There is a certain debate in some circles about whether naturists/nudists are exhibitionists. I would say that an exhibitionist is probably wasting his or her time at a nudist recreation area since everyone there has seen it all before. However, this is perhaps too simplistic as the wide spectrum of human behaviour must allow for differences.
The definition of exhibitionism itself is problematic given the different meanings it may have in different contexts. For the sake of argument, I will assume that exhibitionism, in the nudist sense, does not mean “a mental condition characterised by the compulsion to display one’s genitals in public” (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). And I don’t think it has anything to do with trying to draw attention to a political or social issue, as can also be the case. (Remember the Doukhobors?) No, in this context, it probably means “displaying one’s self in an effort to draw attention to one’s self.” This may or may not have a sexual purpose, although the general thought is it probably does.
Most nudists go naked for the pure pleasure of being naked. In naked company, whether or not anyone is interested in watching someone’s body is irrelevant because that’s not why they become naked. However, a few people undoubtedly do seek the attention of others and may even wish to provoke a reaction, anything from a smile to an erection and everything in between. The aforementioned dictionary adds the following definition: tendency towards display or extravagant behaviour. In a nudist setting extravagant behaviour is likely to get you thrown out, unless, of course, your definition of extravagant is different from mine.
The debate among nudists themselves (or at least those who say they are nudists) about whether we are exhibitionists all boils down to what we see as exhibitionism. “Exposing one’s self for the thrill of being seen” would seem to be, in my opinion, antithetical. Then again, there are always people who like to strut their stuff, so to speak. Just posting pictures on the net may qualify in some circumstances. Comments from viewers are the reward in this case. On a beach, it may be noticing that a man watches the exhibitionist woman and becomes erect. The woman walks on by and the man has to either roll over or hide it with a towel. And that’s what the exhibitionist would want.
However, to say that nudists in general are exhibitionists is to assume that people at a nude beach are looking for reactions. I’m sure some do. The majority, however, are at the beach to relax. They just happen to be doing so without any clothes on. Indeed, with so many naked bodies all around, one has to wonder whether the exhibitionist would even like a nude beach. How does he or she remain the centre of attention in such circumstances?
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Taxes and savings
Why you don’t want a tax refund is an article by Peter Diekmeyer at Bankrate.com. Every year there is an article like this one saying we should not be getting refunds, or at least not large refunds, because the money is ours to start with and there’s no point in leaving it in government hands, where it can’t gain interest. I always check them out in case there is something new, but I haven’t seen that happen yet.
Indeed, if I were to write that type of article, the title would be Why you don’t want a tax bill or Why you don’t want to wind up owing taxes. I can still remember having to deal with this about 25 years ago when my wife and I were still not officially married. I thought “common-law” was good enough, so I claimed her as a non-working spouse on the form you fill out when starting a new job. Only when I received the Tax Return kit did I realise that common-law spouses didn’t qualify. No matter how much I reread the accompanying guide, the message was the same.
I wound up owing just over $120. It may not seem like a large sum today, and I suppose it wasn’t all that large back then either. But I was only working part-time, and $120 was huge from my viewpoint.
Things have changed. Common-law spouses are now accepted for tax purposes. I married in the meantime, but it’s nice to know that common-law partners are now recognised as eligible dependents. All the same, it can be a balancing act when you never know from one year to the next whether both partners will be working or if you may be the only breadwinner. Therefore, I have made a practice of only having money deducted from my paycheque that I can reasonably expect to deduct when the time comes to file a tax return. In other words, I assume that my wife will find a job during the year and have more tax taken out of my pay. This means living with less from week to week, but it also brings rewards every spring.
Quote from the article: Many Canadians regard their lump-sum refunds as a sort of forced savings plan, which they spend on special items such as vacations or furniture when the cheques come in.
And I’m one of them! It’s easier to not spend money when you can’t touch it. For all of the experts’ opinions to the contrary, it’s a fact that many of us live in situations where money can’t just be stashed away. Something always comes up and usually can’t wait until the next cheque. So if the money is there, it WILL be used.
I see where the “experts” are coming from, and if they want to describe me as undisciplined, they can go right ahead! I plead guilty as charged! Perhaps I should take some of the money and pay down debts more quickly. But I would need a second income to make this happen, and I know it’s not in the cards anytime soon. So this will have to do.
This isn’t my only “forced savings plan.” I also have a sum deducted from each pay for a Canada Savings Bond. Unfortunately, this is too easily cashable in times of crisis. One year, when our out-of-province medical trips became far too numerous to bear, we made use of that money regularly. It was good to know it was available, but I still wish we could have left it untouched.
In any case, I’m not sure it would have been all that safe in the bank. These days, there are service fees and administrative fees for everything, and with the help of computers, staff are now stuck having to tell their customers that, “Once it’s done, we can’t undo it.” This wouldn’t happen with a government refund! Unless, of course, it was left in the bank.
It takes money to make money. If you’ve got it, good for you. I don’t, so strategies like deducting less for larger refunds make a whole lot of sense. And I doubt I’m alone in that category.
Indeed, if I were to write that type of article, the title would be Why you don’t want a tax bill or Why you don’t want to wind up owing taxes. I can still remember having to deal with this about 25 years ago when my wife and I were still not officially married. I thought “common-law” was good enough, so I claimed her as a non-working spouse on the form you fill out when starting a new job. Only when I received the Tax Return kit did I realise that common-law spouses didn’t qualify. No matter how much I reread the accompanying guide, the message was the same.
I wound up owing just over $120. It may not seem like a large sum today, and I suppose it wasn’t all that large back then either. But I was only working part-time, and $120 was huge from my viewpoint.
Things have changed. Common-law spouses are now accepted for tax purposes. I married in the meantime, but it’s nice to know that common-law partners are now recognised as eligible dependents. All the same, it can be a balancing act when you never know from one year to the next whether both partners will be working or if you may be the only breadwinner. Therefore, I have made a practice of only having money deducted from my paycheque that I can reasonably expect to deduct when the time comes to file a tax return. In other words, I assume that my wife will find a job during the year and have more tax taken out of my pay. This means living with less from week to week, but it also brings rewards every spring.
Quote from the article: Many Canadians regard their lump-sum refunds as a sort of forced savings plan, which they spend on special items such as vacations or furniture when the cheques come in.
And I’m one of them! It’s easier to not spend money when you can’t touch it. For all of the experts’ opinions to the contrary, it’s a fact that many of us live in situations where money can’t just be stashed away. Something always comes up and usually can’t wait until the next cheque. So if the money is there, it WILL be used.
I see where the “experts” are coming from, and if they want to describe me as undisciplined, they can go right ahead! I plead guilty as charged! Perhaps I should take some of the money and pay down debts more quickly. But I would need a second income to make this happen, and I know it’s not in the cards anytime soon. So this will have to do.
This isn’t my only “forced savings plan.” I also have a sum deducted from each pay for a Canada Savings Bond. Unfortunately, this is too easily cashable in times of crisis. One year, when our out-of-province medical trips became far too numerous to bear, we made use of that money regularly. It was good to know it was available, but I still wish we could have left it untouched.
In any case, I’m not sure it would have been all that safe in the bank. These days, there are service fees and administrative fees for everything, and with the help of computers, staff are now stuck having to tell their customers that, “Once it’s done, we can’t undo it.” This wouldn’t happen with a government refund! Unless, of course, it was left in the bank.
