Naturism is NOT swinging; but...

Did you ever wonder why “swinging” is perceived to be prevalent in naturist venues?

Here’s a possibility: Since only couples are admitted to naturist centres, the chances of being hit on by a single person is incredibly low! So if anyone there is looking for new sexual acquaintances, chances are he or she is already in a relationship. Maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised that swingers, at least those who like nude recreation, can be found at nudist venues.

When I first rediscovered Going Natural, an FCN publication, I discovered the article Time and Place: Some Things Do Not Mix Well in the summer 2007 issue. Author Karen Grant talks about how she has been approached by swingers in the naturist movement and of being offended that people of this persuasion would dare make sexual advances to her, in general, perhaps, but especially at such a venue. In my opinion, she’s confusing two issues.

Whether it’s by swingers or by non-swingers, a naturist resort is not the appropriate place to schedule erotic rendez-vous or to find new erotic acquaintances. The fact Grant was approached by swingers may have more to do with the fact that clubs too often try to admit only couples, and heterosexual couples at that. If single heterosexual men were allowed in, perhaps they would approach her more than the swingers would. Of course, she could then say, “Sorry, I’m already married;” an excuse not applicable to swingers.

Still, the smarter swingers should know better than to look for new partners at a naturist centre, and smart naturists would do well to hold on to those swingers who know better and have enormous reserves of talent and energy to contribute to the naturist cause.

Essential life skill

In his 2007 edition of What Color Is Your Parachute? author Richard Nelson Bolles opened with a criticism of sorts of the education system.

Besides teaching us reading, writing and math, as well as the many other academic and trade skills, Bolles believes school should have taught us, among other things, how to choose and find a job; not just a way of making money, but a gainful activity that matches as much as possible one’s gifts, skills and experience.

Bolles also believes school should teach us how to find an appropriate life partner or spouse, as well as how to build relationships and how to find and value friends.

Finally, he says schools should teach us how to think and make good decisions, especially decisions related to work, money, sex and religion.

Indeed, what exactly does school teach us about the world of work? What does it tell us about money besides the fact it exists? Besides the basics of reproduction, contraception and disease prevention, what does school teach us about sexual relationships, consent, properly choosing the right moment for a first time? And what do we learn in school to avoid being taken in by cults or religious authorities who abuse their power and our trust?

Children today, at ever earlier ages are also learning about all sorts mathematical concepts, and this is fine. Even if the eventual field of study and work doesn’t include quadratic equations, trigonometry or calculus, it’s useful to know about them. However, I’d like to know why no school course ever included learning how to fill out a tax return. Everybody needs to fill out a tax return to either find out how much money is owed or how much of a refund one can expect. In some cases, even people on welfare must fill out a tax return to qualify for benefits. This is basic stuff that we should know before we graduate.

The Matter of Belief

I recently received a message from a fellow nudist who is religious. The message went something like this: Hi Gerry; I was wondering if you might tell us why you call yourself atheist? I mean, is it that you do not believe the earth was created by intelligent design? Or that you believe the earth came from the big bang theory and man evolved from some lovesick amoeba, or is it that you are not certain as what to believe one way or another? Hope you don’t mind us asking... (name withheld)

I sent an answer, but I then started thinking more about it and wondered if I could come up with an answer that was more complete, yet still relatively brief. Let’s see how I do.

First, let’s define terms as I understand them. Let’s start with Atheist with a capital “A”. This type of person is convinced no god of any kind exists, though new evidence could make him or her change his mind. The only proviso: the evidence must be based on fact, not faith.

Then there’s atheist with a lowercase “a”. This kind of person believes the gods presented by the world’s different religions don’t exist. There could, however, be a god who is not associated with any of the religions. Again, any evidence meant to prove the existence of a god must be based on fact, not faith.

Finally, there’s agnostic. This person says it simply can’t be known whether any gods exist or not. The ultimate reality is unknowable, at least in this world. Since it’s unknowable, there is no point in losing sleep over it.

I would be an atheist with a small “a”.

As I told my correspondent, my becoming non-religious had nothing to do with having to accept or reject the scientific explanations of how the universe works and how life came to be as complex as it is today. My mother was Roman Catholic and did her best to have her children raised that way. By the time I was born, the Catholic Church did not have any anti-science bias, so my faith wasn’t challenged in the least by evolution and the Big Bang. They were naturally assimilated into my way of thinking.

