing our own. Despite this, the Patas will likely never be as bare as we are. It still walks on all fours, so too much of its body is exposed to the sun.
Our ancestors with less hair and more productive sweat glands had an advantage over others. As generations went by, the only place where hair was preserved for protection is on the head, the part of the body most directly exposed to sunlight. (We will discuss the underarm and pubic hair in another post.) Thanks to their efficient cooling system, humans became the first primates capable of exploiting the resources of the savannah.
To sum up, researchers says the absence of fur in humans is due to three main events:
1) at some point, our ancestors began to stand upright to get from one place to another;
2) they became very active by covering great distances on the savannah;
3) they came to sweat profusely.
Essentially, humans found a better way to control body heat and fur became redundant.
The documentary also shows that the human brain constantly produces about 20 watts of heat. This may seem like very little, but put a lit 20 watt bulb in a box the size of a skull, close it, and you will see just how quickly it overheats.
It doesn’t take much overheating to impair brain function, and just a tad more can be fatal. In addition to protecting the brains of our more primitive ancestors, the efficient cooling system has allowed the brain to grow in size. Without this highly efficient cooling system, humans could never have developed a large brain, nor the intelligence that comes with it.
All other primates and most mammals are covered with fur. The fur coat provides protection against water, cold and the sun’s rays. This is one of the greatest achievements of mammalian evolution. Why did humans abandon an advantage that tool millions of years to acquire?
Charles Darwin’s theory is our ancestors simply preferred less hairy sexual partners as they seemed more attractive. As an experiment, pictures of men’s torsos were shown to volunteers, and they had to rank them according to how attractive they looked. (No faces were shown.) The participants were not told that some torsos appeared twice, once in their natural state and once after having been completely shaved. But all shaved torsos were ranked in the top half, while the more hairy ones were in the bottom half. When asked to comment, the women expressed a preference for little to no hair.
But scientists say sexual selection cannot be the only explanation. Humans and their most closely related living species, the chimpanzee, branched off from a common ancestor about six million years ago. Chimpanzees still have fur, so it stands to reason that the common ancestor would also have been a furry animal. Our earliest ancestors would selected mates thick, glossy fur and would have stayed away from those with less fur. This is part of evolution’s strategy to weed out weaknesses and disease. Before humans could prefer less hair, this would have to have become an advantage.
To see what this might be, two volunteers, one naked, the other wearing loose clothing, are placed in a room where they are subjected to the intense heat of industrial radiators. At first, the clothed volunteer has the advantage because his clothes protect him from the intense heat and keep the covered parts cooler. This is what fur does to protect the body from the sun's heat.
However, the two volunteers soon begin to sweat profusely. The clothed one sweats just as much as the naked one, but his clothes start absorbing the sweat. The effect of cooling air on the clothed body is considerably reduced as evaporation of sweat is impeded by the clothes. Once again, the clothes are mimicking what fur would do. The naked man retains less heat because the sweat evaporates more easily.
Humans have the largest number of sweat glands of any animal and can produce about one litre of sweat per hour. The surface of our body is a high performance cooling system which no other animal has developed so far. How would this have been necessary or beneficial?
Penn State University professor Nina Jablonski presents the case of the Patas monkey, which lives in the African savannah, in an open environment much like that of earlier human species. Its body has similar proportions to that of our ancestors, including long limbs for covering great distances. The Patas’ range is the largest of all primates.
Like other primates, the Patas is covered with hair. Unlike other primates, the hair is thin and coarse, and it sweats profusely. Its evolution may well be echoing our own. Despite this, the Patas will likely never be as bare as we are. It still walks on all fours, so too much of its body is exposed to the sun.
Our ancestors with less hair and more productive sweat glands had an advantage over others. As generations went by, the only place where hair was preserved for protection is on the head, the part of the body most directly exposed to sunlight. (We will discuss the underarm and pubic hair in another post.) Thanks to their efficient cooling system, humans became the first primates capable of exploiting the resources of the savannah.