It takes money to make money. If you’ve got it, good for you. I don’t, so strategies like deducting less for larger refunds make a whole lot of sense. And I doubt I’m alone in that category.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Hard core? Or micro soft?
When it comes to pornography, all sorts of reasons have been given as to why it should be, at least, a concern for society, if not banned outright. Some came from purveyors of outmoded morality while others wondered whether the material might be playing a role in keeping women’s status lower than that of men. Now, there may be a new reason to CHOOSE to avoid pornography, at least if you’re a man: erectile dysfunction.
Gary Wilson is the author of a video series called Your Brain on Porn. He and his wife, Marnia Robinson, say that the easy availability of more abundant porn through the Internet has led to much more widespread addiction to pornography. Wilson says sex is something like food. We’re wired to get food whenever we can, and the higher in calories, the better. This goes back to the hunter-gatherer days when we could never be sure where our next meal would come. This instinct is proving disastrous in these days of plenty, but was vital before our species discovered agriculture. When it comes to sex, given the small groups in which we lived and the few times different groups would have crossed each others’ paths, finding sex partners was probably just as difficult. So when the occasion arose, we took full advantage of it. Today, potential sex partners are all around us. We can also choose to act upon our desires in a virtual way through porn.
We are pushed to eat until we feel full. Then we stop eating until enough time has passed and we feel the urge to eat again. It would be nice if our brains could urge us to eat healthier foods or stop sooner and for longer, but we’re not there yet. With sex per se, the only limiting factor is fatigue. But sometimes fatigue is not enough.
In a large number of mammals, including humans, there is something called the Coolidge Effect. A male will mate with a receptive female a certain number of times, but will eventually reach a point of satiety. However, if a different female is immediately introduced, the same male will almost immediately be ready to have sex again with this new female. This can be repeated many times with many different females until the male becomes exhausted. And I do mean exhausted, not just fatigued.
According to Wilson, a different porn model or actress on the computer screen has the same effect on a man. With a same partner or same type of pornography, we become used to the stimulation but not numbed to it. However, with Internet and the great availability of porn online, it becomes possible to binge on new porn experiences, which leads to over-stimulation. In time, the brain changes and the pleasure responses become numbed. In an attempt to recreate the heightened level of pleasure, we binge more, seeking out new porn actresses or new porn genres. Eventually, the over-stimulation leads to problems with sexual response and erectile dysfunction.
Apparently, there are men in their twenties experiencing erectile dysfunction due to overstimulation by Internet porn. The cure, so they say, is to avoid pornography, and perhaps other erotic material as well, for as long as it takes for the brain to come back to normal. As the brain returns to normal, so should sexual response. But this can take as many as two months. And some may experience withdrawal symptoms, which is normal considering the neurochemical changes within the brain.
The author and his wife aren’t actually calling for a ban on pornography, and they claim to be true believers in freedom of speech. Furthermore, it would appear that non-Internet porn would not be as destructive as Internet porn. On the other hand, they do want to help people who, for whatever reason, have not been able to say “enough is enough,” and now find themselves with an addiction to pornography. This is leading to erectile dysfunction in many men under the age of 40, which used to be very rare.
I don’t know whether any true empirical data exists to prove the thesis. A serious study would include controls for other conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, two proven erection killers. Without such controls, it can be hard to see exactly which physical processes are being affected when it comes to impeding erections.
Those who would like to see the videos for themselves can go here.
Gary Wilson is the author of a video series called Your Brain on Porn. He and his wife, Marnia Robinson, say that the easy availability of more abundant porn through the Internet has led to much more widespread addiction to pornography. Wilson says sex is something like food. We’re wired to get food whenever we can, and the higher in calories, the better. This goes back to the hunter-gatherer days when we could never be sure where our next meal would come. This instinct is proving disastrous in these days of plenty, but was vital before our species discovered agriculture. When it comes to sex, given the small groups in which we lived and the few times different groups would have crossed each others’ paths, finding sex partners was probably just as difficult. So when the occasion arose, we took full advantage of it. Today, potential sex partners are all around us. We can also choose to act upon our desires in a virtual way through porn.
We are pushed to eat until we feel full. Then we stop eating until enough time has passed and we feel the urge to eat again. It would be nice if our brains could urge us to eat healthier foods or stop sooner and for longer, but we’re not there yet. With sex per se, the only limiting factor is fatigue. But sometimes fatigue is not enough.
In a large number of mammals, including humans, there is something called the Coolidge Effect. A male will mate with a receptive female a certain number of times, but will eventually reach a point of satiety. However, if a different female is immediately introduced, the same male will almost immediately be ready to have sex again with this new female. This can be repeated many times with many different females until the male becomes exhausted. And I do mean exhausted, not just fatigued.
According to Wilson, a different porn model or actress on the computer screen has the same effect on a man. With a same partner or same type of pornography, we become used to the stimulation but not numbed to it. However, with Internet and the great availability of porn online, it becomes possible to binge on new porn experiences, which leads to over-stimulation. In time, the brain changes and the pleasure responses become numbed. In an attempt to recreate the heightened level of pleasure, we binge more, seeking out new porn actresses or new porn genres. Eventually, the over-stimulation leads to problems with sexual response and erectile dysfunction.
Apparently, there are men in their twenties experiencing erectile dysfunction due to overstimulation by Internet porn. The cure, so they say, is to avoid pornography, and perhaps other erotic material as well, for as long as it takes for the brain to come back to normal. As the brain returns to normal, so should sexual response. But this can take as many as two months. And some may experience withdrawal symptoms, which is normal considering the neurochemical changes within the brain.
The author and his wife aren’t actually calling for a ban on pornography, and they claim to be true believers in freedom of speech. Furthermore, it would appear that non-Internet porn would not be as destructive as Internet porn. On the other hand, they do want to help people who, for whatever reason, have not been able to say “enough is enough,” and now find themselves with an addiction to pornography. This is leading to erectile dysfunction in many men under the age of 40, which used to be very rare.
I don’t know whether any true empirical data exists to prove the thesis. A serious study would include controls for other conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, two proven erection killers. Without such controls, it can be hard to see exactly which physical processes are being affected when it comes to impeding erections.
Those who would like to see the videos for themselves can go here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The cause for pause
Some books don’t age very well. They present situations and phenomena of their time as if they were eternal, while others make predictions that now seem laughable. Other books deal with situations of their time and call for change and reform. Many years later, we can see what has changed for the better and what still needs to improve.
In the case of Women Against Censorship, published in 1985, there is a bit of both. At the time, many voices rose against pornography, including Christian fundamentalists opposed to any form of pleasure, and feminists convinced that pornography threatened the status and wellbeing of women. On the other side were those who were opposed to censorship, some because they believed in freedom of expression, and others because they feared that censorship was a threat to voices calling for reform. Women Against Censorship fell into the second category.
The book includes chapters written by different people who generally espouse the same position, but from a different perspective. As editor, Varda Burstyn was responsible for the overall project. The chapter that I always found most interesting was the last, which was written by Burstyn herself. Rather than limiting herself to pornography, she called for greater freedom of sexual expression, a freedom which, in her view, could only be expressed in cultural and artistic works rather than in sex industry offerings, which she found alienating.
Notably, many feminists are worried that due to the hypersexualization of our culture, girls are losing the de facto right to approach sexual experience on the basis of their own needs and personal timing. If 20 years ago it was difficult for a girl to say yes, today it is harder for her to say no. (Page 162.)