As a young boy, I was fascinated by books about Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and other branches of the human family. No one ever said, “Don’t believe that!” So, I saw no reason not to. I probably could have continued to be religious and easily accommodate the scientific knowledge since I could easily see some parts of the Bible as allegory and other parts, the more recent ones, especially the New Testament, as being closer to historical truth. So, I guess the true question is why I didn’t continue to believe since science wasn’t standing in the way.

There was no “A-ha!” or “Eureka!” moment. I suppose among so many other things there was the fact that almost all systems of theistic belief involving prophets or saviours tended to provide for terrible consequences for sins that hadn’t been either forgiven or atoned for. Every system of theistic belief assured us that its path was the right path, and that a terrible punishment awaited those who would not follow its path. After checking out all those that I knew about, I concluded there was no reason to believe any one of them was any closer to being true than any other.

Meanwhile, I discovered that many people who helped humanity progress were often non-believers and quite moral and ethical despite the lack of a theistic belief system. In time, the need for belief in a supernatural creator just didn’t exist anymore for me.

Furthermore, I came to see that the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god was probably impossible since such a being could not be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-merciful at the same time, yet allow catastrophes, calamities and suffering to occur. If all-knowing, he should know when a catastrophe is to occur, and on what scale. If all-powerful, he can prevent such catastrophes or at least the suffering that results. If all-merciful, he would definitely want to. Since catastrophes continue to occur, there are three possibilities:

a) this god doesn’t know when a catastrophe will occur;
b) this god is powerless to prevent the catastrophe or the suffering that results; or
c) this god simply doesn’t care.

Now, I suppose we could argue that this god’s plan is to let things happen naturally and show mercy once the person has died and has been found suitable for life in heaven. Or it may be that his only way of showing mercy during life is to forgive sins. In either case, the only condition is that the person has followed the correct religious path while living. Whether this jives with the notion of all-merciful is anybody’s guess. Still, if such a being did exist despite indications to the contrary, I would hope he or she could tell me – before I die – exactly which book or which leader, if any, to follow. That’s a fair question, isn’t it?

A god may yet exist, but he or she is probably nothing like the one presented to us by the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Dangerous professions II

In a previous post, I made reference to the fact that while truck drivers, fishers and miners had chosen risky occupations, they were respected by and large by society. But such was not the case for sex workers, who would often be criticised because they chose such a risky occupation. Indeed, our perceptions play a big role in how we attribute worth to some occupations.

Not long ago, two university professors decided to do their own research on prostitution in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They spoke to more than 60 sex workers in Saint John and Moncton, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Rather than ask, “Why did you choose this line of work?” which can be a rather loaded question, they asked, “What do you like about this work?” and “What do you not like about this work?” This set the stage where sex workers opened up considerably.

The professors also interviewed police officers, civic officials, healthcare and other service providers. After compiling and analysing the data, they produced a book entitled Sex Workers in the Maritimes Talk Back. If nothing else, the book provides an interesting glimpse into our perceptions of women and men who come to this line of work. Much of what follows is based on a recording of their presentation which can be found on the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women website. Where there is mention of the people interviewed, this refers to the people who took part in the study conducted by the authors of the book.

Perception 1. The vast majority of sex workers work under the direction of pimps.
Reality: Of the more than sixty sex workers interviewed by the two professors, not one worked for a pimp at the time of the interview. One of the professors would go on to say that an initiative by police to catch the pimp rather than the sex workers ran into trouble when there were too few pimps to be found.

Perception 2. They are feeding a drug habit.
Reality: A great number of the people interviewed did not have any addiction.

Perception 3. Sex workers are forced into that profession through a series of bad choices or due to exceptionally difficult circumstances.
Reality: This presumes they didn’t really have a choice and denies them any kind of agency. While it may not have been their first choice, some actually came to prefer it because the money was good, the hours were flexible, and there was no boss yelling at them and putting restrictions on how many times they could call home to check on a sick parent or child.

Perception 4. They had no other possible source of income.
Reality: We assume that they had no other avenue for money. But it’s not that simple. Those who had been on social assistance said sex work is a better option because it is less demeaning and controlling.

Perception 5. Prostitution is linked to organised crime.
Reality: It might the case in some circumstances and in some cities, but not in the cases related in the book.