To sum up, researchers says the absence of fur in humans is due to three main events:
1) at some point, our ancestors began to stand upright to get from one place to another;
2) they became very active by covering great distances on the savannah;
3) they came to sweat profusely.
Essentially, humans found a better way to control body heat and fur became redundant.
The documentary also shows that the human brain constantly produces about 20 watts of heat. This may seem like very little, but put a lit 20 watt bulb in a box the size of a skull, close it, and you will see just how quickly it overheats.
It doesn’t take much overheating to impair brain function, and just a tad more can be fatal. In addition to protecting the brains of our more primitive ancestors, the efficient cooling system has allowed the brain to grow in size. Without this highly efficient cooling system, humans could never have developed a large brain, nor the intelligence that comes with it.
Lice is life
This is the second in a series on the video What's The Problem With Nudity?
I remind the reader that I learned of this video after having first read and wrote about an article in the February 2010 issue of Scientific American (See my summary here). The calculations of time periods led to results in the video that differ somewhat from those in the Scientific American article, but they in the same ballpark.
The prevailing opinion among experts is that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor, and that the two species diverged about six million years ago. Because chimpanzees still have fur, the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans must have had fur, too.
Which species of human was the first not to be covered in fur? Our own species has only been around for about a quarter of a million years. Were we the first humans to be naked? Or do we have to look further back?
Skin is not preserved in fossils, so evidence must be found somewhere else. Some decided to look for answers by examining lice. Human head lice were once all over our bodies. When our fur disappeared, the lice stayed in our heads, the only habitat left to them. DNA analyses show human lice and chimpanzee lice diverged at about the same time as humans and chimpanzees themselves.
But humans are rather unique in the animal world because they have three types of lice. In addition to head lice, we have pubic lice and body lice, that is to say, clothing lice.
The pubic or crab louse is different in size and shape from the head louse. It has adapted to holding on to larger hairs which are spaced farther apart. DNA tests show that its closest living relative is the gorilla louse. How did humans acquire the gorilla louse? At this time, there is no answer. We know, however, that lice are usually transmitted through physical contact.
In any case, the gorilla louse could not survive on humans before humans could offer a suitable habitat. This required that we first lose our fur and then develop pubic hair suitable to the gorilla louse. Of course, the gorilla louse passed on to humans has since evolved into what we now call the pubic louse.
According to DNA tests, the gorilla louse was passed on to humans some three million years ago. This was well before modern humans appeared about a quarter of a million years ago. In fact this indicates that complete nudity goes back to the time of Australopithecus. Since then, all descendants have had bare skin.
The body louse, which lives in clothing, is a direct descendant of the head louse. Like pubic lice, body lice could not adapt to this habitat until the habitat appeared. In other words, the body louse came to be when clothes were invented and used. The divergence occurred about 650,000 years ago. That’s when humans began to wear clothes regularly. So the ancestors of humans living today lived without clothes and without fur for nearly two million years.
I remind the reader that I learned of this video after having first read and wrote about an article in the February 2010 issue of Scientific American (See my summary here). The calculations of time periods led to results in the video that differ somewhat from those in the Scientific American article, but they in the same ballpark.
The prevailing opinion among experts is that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor, and that the two species diverged about six million years ago. Because chimpanzees still have fur, the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans must have had fur, too.
Which species of human was the first not to be covered in fur? Our own species has only been around for about a quarter of a million years. Were we the first humans to be naked? Or do we have to look further back?
Skin is not preserved in fossils, so evidence must be found somewhere else. Some decided to look for answers by examining lice. Human head lice were once all over our bodies. When our fur disappeared, the lice stayed in our heads, the only habitat left to them. DNA analyses show human lice and chimpanzee lice diverged at about the same time as humans and chimpanzees themselves.
But humans are rather unique in the animal world because they have three types of lice. In addition to head lice, we have pubic lice and body lice, that is to say, clothing lice.
The pubic or crab louse is different in size and shape from the head louse. It has adapted to holding on to larger hairs which are spaced farther apart. DNA tests show that its closest living relative is the gorilla louse. How did humans acquire the gorilla louse? At this time, there is no answer. We know, however, that lice are usually transmitted through physical contact.