In 1985, it was already feared that adolescent sexual autonomy was compromised by a culture that valued the sexual aspect of women more than their other talents. What would she say today, in 2011? The lot of women has improved in some areas, but the hyper-sexualization of girls is still very prevalent. In 1985, the very idea of sex education was opposed by many. This is still the case today, especially with the coming AIDS, the most promising ant-sex tool of all.
In 1985, before the personal computer, culture and art would be found in museums, radio, TV, movies, newspapers and magazines. Some believed that only well-drafted laws could ensure the greatest possible distribution of non-commercial magazines and, thus, a greater circulation of the plurality of ideas, positions and claims. In the name of affirmative action, some advocated for government funding of feminist and gay art and cultural works so the artists could explore sexual themes without fear of reprisals and other negative consequences from corporate sponsors. It was even thought there should be television channel operated by and for women.
How things change! How could Burstyn know at the time that Internet would change the rules forever. Today, a TV network for women only would be a drop in an ocean of media opportunities. And as prevalent as pornography was in 1985, it is even more so today as international borders no longer apply to the electronic world. In fact, its presence almost seems normal. What kind of solutions would work in today’s environment?
Burstyn also presents her thoughts the sex industry in general. Here is an excerpt from page 167:
A feminist-oriented approach to the sex industry must ensure that women are no longer victimized by police and social policies; that greater criminalization of neighbourhoods and risk to women as workers is discouraged; that the audience for sexist pornography and the market for alienated sex is reduced. This kind of approach means that we must address the needs of sex-workers both by improving the quality of their present working lives and by seeking to create real alternatives to alienating sex work.
In all this, I caution that "experts" too often forget to speak to the real workers about this. The authors of Sex Workers in the Maritimes Talk Back make this criticism in their book and try hard to present the views of workers in the sex industry. It may be a marginalised field, but these people still have something to say and may even have possible solutions for better coexistence with the rest of society.
Ms. Burstyn wasn’t presenting a research paper, so it’s unclear whether her information comes from reliable sources. Still, her sincere wish to improve things comes through. Further on the same page, she writes:
While this is not a simple matter, if communities work in conjunction with prostitutes, and if prostitutes are allowed to operate independently and without harassment, a solution can be found. In the case of sex emporiums, strip joints and similar spots, laws regulating working conditions, minimum wages and unionization should apply, since only such regulation can prevent the worst sort of exploitation.
There is a widespread belief that wanting sexual activity in exchange for payment is in itself degrading and alienating. Any type of ordinary employment would be preferable to sex work. But talk to sex workers who previously worked in cafés and donut shops where their bosses would yell at them in exchange for a minimum wage. I find it hard to believe that sex work would be preferable, but I don’t believe I am qualified to tell the sex worker that her way of thinking is wrong.
And to Burstyn’s credit, she does call for meaningful employment. On page 168, she adds: If we believe that sexual encounters are best in conditions of free affectional (sic) choice – a position that I hold both emotionally and intellectually – then we must work toward the creation of meaningful alternatives to alienated sex work. This means that in keeping with a more general commitment to full and meaningful employment (see below), we must demand educational and economic support for women who want to leave this work so that they can live dignified lives without economic hardship while preparing for new ways of earning a living.
However, there is no universal definition of meaningful work. Also, how do we know sex workers chose this field as a last resort? It must be the case for some of them, but not all. There is a perception that sex workers have no choice but to accept all comers and perform all acts demanded of them. Yet research shows that sex workers do indeed turn down certain clients and will refuse to do anything they consider unacceptable. As for “free affectional choice,” I believe that even long-term lovers don’t necessarily use sex to express affection. Sometimes, making “love” is all about having fun.
In the case of Women Against Censorship, published in 1985, there is a bit of both. At the time, many voices rose against pornography, including Christian fundamentalists opposed to any form of pleasure, and feminists convinced that pornography threatened the status and wellbeing of women. On the other side were those who were opposed to censorship, some because they believed in freedom of expression, and others because they feared that censorship was a threat to voices calling for reform. Women Against Censorship fell into the second category.
The book includes chapters written by different people who generally espouse the same position, but from a different perspective. As editor, Varda Burstyn was responsible for the overall project. The chapter that I always found most interesting was the last, which was written by Burstyn herself. Rather than limiting herself to pornography, she called for greater freedom of sexual expression, a freedom which, in her view, could only be expressed in cultural and artistic works rather than in sex industry offerings, which she found alienating.
Notably, many feminists are worried that due to the hypersexualization of our culture, girls are losing the de facto right to approach sexual experience on the basis of their own needs and personal timing. If 20 years ago it was difficult for a girl to say yes, today it is harder for her to say no. (Page 162.)
In 1985, it was already feared that adolescent sexual autonomy was compromised by a culture that valued the sexual aspect of women more than their other talents. What would she say today, in 2011? The lot of women has improved in some areas, but the hyper-sexualization of girls is still very prevalent. In 1985, the very idea of sex education was opposed by many. This is still the case today, especially with the coming AIDS, the most promising ant-sex tool of all.
In 1985, before the personal computer, culture and art would be found in museums, radio, TV, movies, newspapers and magazines. Some believed that only well-drafted laws could ensure the greatest possible distribution of non-commercial magazines and, thus, a greater circulation of the plurality of ideas, positions and claims. In the name of affirmative action, some advocated for government funding of feminist and gay art and cultural works so the artists could explore sexual themes without fear of reprisals and other negative consequences from corporate sponsors. It was even thought there should be television channel operated by and for women.
How things change! How could Burstyn know at the time that Internet would change the rules forever. Today, a TV network for women only would be a drop in an ocean of media opportunities. And as prevalent as pornography was in 1985, it is even more so today as international borders no longer apply to the electronic world. In fact, its presence almost seems normal. What kind of solutions would work in today’s environment?
Burstyn also presents her thoughts the sex industry in general. Here is an excerpt from page 167:
A feminist-oriented approach to the sex industry must ensure that women are no longer victimized by police and social policies; that greater criminalization of neighbourhoods and risk to women as workers is discouraged; that the audience for sexist pornography and the market for alienated sex is reduced. This kind of approach means that we must address the needs of sex-workers both by improving the quality of their present working lives and by seeking to create real alternatives to alienating sex work.
In all this, I caution that "experts" too often forget to speak to the real workers about this. The authors of Sex Workers in the Maritimes Talk Back make this criticism in their book and try hard to present the views of workers in the sex industry. It may be a marginalised field, but these people still have something to say and may even have possible solutions for better coexistence with the rest of society.
Ms. Burstyn wasn’t presenting a research paper, so it’s unclear whether her information comes from reliable sources. Still, her sincere wish to improve things comes through. Further on the same page, she writes:
While this is not a simple matter, if communities work in conjunction with prostitutes, and if prostitutes are allowed to operate independently and without harassment, a solution can be found. In the case of sex emporiums, strip joints and similar spots, laws regulating working conditions, minimum wages and unionization should apply, since only such regulation can prevent the worst sort of exploitation.
There is a widespread belief that wanting sexual activity in exchange for payment is in itself degrading and alienating. Any type of ordinary employment would be preferable to sex work. But talk to sex workers who previously worked in cafés and donut shops where their bosses would yell at them in exchange for a minimum wage. I find it hard to believe that sex work would be preferable, but I don’t believe I am qualified to tell the sex worker that her way of thinking is wrong.