Perception 6. Prostitution is the result of human trafficking.
Reality: While it’s true that many abductees are forced into prostitution by their abductors, the people interviewed in the book did not become sex workers as a result of abduction.

Perception 7. Why don’t these women go and work at (name of a popular donut and coffee shop)?
Reality: Why don’t YOU go work at (name of a popular donut and coffee shop)? Why work your butt off and get yelled at for only eight dollars an hour (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area)?

Perception 8. We must keep prostitution illegal because it’s so dangerous!
Reality: So are fishing, mining, truck driving, construction, and many other professions. In fact, nurses are assaulted at least as often as sex workers, if not more. Should we make nursing illegal? Footnote: If a nurse is killed, every effort is made to bring the criminal to justice. If a sex worker is killed, the case may never become a priority. Remember the Robert Pickton murders.

Perception 9. Sex workers don’t lead a moral life.
Reality: Even if this were true, does this give the rest of society the right to rape, beat and kill them? Does this give us the right to abduct them, drive far away from the city centre and just drop them off with no way of getting home? Must we see them as disposable trash?

Perception 10. Sex workers are risking their health due to transmissible disease.
Reality: Health workers see disease as the health and safety issue in sex work. Sex workers say the greatest threat to their health and safety are the clients who become violent. Police would rather arrest sex workers than protect them from those who would assault them, and health care workers tend to dismiss their valid health concerns because of what they do for a living.

Perception 11. Why another book on prostitution? Everything we need to know is already known.
Reality: The point of view of the sex worker is rarely sought out or taken into account when studies, royal commissions, academic research and other such initiatives take place.

The Sweetest Taboo!

A naturist site has a group called People Without Taboos. I eventually learned that the group had been started by a person whose first language was not English. He was apparently quite eccentric with his use of words, although it’s hard to say whether this was deliberate or due to his limited knowledge of English. As he is no longer a member, I have no way of contacting him for further information.

In any case, it turns out he took “taboo” to mean “prejudice.” A person without taboos was therefore one who was accepting of everybody, not someone who had no behavioural boundaries. When I started posting to this group, I didn’t know its history, and judging from some of the posts the followed, many other members didn’t know either.

Of course, my posts were motivated by the term taboo as it is usually understood in English. According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001 edition, a taboo is, among other things, “a prohibition or restriction by social custom,” as well as something “designated as sacred and prohibited.” This would agree with my understanding of the term.

Of course, taboos may be religious, cultural, sexual, etc. And suddenly, something came to me: Isn’t nudity itself a taboo for a great number of people? For naturists/nudists, nudity is simply the state of undress. Naturism is the ideology by which social nudity is believed to have benefits for those who practice it, as well as being simply, well, fun.

But for people who have had a more traditional upbringing, nudity in the company of others may be the ultimate taboo. Even sexual activity with one other person is at least acceptable under certain circumstances, whereas nudity is definitely not. Therefore, as nudists, we have breached a major societal taboo.

After thinking about it some more, I came to wonder whether sex may be taboo among naturists. Again, not the activity enjoyed privately, but the very discussion of it in a public context. Not everyone is comfortable with nudism and sex being mentioned in a same breath.

I always thought of naturism as doing almost anything one would do when dressed, but without the clothes. I agreed that we have to be able to clearly articulate that in naturism, sex and nudity must not be considered one and the same. I expressed hope that this philosophy may someday catch on in the textile community.

But I also indicated that I was less than happy with catchphrases such as “nude is not lewd,” since they convey the idea that sex itself is lewd. While we must choose the right time and place for sex, we would never want to have people think that we are opposed to sex per se.

In doing so, have I broken a naturist taboo?

Other statements on this subject: http://cayanet.blogspot.com/2009/11/frequently-asked-question.html, and http://academicnaturist.blogspot.com/2009/11/sexuality-and-naturism.html.

The Thorn in Our Side

When I first rediscovered Going Natural, a publication of the Federation of Canadian Naturists (FCN), the first issues I found were the spring and summer issues for 2007. Needless to say, one of the more interesting articles in the spring issue was A Paradoxical Attitude Towards Sexuality, Part 1. In the following issue came the second part of that article, plus Time and Place: Some Things Do Not Mix Well, and Sex in Naturism? These articles dealt with sex and naturism and gave plenty of food for thought and I was quite pleased to see these issues discussed more fully.