In any case, the gorilla louse could not survive on humans before humans could offer a suitable habitat. This required that we first lose our fur and then develop pubic hair suitable to the gorilla louse. Of course, the gorilla louse passed on to humans has since evolved into what we now call the pubic louse.
According to DNA tests, the gorilla louse was passed on to humans some three million years ago. This was well before modern humans appeared about a quarter of a million years ago. In fact this indicates that complete nudity goes back to the time of Australopithecus. Since then, all descendants have had bare skin.
The body louse, which lives in clothing, is a direct descendant of the head louse. Like pubic lice, body lice could not adapt to this habitat until the habitat appeared. In other words, the body louse came to be when clothes were invented and used. The divergence occurred about 650,000 years ago. That’s when humans began to wear clothes regularly. So the ancestors of humans living today lived without clothes and without fur for nearly two million years.
Move that groovy thang!
This article is the third in a series on the video What's The Problem With Nudity?
Clothes shaped our culture and identity from the moment we started we using them to hide our nakedness. But this has caused a problem unique to humans. All the important elements needed for sexual attraction in primates of a same species are hidden by clothing in humans.
In other primates, the female signals her fertility and her willingness to mate through striking visual signs on her posterior. In humans, clothing would conceal such signs, if they were still used. Even women in cultures where nudity is the norm do not display their fertility in this way.
Dr. Kerri Johnson, a researcher at the UCLA, created a test to see how we can tell men from women despite clothing which conceals obvious signs like genitals and breasts. First, she noted that women generally have an hourglass shape, while men have a more tubular shape. The ratio between waist and hips is another factor taken into account. Also, women tend to have a lateral hip sway, back and forth, and somewhat up and down. Men tend to have a shoulder swagger.
Participants were shown present computer screen of silhouettes walking. The silhouettes aren’t really dressed or naked. The participants were asked to determine if the walking figures were male or female. There was no “correct” answer. Researchers simply wanted to see what parts of the moving figures were looked at by the participants to make their determination. They did this with special goggles designed to show how the participant’s eyes moved.
It was found that both genders let their eyes roam freely around the upper torso and the hips, and seemed to assess hips-to-waist ratio, as well as how they moved. (A similar test was tried with two of the documentary volunteers, a woman and a man. Instead of using figures on a computer, they were asked to watch other volunteers either standing still or in motion. The woman allowed her eyes to roam freely from the shoulders to the hips. But the man, perhaps fearing how the results could be interpreted, kept his gaze on the people’s faces.)
The researchers also looked at how men might be able to detect fertility in women. Nobody really knows yet, but several studies suggest that there is a kind of sixth sense that allows men, even strangers, to subconsciously detect signs of fertility and ovulation in women. Dr. Johnson says that according to one study, exotic dancers received more generous tips during days of greatest fertility. One possibility would be changes in a woman’s body odour, which would make them appear more attractive on days of high fertility.
This body odour clue brings us to the question left hanging in the posting of this series: Why do we still have pubic hair? It is believed that these hairs are used for scent communication. Bacteria in pubic hair feed off hormones in the sweat, producing a scent odour that can either cause or increase attraction. If this is true, pubic hair has become the secret weapon of sexual attraction in humans.
The documentary does not say explicitly why we have armpit hair. Although it may play a similar role to that of pubic hair in sexual attraction, it is also possible that the hair is there simply to react with sweat and provide lubrication for the arms. Pubic hair would play a similar role for the lower limbs.
Clothes shaped our culture and identity from the moment we started we using them to hide our nakedness. But this has caused a problem unique to humans. All the important elements needed for sexual attraction in primates of a same species are hidden by clothing in humans.
In other primates, the female signals her fertility and her willingness to mate through striking visual signs on her posterior. In humans, clothing would conceal such signs, if they were still used. Even women in cultures where nudity is the norm do not display their fertility in this way.