And to Burstyn’s credit, she does call for meaningful employment. On page 168, she adds: If we believe that sexual encounters are best in conditions of free affectional (sic) choice – a position that I hold both emotionally and intellectually – then we must work toward the creation of meaningful alternatives to alienated sex work. This means that in keeping with a more general commitment to full and meaningful employment (see below), we must demand educational and economic support for women who want to leave this work so that they can live dignified lives without economic hardship while preparing for new ways of earning a living.
However, there is no universal definition of meaningful work. Also, how do we know sex workers chose this field as a last resort? It must be the case for some of them, but not all. There is a perception that sex workers have no choice but to accept all comers and perform all acts demanded of them. Yet research shows that sex workers do indeed turn down certain clients and will refuse to do anything they consider unacceptable. As for “free affectional choice,” I believe that even long-term lovers don’t necessarily use sex to express affection. Sometimes, making “love” is all about having fun.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Waiting for that special someone
I only want to have sex with one person, the person that I end up marrying and spending the rest of my life with. I also want to wait for the right time when both me and that other person are ready in all ways to have sex together. I just see it as something special and not just as some hobby that some people just do with anybody just for kicks. – Mike
I suppose sex and nudism will always be linked somehow despite our attempts to show that link is tenuous. The above is part of a thread at ClothesfreeForum.com. The same commenter who is quoted above says, further on, “I just think that many people these days are too eager to have sex and usually say they’re ready when really they’re not and I feel it’s just best to wait for the right time and with the right person so that its more special and you can appreciate it more.”
I wonder how many opportunities were lost because people felt they should wait for that “special person.” Every action has consequences, whether good or bad, major or minor. I have no argument with people who delay having sex because they truly don’t feel ready to deal with those consequences. That’s a responsible attitude. Waiting for the "right" person does not fall into this category. It’s a legitimate choice, but nothing more.
All the same, I’m not blaming these people. Instead I blame whoever came up with the “special person” idea in the first place. To me, it sounds like a more diluted version of, “Don’t. Just... just don’t.” After having lived life, shouldn’t it be our responsibility to explain to our children and teens the reality of sex?
Here are a few things most children (as appropriate according to age) should know about sex:
• Some couples can never agree on the right time for sex.
• Some people may feel very horny during their 20s, not so libidinous in their 30s, and suddenly rediscover sex in their 40s.
• Others feel sexy their whole lives while others just decline completely.
• Having children can ruin a sex life.
• You can’t tell your partner what you like if you don’t actually know what you like.
• Other people will continue to look sexually attractive to your partner no matter how much he or she is committed to you.
• Marriage is a piece of paper. There is no magical transformation except for the delusion you experience. Don’t worry; reality will hit you soon enough.
Notice how I haven’t even talked about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases yet? We will, of course, have to deal with that, too. But not only that.
I suppose sex and nudism will always be linked somehow despite our attempts to show that link is tenuous. The above is part of a thread at ClothesfreeForum.com. The same commenter who is quoted above says, further on, “I just think that many people these days are too eager to have sex and usually say they’re ready when really they’re not and I feel it’s just best to wait for the right time and with the right person so that its more special and you can appreciate it more.”
I wonder how many opportunities were lost because people felt they should wait for that “special person.” Every action has consequences, whether good or bad, major or minor. I have no argument with people who delay having sex because they truly don’t feel ready to deal with those consequences. That’s a responsible attitude. Waiting for the "right" person does not fall into this category. It’s a legitimate choice, but nothing more.
All the same, I’m not blaming these people. Instead I blame whoever came up with the “special person” idea in the first place. To me, it sounds like a more diluted version of, “Don’t. Just... just don’t.” After having lived life, shouldn’t it be our responsibility to explain to our children and teens the reality of sex?
Here are a few things most children (as appropriate according to age) should know about sex:
• Some couples can never agree on the right time for sex.
• Some people may feel very horny during their 20s, not so libidinous in their 30s, and suddenly rediscover sex in their 40s.
• Others feel sexy their whole lives while others just decline completely.
• Having children can ruin a sex life.
• You can’t tell your partner what you like if you don’t actually know what you like.
• Other people will continue to look sexually attractive to your partner no matter how much he or she is committed to you.
• Marriage is a piece of paper. There is no magical transformation except for the delusion you experience. Don’t worry; reality will hit you soon enough.
Notice how I haven’t even talked about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases yet? We will, of course, have to deal with that, too. But not only that.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Since the subject never goes away on forums...
In nudist environments, at least where not everyone is a close friend, I agree to follow nudist etiquette and hide any erection I may have. I will certainly not flaunt it, either in person or in photos on nudist websites.
However, and at the risk of being targeted for criticism, I will add that I understand those who say that we shouldn’t get so overworked over male erections. I won’t bother saying that erections are natural because crapping is natural, too, and it’s not something that should be done in public. Neither should I make love to anyone or masturbate in public. But does this mean erections must per force be banned?
Naturism is supposed to include the doctrine of full body acceptance. Full acceptance by people who are fully knowledgeable about the workings of the human body must include the recognition that some erections are involuntary. I know some like to think an erection can simply be turned on and off. It’s all in the mind, they say. I won’t try to change their minds. I’ll simply follow what most respected and responsible sources of information say on this matter. And they recognise the occasional involuntary nature of erections.
Despite my intro to this post, the truth is it’s not much of a problem for me. A combination of age, hypertension and diabetes has made most of my erections dependent on properly prescribed medication. But my son certainly has no problems in this area, and I’d be disappointed if he were ostracised for simply having an unwanted erection at the wrong time. I’m sure he’d follow the rules and find his towel as soon as possible. But why do we even make an issue of this?
How would you react if a man with an erection were approaching your children, some ask. It depends. Do I know the man? Is my child at least staying within view and earshot? What if the man was dressed and we couldn’t see his erection? What if he was impotent but could still molest my child?
For that matter, how do I know that woman who is hanging around him isn’t a molester? Have you seen how she always sits with her legs spread apart? That’s got to mean something.
Oh, she’s his mother. Sorry about that. My eyesight’s not what it used to be.
Absence of erection is no more a guarantee of a man’s good intentions than the presence of one would properly announce his evil designs. Complete absence of a penis is no guarantee either. I may be in the minority on this point, but I think I’m at least on solid ground. If nothing else, I will continue to view men without erections with suspicion, as the lack of erection may very well give us a false sense of security.
However, and at the risk of being targeted for criticism, I will add that I understand those who say that we shouldn’t get so overworked over male erections. I won’t bother saying that erections are natural because crapping is natural, too, and it’s not something that should be done in public. Neither should I make love to anyone or masturbate in public. But does this mean erections must per force be banned?
Naturism is supposed to include the doctrine of full body acceptance. Full acceptance by people who are fully knowledgeable about the workings of the human body must include the recognition that some erections are involuntary. I know some like to think an erection can simply be turned on and off. It’s all in the mind, they say. I won’t try to change their minds. I’ll simply follow what most respected and responsible sources of information say on this matter. And they recognise the occasional involuntary nature of erections.
Despite my intro to this post, the truth is it’s not much of a problem for me. A combination of age, hypertension and diabetes has made most of my erections dependent on properly prescribed medication. But my son certainly has no problems in this area, and I’d be disappointed if he were ostracised for simply having an unwanted erection at the wrong time. I’m sure he’d follow the rules and find his towel as soon as possible. But why do we even make an issue of this?