As many people have already said elsewhere, we may have to rethink the way naturists deal with sex. In Sex in Naturism? author Adelle Shea says younger people are needed, but we can’t expect the movement to maintain its present course if we bring them on board. Young people’s lives and experiences are different from those of their predecessors. Indeed, if my daughter is any indication, Shea is far from alone in her approach to sex and sexual issues.

Shea, who was 18 at the time and has been a naturist practically all her teen life, acknowledges that we’ve always had the need to be “cleaner” than anyone else just to show that being naked is not synonymous with having or wanting to have sex. We are so fond of saying “Nude is not lewd,” and any number of similar slogans. And I agree with the underlying premise: “When in mixed company, don’t do anything while nude that you wouldn’t do when clothed.” It makes sense.

However, Shea warned that the next generation of naturists would approach naturism on its own terms, and after being exposed to the Spice Girls, Britney Spears, the Internet, music videos and whatnot, the next generation of naturism may not look much like ours did. For example, they may still not approve of sex in public, but they may be more tolerant of the couple they stumble upon outdoors who took reasonable steps to avoid being discovered, whereas someone of the previous generation might report the couple to authorities.

Personally, I always thought of naturism as doing almost anything one would do when dressed, but without the clothes. Sex is acknowledged and celebrated, but actual sexual acts should be avoided where other people are sure to catch you in the act, especially if children are around. But it occurred to me that I might be wrong when I saw some centres actually prohibit nude dancing!

I agree that we have to be able to clearly articulate that in naturism, sex and nudity must not be considered one and the same. With any luck, this philosophy may someday catch on in the textile community.

Unfortunately, catchphrases such as “nude is not lewd” convey the idea that sex itself is lewd. Surely this is not what we mean to convey when discussing such issues. What we mean is there is a time and place for everything, and when you’re out in public among people you don’t even know, and even those that you DO know, it’s probably not the right time or place for erotic embraces.

The anti-Quebec thread

So, there is an element of anti-Quebec sentiment among the myriad positions against the deal to sell NB Power to Hydro-Québec. Surprise, surprise!

The Premier of New Brunswick wound up apologising in the Legislative Assembly for saying exactly that. Yet, his apology was simply to atone for speaking a truth that was better left untold, at least by politicians.

A regular reader asked me to write about the issue since he knows I live in New Brunswick. It’s a difficult challenge because no final deal has been tabled yet, and listening to the experts disagree doesn’t really help either. The fact is different people oppose the current NB Power / Hydro-Québec memorandum of understanding (MOU) for different reasons.

Some people are opposed to anything. If it’s selling NB Power, they’ll object. If it’s to not sell NB Power, they’ll oppose that, too.

Then, there is the anti-French factor, still alive and well in New Brunswick. They will not sell to Quebec because Quebec is French. People continue to blame their misfortunes on bilingualism, and point to oil-rich Alberta as an example of what we could be if all public service and government business were conducted in English in New Brunswick.

Other opponents object to the sale of our public utility to Hydro-Québec not because Quebec is French, but because Quebec could eventually separate from Canada. (The fact that Quebec will always be our neighbour barring a major geological event does not seem to be on their radar.)

Others fear that because Hydro-Québec will be generating the power and overseeing the distribution network, New Brunswick will have given up its sovereignty over domestic energy issues, especially with respect to power rate increases. There are clauses in the MOU dealing with this, but concerns remain in the minds of many. In fact, although they object to the sale of NB Power, they aren’t against the idea of buying power from Hydro-Québec.

Finally, some have no problem with selling NB Power but want guarantees as to what is to come after the first five years of the agreement. At this time, we know residential, commercial and wholesale rates will not go up for five years, but the protections for the years after, which tie rate increase to inflation, haven’t reassured this group of people. Some are driven by concerns for social justice since the rates will be frozen for residents and most small businesses, but drastically reduced by 30 percent for large industrial clients.

Those who support the agreement tend to be less divided as to their reasons for supporting it. Hydropower is cheap to produce and the quantity of resulting greenhouse gas emissions is very low. By signing this agreement with Quebec, large industrial customers and the people who work for them will benefit from rates that NB Power alone could never have offered. As for the others, including residential customers, the current rates will not change for five years, thereby avoiding yearly three percent increases for each of the first five years.