Dr. Kerri Johnson, a researcher at the UCLA, created a test to see how we can tell men from women despite clothing which conceals obvious signs like genitals and breasts. First, she noted that women generally have an hourglass shape, while men have a more tubular shape. The ratio between waist and hips is another factor taken into account. Also, women tend to have a lateral hip sway, back and forth, and somewhat up and down. Men tend to have a shoulder swagger.
Participants were shown present computer screen of silhouettes walking. The silhouettes aren’t really dressed or naked. The participants were asked to determine if the walking figures were male or female. There was no “correct” answer. Researchers simply wanted to see what parts of the moving figures were looked at by the participants to make their determination. They did this with special goggles designed to show how the participant’s eyes moved.
It was found that both genders let their eyes roam freely around the upper torso and the hips, and seemed to assess hips-to-waist ratio, as well as how they moved. (A similar test was tried with two of the documentary volunteers, a woman and a man. Instead of using figures on a computer, they were asked to watch other volunteers either standing still or in motion. The woman allowed her eyes to roam freely from the shoulders to the hips. But the man, perhaps fearing how the results could be interpreted, kept his gaze on the people’s faces.)
The researchers also looked at how men might be able to detect fertility in women. Nobody really knows yet, but several studies suggest that there is a kind of sixth sense that allows men, even strangers, to subconsciously detect signs of fertility and ovulation in women. Dr. Johnson says that according to one study, exotic dancers received more generous tips during days of greatest fertility. One possibility would be changes in a woman’s body odour, which would make them appear more attractive on days of high fertility.
This body odour clue brings us to the question left hanging in the posting of this series: Why do we still have pubic hair? It is believed that these hairs are used for scent communication. Bacteria in pubic hair feed off hormones in the sweat, producing a scent odour that can either cause or increase attraction. If this is true, pubic hair has become the secret weapon of sexual attraction in humans.
The documentary does not say explicitly why we have armpit hair. Although it may play a similar role to that of pubic hair in sexual attraction, it is also possible that the hair is there simply to react with sweat and provide lubrication for the arms. Pubic hair would play a similar role for the lower limbs.
Nudity, sex, and shame
This is my fourth post on the documentary What's The Problem With Nudity?
This is the part I found more difficult to write about as I had to put myself back into a textile frame of mind. In my opinion, nudity does not mean sex, and any perceived link between the two is learned, not innate. But the documentary is rather reflected the general opinion that nudity must somehow be associated with sexuality, and that for textiles, being undressed would be almost the equivalent of a sexual encounter.
Despite all their good intentions, the volunteers could not escape, at least initially, the intense emotions brought about by mere nudity.
Is there a reason for these emotions, at least for those who associate nudity with sex? UCLA professor Dan Fessler, believes there is.
Fessler says a minor exposure of the body will make you feel embarrassed. But a more serious case of exposing one’s self will bring about shame, and Fessler believes shame in this case is a self-defense mechanism. When a person doesn’t live up to the rules regarding modesty and his or her behaviour becomes known to others, that person will feel great shame. This shows the person who broke the rules recognizes that he or she has done wrong and is asking not to be punished for this.
All human beings have a certain degree of modesty, even in cultures where nudity is the norm. Fessler says this could be due to our highly developed brain. The brain of the newborn is not fully developed. Despite rapid development during the first year of growth, a child remains fairly helpless and dependent for a number of years. Therefore, the human mating strategy is one where a couple pairs for life (theoretically) to properly care for the children.
But humans are more social than the average primate. We live in large populations, and we cooperate with many people. There is a more or less constant temptation for both sexes to cheat on their partner. The documentary suggests that shame brought about by nudity discourages most people from breaking social rules.
The authors of the documentary say the naked human body is a supreme sexual advertisement. The mere sight of a naked body may send a dangerous message, we are told. Nudity is a threat to the basic social contract, an invitation to revolt. Exposing one’s person, body and sexual persona can lead to prohibited sexual behaviour which may disrupt the social fabric. Therefore, the shame of nakedness encourages us to remain faithful to our partner and do our part to raise children.