How would you react if a man with an erection were approaching your children, some ask. It depends. Do I know the man? Is my child at least staying within view and earshot? What if the man was dressed and we couldn’t see his erection? What if he was impotent but could still molest my child?
For that matter, how do I know that woman who is hanging around him isn’t a molester? Have you seen how she always sits with her legs spread apart? That’s got to mean something.
Oh, she’s his mother. Sorry about that. My eyesight’s not what it used to be.
Absence of erection is no more a guarantee of a man’s good intentions than the presence of one would properly announce his evil designs. Complete absence of a penis is no guarantee either. I may be in the minority on this point, but I think I’m at least on solid ground. If nothing else, I will continue to view men without erections with suspicion, as the lack of erection may very well give us a false sense of security.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A Family Affair
In all my life I have had sex with only one member of my immediate family: my spouse. I’d like to think that would be the case for the vast majority of human beings when it comes to family. However, laws and taboos are usually created for a reason.
Recently I discovered a NINO site (Naturist/Nudist in Name Only) and was surprised to discover a person whom I respected for having presented a very interesting and well-written article in a respected naturist magazine. My joy at having found her online was dashed when I later found out she was a proponent of “consensual” incest. I’m hoping that someday I’ll find out someone else stole her identity and was just pretending to be her. But the photos she posted of “herself” looked genuine enough to lead one to believe that it could only be the real McCoy.
When it comes to sex, I subscribe to the philosophy that all laws must have a genuinely secular purpose. Therefore, when I see laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity, I tend to be suspicious of the intent of the lawmakers at the time they were passed. The only “taboo” that I continue to support unflinchingly is any type of activity where an adult takes advantage of a person who may be too young or otherwise lacking in cognitive development to truly consent fully to sexual activity. And the worst of this category is incest.
I grant that incest is not limited to sex between a parent and a child. When all parties are consenting adults, it’s harder to find a reason to apply legal sanction, at least to the same degree. But where children are involved, the rule should be clear: Adults aren’t allowed. And this is especially true where the child and the adult are related.
Parents have a responsibility toward their children. Uncles and aunts of adult age have a similar responsibility toward their nephews and nieces. I would go so far as to say all adults have a responsibility toward children, but the responsibility is greater where the family members are concerned.
I am all for openness with children when it comes to teaching about sex and discussing facts and feelings. But openness must not be confused with relinquishing one’s responsibility toward the safety and welfare of the children in our care. And I can’t see how having sex with one’s children maintains – much less enhances – their safety and welfare. I think the medical and psychiatric journals would say the opposite.
So I was surprised and saddened when this person I thought could be a role model for nudists admitted (or at least alleged) and condoned the fact that her family was incestuous. I was also disappointed that so many others at that site seemed to embrace incest as well. This does nothing to promote the naturist movement in a positive light to non-naturists.
I will continue to believe that there are certain lines that were never meant to be crossed, mainly due to issues of safety and trust. Children are entrusted to us and we are expected to live up to that responsibility.
Recently I discovered a NINO site (Naturist/Nudist in Name Only) and was surprised to discover a person whom I respected for having presented a very interesting and well-written article in a respected naturist magazine. My joy at having found her online was dashed when I later found out she was a proponent of “consensual” incest. I’m hoping that someday I’ll find out someone else stole her identity and was just pretending to be her. But the photos she posted of “herself” looked genuine enough to lead one to believe that it could only be the real McCoy.
When it comes to sex, I subscribe to the philosophy that all laws must have a genuinely secular purpose. Therefore, when I see laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity, I tend to be suspicious of the intent of the lawmakers at the time they were passed. The only “taboo” that I continue to support unflinchingly is any type of activity where an adult takes advantage of a person who may be too young or otherwise lacking in cognitive development to truly consent fully to sexual activity. And the worst of this category is incest.
I grant that incest is not limited to sex between a parent and a child. When all parties are consenting adults, it’s harder to find a reason to apply legal sanction, at least to the same degree. But where children are involved, the rule should be clear: Adults aren’t allowed. And this is especially true where the child and the adult are related.
Parents have a responsibility toward their children. Uncles and aunts of adult age have a similar responsibility toward their nephews and nieces. I would go so far as to say all adults have a responsibility toward children, but the responsibility is greater where the family members are concerned.
I am all for openness with children when it comes to teaching about sex and discussing facts and feelings. But openness must not be confused with relinquishing one’s responsibility toward the safety and welfare of the children in our care. And I can’t see how having sex with one’s children maintains – much less enhances – their safety and welfare. I think the medical and psychiatric journals would say the opposite.
So I was surprised and saddened when this person I thought could be a role model for nudists admitted (or at least alleged) and condoned the fact that her family was incestuous. I was also disappointed that so many others at that site seemed to embrace incest as well. This does nothing to promote the naturist movement in a positive light to non-naturists.
I will continue to believe that there are certain lines that were never meant to be crossed, mainly due to issues of safety and trust. Children are entrusted to us and we are expected to live up to that responsibility.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Is sex for kids?
Different jurisdictions have different laws concerning when a child is old enough to consent fully to sexual activity with people of adult age. In Canada, it used to apply only to girls, and the age chosen was 16. At that age, she could then consent fully and her partner would no longer risk being charged with “statutory rape.”
Later, the law was changed so it would apply to young people of both sexes. At the time, 14 was the minimum age for full capacity to consent. When the Conservative Party came to power with a “Get Tough on Crime” agenda, the age was raised to 16. This was ostensibly to fight paedophiles, an apparent epidemic at the time. (Incidentally, no young person is allowed to have anal sex until he or she turns 18.)
In the days of Women Against Censorship, which was published in 1985, editor Varda Burstyn said girls could legally consent to heterosexual sex from the age of 16, whereas homosexual relations were outlawed up to the age of 21. According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, any homosexual act was punishable by up 14 years in prison until the law was amended in 1969.
When it comes to sex, I subscribe to the philosophy that all laws must have a genuinely secular purpose. Therefore, when I see laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity, or sexual activity between certain types of people, I tend to be suspicious of the intent of the lawmakers at the time they were passed. The only “taboo” that I continue to support unflinchingly is any type of sexual activity where an adult takes advantage of a person who may be too young or otherwise lacking in cognitive development to truly consent fully to sexual activity.
It is typical that adults will want to protect their children from all dangers, and turn to law enforcement and legal remedies against those who would harm their young ones. But is there any evidence to show that such laws accomplish the desired goal?
When sentences are rendered, the first objective is to punish the guilty party. The second objective is to deter anyone else who may want to commit a similar act, including the guilty party once he or she has served his or her sentence. Does this actually work?
It could be argued that if it did, such cases would be almost non-existent. But life doesn’t work that way. For millennia, people have been worshipping other gods, making and worshipping idols, taking some god’s name in vain, working on the weekly day of rest, dishonouring their parents, killing, cheating on their spouses, stealing, lying and coveting whatever belongs to their neighbours. And there will always be people who do so. Similarly, statutory rape laws exist only to make charging and convicting people easier.
If one were truly worried about the welfare of a child, there are better ways of seeing to that and better ways of investing taxpayers’ money. I would start with better sex education and, while we’re at it, better life education. Our teens come out of high school knowing how to do trigonometry, but they can’t fill out their own tax return. How logical is that? Similarly, when it comes to sex, our children and teens should be taught so much more than how to say no to people who would exploit them. After all, at some point, we expect them to say yes to those who will treat them properly.