Obviously, not everything is rosy. Some experts say Quebec’s electrical production is heavily subsidized, and if customers had to pay the actual cost of production, rates would increase substantially. Some would like to see this happen as there is currently no incentive to reduce consumption. But if rates were to increase dramatically in Quebec, what would this mean for New Brunswick? Since this isn’t covered in the MOU, it’s hard to say.

The Major Determinants of Health

Roy Romanow, former premier of Saskatchewan, published a report in 2002 on the future of Canada’s health care system. At a speaking engagement, he offered the following tips for a long and health life:

1. Don’t be poor. Rich people live longer than poor people and they’re healthier at every stage in life.

2. Pick your parents well. Make sure they nurture your sense of identity and self-esteem and surround you with interesting stimuli. Prenatal and early childhood experiences have a powerful effect on later health and well-being.

3. Graduate from high school and then go on to college or university. Health status improves with your level of education.

4. Don’t work in a stressful, low-paid, manual job in which you have little decision-making authority or control. Poor jobs equal poor health.

5. Don’t lose your job and become unemployed. Unemployed people suffer from stress and isolation and can become poor – and remember what I said about being poor.

6. Be sure to live in a community where you trust your neighbours and feel that you belong. A civil and trusting community promotes health and life expectancy.

7. Live in quality housing, but not next to a busy street, in an urban ghetto or near a polluted river. Clean air, water and soil are vital to your health, as are the human-made elements of our physical environment.

Globe and Mail health columnist André Picard offered a similar list. He attributed it to Romanow, but it seems to have been inspired by the former premier's list instead:

1. Don't be poor.

2. Pick your parents well.

3. Graduate from high school or, better yet, university.

4. Don't work at a stressful, low-paid job. Find a job where you have decision-making power and control.

5. Learn to control stress levels.

6. Be able to afford a foreign holiday and sunbathe (with SPF 30).

7. Don't be unemployed.

8. Live in a community where you have a sense of belonging.

9. Don't live in a ghetto, near a major road or polluting factory.

10. Learn to make friends and keep them.

Good advice, but certainly hard to follow in some cases since we don’t necessarily have that much control over our circumstances. Indeed, if memory serves, that’s exactly the point Picard wanted to make.

New Title!

Although I have been surfing the Web since at least 1998, I am still a novice in many respects, having always used the Web mainly for email, networking and research. I only started discovering more and more useful functions as I became more comfortable with this blog. For example, I found out that you can go to Google, see the following options at the top of the page:

Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more ▼

click on the inverted triangle to get to a dropdown menu, and select "Blogs" (just about half way down). This way I was able to find my blog on Google for the first time.

I also saw that the phrase “Please Bare With Me” is overused, notwithstanding the fact that I used it in a deliberately tongue-in-cheek way to express my love for naturism, while so many others simply showed they didn’t know the difference between bare and bear. The time has come to choose a title less used (though not necessarily original) and more representative of its author, me. So, voilà! Welcome to The World According to Gerry-4!

Dangerous lines of work

An entire fishing crew died when their boat was overtaken by a sudden storm. All bodies were recovered by the coast guard. The fishermen were identified and the community came together to organise an aid effort for the families in mourning. Eventually, a monument was built in their honour.

An explosion led to a mine filling suddenly with water. While most miners were able to get out, a few died. An investigation is going on to determine whether safety concerns raised weeks ago had finally been acted upon. In the meantime, memorial services were held for the dead and a relief effort on behalf of their families has been started.

A truck driver died when her truck left the road on the highway. Witnesses driving by at the time say road conditions were treacherous, and police had earlier advised motorists to avoid driving if possible. The driver leaves in mourning a husband and three young children.

Another female sex worker was found dead today. There was nothing in the media reports to say whether the murder may have been related to the slayings of other sex workers this same month. None of the reports mentioned whether she may have had family to care for, or survivors to mourn her. One authority was quoted as saying the killing was regrettable, but since she had chosen a dangerous profession, her death should not come as a surprise. “She made her bed, and now she sleeps in it,” said one authority.

The above stories are fictitious, but only to a point. For a good presentation on this, go to the Audio Files page of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, locate “Sex Workers in the Maritimes Talk Back” and click on “Click Here To Listen.”