However, an experiment undertaken by the volunteers in the documentary shows a different possibility. At one point, all eight participants were in the same room, and four of them had to undress one of the other four, and this happened in plain sight of all involved. Then, they were given green, yellow and red paint. They were to paint the body of the person they had undressed using green to show the parts that were alright to touch, yellow for the questionable parts, and red for those that were off-limits. Organisers expected to see a fair amount of yellow and red. But after two days of casual nudity, green paint was used abundantly, even in the genital areas. After all this time spent together where at least some of them were naked, the volunteers had become generally comfortable with nudity. Not all to the same extent, but there had certainly been a change in their perceptions.
Pictures from of the last day of filming showed the volunteers at ease while completely naked at a wine and cheese reception. Their attitudes and inhibitions had changed, which shows that we are not born with modesty. We are therefore free to move the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. As long as everyone agrees, we can develop new rules and avoid the risk of committing an offense," just like at a nudist centre," to use their own expression.
At the house where the experiment was filmed, after two days of nakedness in each other’s presence, the volunteers had created their own rules. And according to their rules, nudity was mostly okay.
This is the part I found more difficult to write about as I had to put myself back into a textile frame of mind. In my opinion, nudity does not mean sex, and any perceived link between the two is learned, not innate. But the documentary is rather reflected the general opinion that nudity must somehow be associated with sexuality, and that for textiles, being undressed would be almost the equivalent of a sexual encounter.
Despite all their good intentions, the volunteers could not escape, at least initially, the intense emotions brought about by mere nudity.
Is there a reason for these emotions, at least for those who associate nudity with sex? UCLA professor Dan Fessler, believes there is.
Fessler says a minor exposure of the body will make you feel embarrassed. But a more serious case of exposing one’s self will bring about shame, and Fessler believes shame in this case is a self-defense mechanism. When a person doesn’t live up to the rules regarding modesty and his or her behaviour becomes known to others, that person will feel great shame. This shows the person who broke the rules recognizes that he or she has done wrong and is asking not to be punished for this.
All human beings have a certain degree of modesty, even in cultures where nudity is the norm. Fessler says this could be due to our highly developed brain. The brain of the newborn is not fully developed. Despite rapid development during the first year of growth, a child remains fairly helpless and dependent for a number of years. Therefore, the human mating strategy is one where a couple pairs for life (theoretically) to properly care for the children.
But humans are more social than the average primate. We live in large populations, and we cooperate with many people. There is a more or less constant temptation for both sexes to cheat on their partner. The documentary suggests that shame brought about by nudity discourages most people from breaking social rules.
The authors of the documentary say the naked human body is a supreme sexual advertisement. The mere sight of a naked body may send a dangerous message, we are told. Nudity is a threat to the basic social contract, an invitation to revolt. Exposing one’s person, body and sexual persona can lead to prohibited sexual behaviour which may disrupt the social fabric. Therefore, the shame of nakedness encourages us to remain faithful to our partner and do our part to raise children.
However, an experiment undertaken by the volunteers in the documentary shows a different possibility. At one point, all eight participants were in the same room, and four of them had to undress one of the other four, and this happened in plain sight of all involved. Then, they were given green, yellow and red paint. They were to paint the body of the person they had undressed using green to show the parts that were alright to touch, yellow for the questionable parts, and red for those that were off-limits. Organisers expected to see a fair amount of yellow and red. But after two days of casual nudity, green paint was used abundantly, even in the genital areas. After all this time spent together where at least some of them were naked, the volunteers had become generally comfortable with nudity. Not all to the same extent, but there had certainly been a change in their perceptions.
Pictures from of the last day of filming showed the volunteers at ease while completely naked at a wine and cheese reception. Their attitudes and inhibitions had changed, which shows that we are not born with modesty. We are therefore free to move the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. As long as everyone agrees, we can develop new rules and avoid the risk of committing an offense," just like at a nudist centre," to use their own expression.