Still, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily against age-of-consent laws. However, the aforementioned Varda Burstyn did oppose them back in 1985 (I don’t what her view would be today). In Women Against Censorship, she writes that age-of-consent laws were enacted in the late nineteenth century purportedly to protect children from sexual abuse. But the laws were ineffective because child prostitution, rape and more subtle forms of coercion continued. Rather than punish the truly guilty, these laws served instead as a means of sexual repression of gay boys and men, and of working-class girls for simply being promiscuous or precocious. Burstyn could even see injustice where relatively non-exploitative sex occurred between men, including very young men, and girls who hadn’t yet reached the age of consent. She argued – and certainly convinced me – that these laws do not achieve their intended goals and wind up harming too many Speople. She too favours better education in matters of sex and self-esteem. On page 177, she has this to say:
Present age of consent laws are predicated on the assumption that adolescents are not sexual beings entitled to sexual experience with others. In fact, psychologically and emotionally, adolescence is a time of intense sexual feeling, and many adolescents take determined action to bring about encounters with partners who are considerably older than themselves. In terms of social policy governing education, state intervention and punishment, notions such as statutory rape or variations on that theme are more dangerous than useful.
See also Age of Consent to Sexual Activity.
Later, the law was changed so it would apply to young people of both sexes. At the time, 14 was the minimum age for full capacity to consent. When the Conservative Party came to power with a “Get Tough on Crime” agenda, the age was raised to 16. This was ostensibly to fight paedophiles, an apparent epidemic at the time. (Incidentally, no young person is allowed to have anal sex until he or she turns 18.)
In the days of Women Against Censorship, which was published in 1985, editor Varda Burstyn said girls could legally consent to heterosexual sex from the age of 16, whereas homosexual relations were outlawed up to the age of 21. According to The Canadian Encyclopedia, any homosexual act was punishable by up 14 years in prison until the law was amended in 1969.
When it comes to sex, I subscribe to the philosophy that all laws must have a genuinely secular purpose. Therefore, when I see laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity, or sexual activity between certain types of people, I tend to be suspicious of the intent of the lawmakers at the time they were passed. The only “taboo” that I continue to support unflinchingly is any type of sexual activity where an adult takes advantage of a person who may be too young or otherwise lacking in cognitive development to truly consent fully to sexual activity.
It is typical that adults will want to protect their children from all dangers, and turn to law enforcement and legal remedies against those who would harm their young ones. But is there any evidence to show that such laws accomplish the desired goal?
When sentences are rendered, the first objective is to punish the guilty party. The second objective is to deter anyone else who may want to commit a similar act, including the guilty party once he or she has served his or her sentence. Does this actually work?
It could be argued that if it did, such cases would be almost non-existent. But life doesn’t work that way. For millennia, people have been worshipping other gods, making and worshipping idols, taking some god’s name in vain, working on the weekly day of rest, dishonouring their parents, killing, cheating on their spouses, stealing, lying and coveting whatever belongs to their neighbours. And there will always be people who do so. Similarly, statutory rape laws exist only to make charging and convicting people easier.
If one were truly worried about the welfare of a child, there are better ways of seeing to that and better ways of investing taxpayers’ money. I would start with better sex education and, while we’re at it, better life education. Our teens come out of high school knowing how to do trigonometry, but they can’t fill out their own tax return. How logical is that? Similarly, when it comes to sex, our children and teens should be taught so much more than how to say no to people who would exploit them. After all, at some point, we expect them to say yes to those who will treat them properly.
Still, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily against age-of-consent laws. However, the aforementioned Varda Burstyn did oppose them back in 1985 (I don’t what her view would be today). In Women Against Censorship, she writes that age-of-consent laws were enacted in the late nineteenth century purportedly to protect children from sexual abuse. But the laws were ineffective because child prostitution, rape and more subtle forms of coercion continued. Rather than punish the truly guilty, these laws served instead as a means of sexual repression of gay boys and men, and of working-class girls for simply being promiscuous or precocious. Burstyn could even see injustice where relatively non-exploitative sex occurred between men, including very young men, and girls who hadn’t yet reached the age of consent. She argued – and certainly convinced me – that these laws do not achieve their intended goals and wind up harming too many Speople. She too favours better education in matters of sex and self-esteem. On page 177, she has this to say:
Present age of consent laws are predicated on the assumption that adolescents are not sexual beings entitled to sexual experience with others. In fact, psychologically and emotionally, adolescence is a time of intense sexual feeling, and many adolescents take determined action to bring about encounters with partners who are considerably older than themselves. In terms of social policy governing education, state intervention and punishment, notions such as statutory rape or variations on that theme are more dangerous than useful.
See also Age of Consent to Sexual Activity.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Sex in naturism, another look
The summer 2007 edition of Going Natural magazine includes the conclusion of a two-part article titled A paradoxical attitude towards sexuality by Jacqueline Shoemaker Holmes. The article she authored was based on research she undertook as a Master of Arts student at York University in 2003. She chose a nude beach and spent the summer mingling with people there in order to study both the people and the activities there.
She emphasises that the conclusions apply only to that beach and the people who frequent it, but the tone of her article is such that she has risked making a few generalisations about naturism as a whole.
Right from the first day she received much attention, both as an unaccompanied woman and as a researcher. She had been told by many that nudism is not inherently sexual. But both the behaviour on the beach and her interviews have revealed links between nudism and sexuality. The two are intertwined in the sexualization of women and the hypersexualization of gay men by the dominant population, namely middle-aged men.
Males were far more numerous than females, and most females were accompanied. Therefore, the banter was from a male perspective. There was a lot of talk about the potential for sex even if this was supposed to be officially a naturist beach. Much of the talk had to do with the physical attributes and sexual desirability of the women who frequented the beach. Many wanted to know if the women were sexually willing, especially the unaccompanied ones. As one of the few unaccompanied females, she drew a lot of attention—flirtatious attention.
(My thoughts: If being at a naturist locale is not supposed to elicit sexual thoughts, then maybe this locale wasn’t quite naturist…?)
The males also had definite opinions about people at another section of the beach—the gay section. Apparently that was the place to go to see sex take place. The author believes that by sex, they meant more sex than would occur at the “family” section. After all there were stories of things happening “after hours”.
According to her research at the beach in question, there is a sexual component to naturism. Unaccompanied women are viewed by users, especially heterosexual men, as opportunities for sexual encounters. As for gays, they are treated as "hypersexual" and said to not be "real" naturists.
Her main point, to use her words, is that it is incorrect to say that naturism is “no more sexual than anything else.” The sexuality is simply hidden and, in the case of this beach at least, oppressive. By denying the part that sexuality plays in naturism and by denying full equality to those whose sexuality would be different from the norm, the possibility for alliances—with the gay community for instance—is very low.
Since we can’t know which beach it was, we’ll never be able to compare and see if behaviour and attitudes at this beach are the rule, the exception or somewhere in between. Indeed the author emphasises that she doesn’t say naturism as a whole is patriarchal or homophobic, perhaps because the “sample size” is too small.
What of our established naturist locales, resorts and otherwise? Are they as “clean” as we’d like to think? Are we deluding ourselves to think there is no sexual component to naturism?
For so long we’ve limited our thinking about sex to overt sexual activity, i.e., sex in public. That may be a failing we can no longer afford. The author doesn’t advocate public sexuality either. However, she does propose a few questions:
• Why are there separate “family” and “gay” sections to a beach, or indeed entire beaches that are either “family” or “gay”?
• Why do some clubs exclude people based on their sexual orientation?
• From a political and personal perspective, what does it mean to exclude sexuality from naturist values?
• If there is room for sexual expression within naturism, where can we find it? And if not, why isn’t there?
• How can naturism be made more inclusive and egalitarian?
Who wants to take a crack at them?
She emphasises that the conclusions apply only to that beach and the people who frequent it, but the tone of her article is such that she has risked making a few generalisations about naturism as a whole.
Right from the first day she received much attention, both as an unaccompanied woman and as a researcher. She had been told by many that nudism is not inherently sexual. But both the behaviour on the beach and her interviews have revealed links between nudism and sexuality. The two are intertwined in the sexualization of women and the hypersexualization of gay men by the dominant population, namely middle-aged men.
Males were far more numerous than females, and most females were accompanied. Therefore, the banter was from a male perspective. There was a lot of talk about the potential for sex even if this was supposed to be officially a naturist beach. Much of the talk had to do with the physical attributes and sexual desirability of the women who frequented the beach. Many wanted to know if the women were sexually willing, especially the unaccompanied ones. As one of the few unaccompanied females, she drew a lot of attention—flirtatious attention.
(My thoughts: If being at a naturist locale is not supposed to elicit sexual thoughts, then maybe this locale wasn’t quite naturist…?)
The males also had definite opinions about people at another section of the beach—the gay section. Apparently that was the place to go to see sex take place. The author believes that by sex, they meant more sex than would occur at the “family” section. After all there were stories of things happening “after hours”.
According to her research at the beach in question, there is a sexual component to naturism. Unaccompanied women are viewed by users, especially heterosexual men, as opportunities for sexual encounters. As for gays, they are treated as "hypersexual" and said to not be "real" naturists.
Her main point, to use her words, is that it is incorrect to say that naturism is “no more sexual than anything else.” The sexuality is simply hidden and, in the case of this beach at least, oppressive. By denying the part that sexuality plays in naturism and by denying full equality to those whose sexuality would be different from the norm, the possibility for alliances—with the gay community for instance—is very low.
Since we can’t know which beach it was, we’ll never be able to compare and see if behaviour and attitudes at this beach are the rule, the exception or somewhere in between. Indeed the author emphasises that she doesn’t say naturism as a whole is patriarchal or homophobic, perhaps because the “sample size” is too small.
What of our established naturist locales, resorts and otherwise? Are they as “clean” as we’d like to think? Are we deluding ourselves to think there is no sexual component to naturism?
For so long we’ve limited our thinking about sex to overt sexual activity, i.e., sex in public. That may be a failing we can no longer afford. The author doesn’t advocate public sexuality either. However, she does propose a few questions:
• Why are there separate “family” and “gay” sections to a beach, or indeed entire beaches that are either “family” or “gay”?
• Why do some clubs exclude people based on their sexual orientation?
• From a political and personal perspective, what does it mean to exclude sexuality from naturist values?
• If there is room for sexual expression within naturism, where can we find it? And if not, why isn’t there?
• How can naturism be made more inclusive and egalitarian?
Who wants to take a crack at them?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Troll Roll
I get a lot of my online news from CBC News Online. While the point is to keep up with current affairs, there’s the added bonus of watching comments come in, mostly from the same people each time. And whenever there is a news items regarding bilingualism, the usual gang of anti-bilingualism trolls can be counted on to show up.
Back on January 31, there was a report with the title N.B. lacks leadership on language laws: prof. The article referred to a person who was charged with a breathalyser offence and was acquitted because the police officer didn’t ask the person in which official language he wished to be served. The problem wasn’t one of being understood. Both the accused and the officer spoke French fluently. But the judge ruled that the officer should still have asked the accused if he preferred being served in the other official language. A constitutional expert, Michel Doucet, was quoted throughout the article about what was expected from police in such situations.
Well, that’s all it took for the trolls to vent their frustration for nth time in the Comments section. One commenter, whose username was “ivatumca,” concluded his post with, “You DO NOT want to know what bilingualism is costing this province...”
Thinking he or she might actually know what they were talking about, I replied with:
“Actually, yes, I do. Please provide full description and detail the cost of each item.
“Thank you. Yours truly,
“etc. etc.”
Life being what it is, I went on to other pursuits and only recently checked to see what might have become of the issue. Predictably enough, there was no reply.
Now, I’ll admit I was being tongue-in-cheek with my posting, but it was to make the following point: For years, we have been told about how expensive bilingualism is and how it is somehow responsible for New Brunswick being a have-not province. If they are so sure of their facts, why don’t they publish them? It would be the greatest coup in history if it did happen. “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow” was the first truly public manifestation of anti-bilingualism, written from supposedly an insider’s point of view. Even he couldn’t offer anything more than extremely vague accusations.
And they always talk about how the French don’t want to compromise. They talk about how they have witnessed French-Canadian people insisting on being served in French. They don’t like this because it used to be that French-Canadian people had no choice. English was the only officially recognised language in New Brunswick and that was that! Ah, to return to golden years of yore...
At least, they would. And it would be interesting to see what would happen. Right now, they blame bilingualism for not being able to find jobs or advance in their field. If bilingualism were to be eliminated, what would their excuse be then?
Back on January 31, there was a report with the title N.B. lacks leadership on language laws: prof. The article referred to a person who was charged with a breathalyser offence and was acquitted because the police officer didn’t ask the person in which official language he wished to be served. The problem wasn’t one of being understood. Both the accused and the officer spoke French fluently. But the judge ruled that the officer should still have asked the accused if he preferred being served in the other official language. A constitutional expert, Michel Doucet, was quoted throughout the article about what was expected from police in such situations.
Well, that’s all it took for the trolls to vent their frustration for nth time in the Comments section. One commenter, whose username was “ivatumca,” concluded his post with, “You DO NOT want to know what bilingualism is costing this province...”
Thinking he or she might actually know what they were talking about, I replied with:
“Actually, yes, I do. Please provide full description and detail the cost of each item.
“Thank you. Yours truly,
“etc. etc.”
Life being what it is, I went on to other pursuits and only recently checked to see what might have become of the issue. Predictably enough, there was no reply.
Now, I’ll admit I was being tongue-in-cheek with my posting, but it was to make the following point: For years, we have been told about how expensive bilingualism is and how it is somehow responsible for New Brunswick being a have-not province. If they are so sure of their facts, why don’t they publish them? It would be the greatest coup in history if it did happen. “Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow” was the first truly public manifestation of anti-bilingualism, written from supposedly an insider’s point of view. Even he couldn’t offer anything more than extremely vague accusations.
And they always talk about how the French don’t want to compromise. They talk about how they have witnessed French-Canadian people insisting on being served in French. They don’t like this because it used to be that French-Canadian people had no choice. English was the only officially recognised language in New Brunswick and that was that! Ah, to return to golden years of yore...
At least, they would. And it would be interesting to see what would happen. Right now, they blame bilingualism for not being able to find jobs or advance in their field. If bilingualism were to be eliminated, what would their excuse be then?
Friday, March 11, 2011
Tax Time
One nice thing about tax preparation software is one can come up with hypothetical tax situations and see where they lead without having to do all sorts of convoluted calculations by hand. So I imagined two people, made them each others’ spouse and both living together in the province of New Brunswick. I then added the following criteria:
a) If either of them works, it is as an employee, not as a self-employed person.
b) They have no other revenue beside their employment income.
c) The couple has no dependents, neither children nor other people.
d) Neither has any deduction to claim, not even contributions to a registered retirement savings plan.
e) The only non-refundable tax credits either one can claim are the Basic Personal Amount, the Spouse or Common-law Partner Amount (where applicable), the Canada Pension Plan contributions, the Employment Insurance contributions, and the Canada Employment Amount.