At the house where the experiment was filmed, after two days of nakedness in each other’s presence, the volunteers had created their own rules. And according to their rules, nudity was mostly okay.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Neutrality
The Canadian province of Quebec had experienced some “public discontent” concerning reasonable accommodation of cultural differences in Quebec society. Some “true blue” Quebeckers had problems with people who did not conform to what they considered to be “normal” for Quebec society. As a result, the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences was struck in 2007, and the final report was made public on May 22, 2008.
Among the recommendations mentioned in a press release was this one: “The Co-Chairs recommend that representatives who must embody to the utmost State neutrality and maintain the appearance of impartiality that is essential to the exercising of their duties be prohibited from wearing religious signs. This is true of judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly. However, teachers, civil servants, health professionals and all other government employees should be allowed to continue to wear religious signs. In keeping with the same principle of neutrality, the crucifix in the National Assembly and the reciting of prayers at meetings of municipal councils should not be permitted in a secular State.” (Source: Click Here.)
Recently, one of the members of the Commission, Charles Taylor, was interviewed on a Radio-Canada TV show, Tout le monde en parle. When asked various questions on different matters, he reiterated essentially what was found in the paragraph above, namely that most civil servants should be allowed to wear religious symbols on their person, but the crucifix hanging in the legislature (National Assembly) had to go.
The legislature has already voted to keep the crucifix for “historical” reasons. On that same show, an opposition party member, Pauline Marois of the Parti Québécois, defended the move for that very reason. On the other hand, she would also ban the wearing of religious symbols for all civil servants. She is especially concerned with women who wear a symbol which denotes an inferior status, such as some Islamic dressing.
I tend to side with Taylor, especially about displaying the crucifix, but I can also understand Marois’ concerns where a symbol seems to go against the principle of gender equality. In fact, it reminds me of my Dec. 22 post in which I included a statement from a presumably Muslim woman defending the hijab: “I believe that a hijab or niqāb can be a source of empowerment for women, for their hair and body is covered, so they cannot be judged based on their physical attractiveness. Their intellect and personality is what shines through.”
In response to the French version of that post, a reader sent me the following comment: “But then, why doesn’t this argument regarding intelligence apply to men? In fact, Muslim purists are just looking for ways to justify it. In the end, it’s all about control and it always will be!”
That’s one heck of a good argument!
Among the recommendations mentioned in a press release was this one: “The Co-Chairs recommend that representatives who must embody to the utmost State neutrality and maintain the appearance of impartiality that is essential to the exercising of their duties be prohibited from wearing religious signs. This is true of judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly. However, teachers, civil servants, health professionals and all other government employees should be allowed to continue to wear religious signs. In keeping with the same principle of neutrality, the crucifix in the National Assembly and the reciting of prayers at meetings of municipal councils should not be permitted in a secular State.” (Source: Click Here.)
Recently, one of the members of the Commission, Charles Taylor, was interviewed on a Radio-Canada TV show, Tout le monde en parle. When asked various questions on different matters, he reiterated essentially what was found in the paragraph above, namely that most civil servants should be allowed to wear religious symbols on their person, but the crucifix hanging in the legislature (National Assembly) had to go.
The legislature has already voted to keep the crucifix for “historical” reasons. On that same show, an opposition party member, Pauline Marois of the Parti Québécois, defended the move for that very reason. On the other hand, she would also ban the wearing of religious symbols for all civil servants. She is especially concerned with women who wear a symbol which denotes an inferior status, such as some Islamic dressing.
I tend to side with Taylor, especially about displaying the crucifix, but I can also understand Marois’ concerns where a symbol seems to go against the principle of gender equality. In fact, it reminds me of my Dec. 22 post in which I included a statement from a presumably Muslim woman defending the hijab: “I believe that a hijab or niqāb can be a source of empowerment for women, for their hair and body is covered, so they cannot be judged based on their physical attractiveness. Their intellect and personality is what shines through.”
In response to the French version of that post, a reader sent me the following comment: “But then, why doesn’t this argument regarding intelligence apply to men? In fact, Muslim purists are just looking for ways to justify it. In the end, it’s all about control and it always will be!”
That’s one heck of a good argument!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)