With those criteria in place, I set about calculating the amount of tax payable for situations where the total household taxable income came to $100,000.
In one case, each earned $50,000. After entering the proper amounts and letting the software do the rest, each owed $9,978.51, for a household total of $19,957.02. In the second situation, one earned $65,000 and owed $15,153.51, while the other earned $35,000 and owed $5,447.78. The two amounts owing combined come to $20,601.29. The means a couple where both members earn $50,000 pay would pay $644.27 less in income tax than the couple where one member earns $65,000, and the other, $35,000.
In the third case, one member of the couple earned the entire $100,000 for the household. In this case, even when factoring in the Spousal Amount, the total household income tax bill comes to $25,917.32. This is $5960 more than the couple where both members earn $50,000 each, which I find rather exorbitant. In case you were wondering, the total tax bill would reach $46,572.95 if the working partner earned $150,000 instead.
By now, you’re probably wondering where all this is leading. Just a little more to this preamble, if you please.
According to the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide – 2010, a person may claim allowable medical expenses which exceed either 3% of his or her net income (line 236) or $2,024, whichever is less. A couple can elect to declare all their allowable expenses on a single tax return, and add those of their dependent children as well. They will usually do so on the form of the lower income earner since that threshold will be lower and the credit can be more fully used.
The example given in the guide is about “Rick” and “Paula,” whose medical expenses for the year total $4,300. Paula’s net income is $32,000, so three percent of her income is $960. Rick’s net income is $48,000, so three percent of that is $1,440. Clearly, it makes more sense to claim the medical expenses on Paula’s return because $4,300 minus $960 is higher than $4,300 minus $1,440.
Keep in mind that the expenses must exceed three percent of the net income OR $2,024. The amount of $2,024, the maximum threshold for 2010, works out to three percent of just slightly more than $67,466. This means anyone earning, say, $67,467 or more will not have to subtract more than $2,024, no matter how much money is earned throughout the year.
Now, on to the main point. One year I was looking for a way to shave money off my tax bill and decided to try calculating the family’s allowable medical expenses. At the time, there were no out-of-province medical trips, nor even any out-of-town medical trips, so everything hinged on insurance plan premiums and whatever we paid directly for dental and optometrist appointments, as well as prescription drugs.
That year, my family’s medical expenses just barely surpassed three per cent of my income, by $14 dollars or so, thanks to my company’s medical plan. And since my wife had no income, the credit was useless on her own tax return. The whole exercise hardly seemed worth the effort.
But what really angered me at the time was that a maximum threshold existed at all. No matter how much money one earned, the threshold would never go any higher once that maximum was reached. I felt like I was being ripped off. Couldn’t the law and policy makers see how unfair this was?
However, after seeing how much more tax is paid by the higher earners, I can understand now why it may make sense to give them a break when it comes to medical expenses. Besides, I have an idea that could be even more beneficial for households where only one partner is working. Medical expenses can be declared on the return of the partner with the lower income, and then any unused portion can be transferred to the other partner through Schedule 2, Amounts transferred from spouse or common-law partner. It would be a great way to recognize the impact of medical costs on the whole family.
Mind you, I had forgotten all about this one year when our out-of-province medical trips became so frequent that it would have made sense to keep the receipts from travels, motel stays and meals. They represented about $500 per trip and would have quickly reached and exceeded the threshold. Oh well, lesson learned.
a) If either of them works, it is as an employee, not as a self-employed person.
b) They have no other revenue beside their employment income.
c) The couple has no dependents, neither children nor other people.
d) Neither has any deduction to claim, not even contributions to a registered retirement savings plan.
e) The only non-refundable tax credits either one can claim are the Basic Personal Amount, the Spouse or Common-law Partner Amount (where applicable), the Canada Pension Plan contributions, the Employment Insurance contributions, and the Canada Employment Amount.
With those criteria in place, I set about calculating the amount of tax payable for situations where the total household taxable income came to $100,000.
In one case, each earned $50,000. After entering the proper amounts and letting the software do the rest, each owed $9,978.51, for a household total of $19,957.02. In the second situation, one earned $65,000 and owed $15,153.51, while the other earned $35,000 and owed $5,447.78. The two amounts owing combined come to $20,601.29. The means a couple where both members earn $50,000 pay would pay $644.27 less in income tax than the couple where one member earns $65,000, and the other, $35,000.
In the third case, one member of the couple earned the entire $100,000 for the household. In this case, even when factoring in the Spousal Amount, the total household income tax bill comes to $25,917.32. This is $5960 more than the couple where both members earn $50,000 each, which I find rather exorbitant. In case you were wondering, the total tax bill would reach $46,572.95 if the working partner earned $150,000 instead.
By now, you’re probably wondering where all this is leading. Just a little more to this preamble, if you please.
According to the General Income Tax and Benefit Guide – 2010, a person may claim allowable medical expenses which exceed either 3% of his or her net income (line 236) or $2,024, whichever is less. A couple can elect to declare all their allowable expenses on a single tax return, and add those of their dependent children as well. They will usually do so on the form of the lower income earner since that threshold will be lower and the credit can be more fully used.
The example given in the guide is about “Rick” and “Paula,” whose medical expenses for the year total $4,300. Paula’s net income is $32,000, so three percent of her income is $960. Rick’s net income is $48,000, so three percent of that is $1,440. Clearly, it makes more sense to claim the medical expenses on Paula’s return because $4,300 minus $960 is higher than $4,300 minus $1,440.
Keep in mind that the expenses must exceed three percent of the net income OR $2,024. The amount of $2,024, the maximum threshold for 2010, works out to three percent of just slightly more than $67,466. This means anyone earning, say, $67,467 or more will not have to subtract more than $2,024, no matter how much money is earned throughout the year.
Now, on to the main point. One year I was looking for a way to shave money off my tax bill and decided to try calculating the family’s allowable medical expenses. At the time, there were no out-of-province medical trips, nor even any out-of-town medical trips, so everything hinged on insurance plan premiums and whatever we paid directly for dental and optometrist appointments, as well as prescription drugs.
That year, my family’s medical expenses just barely surpassed three per cent of my income, by $14 dollars or so, thanks to my company’s medical plan. And since my wife had no income, the credit was useless on her own tax return. The whole exercise hardly seemed worth the effort.
But what really angered me at the time was that a maximum threshold existed at all. No matter how much money one earned, the threshold would never go any higher once that maximum was reached. I felt like I was being ripped off. Couldn’t the law and policy makers see how unfair this was?
However, after seeing how much more tax is paid by the higher earners, I can understand now why it may make sense to give them a break when it comes to medical expenses. Besides, I have an idea that could be even more beneficial for households where only one partner is working. Medical expenses can be declared on the return of the partner with the lower income, and then any unused portion can be transferred to the other partner through Schedule 2, Amounts transferred from spouse or common-law partner. It would be a great way to recognize the impact of medical costs on the whole family.
Mind you, I had forgotten all about this one year when our out-of-province medical trips became so frequent that it would have made sense to keep the receipts from travels, motel stays and meals. They represented about $500 per trip and would have quickly reached and exceeded the threshold. Oh well, lesson learned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)