Note: The following message is directed to members of True Nudists. Consider this a posting that doesn’t necessarily fall into the usual continuum of postings on this site. As if any such continuum exists…
There was a time I might have been unable to utter or even write the word without wincing. Was it my mother’s influence, her fear that her children would discover too much, too soon? Was it the general milieu in which I was raised, a French-language Roman Catholic people who had been taken with Jansenism in a previous generation? Was it just the “tee-hee” sense of North American treatment of sex in general? Was it the nascent feminism that pulled no punches and was generally opposed by my milieu? I don’t know. But it took a while before I could confidently write the word and longer before I could say it.
Of course, leaving home for university and using one’s reading skills to learn on one’s own can have a liberating effect on a young person. The free market of ideas can be exhilarating. Having everything reduced to “I think, therefore I am,” throws everything into doubt and reality is reconstructed one step at a time.
So it was for sex. In fact, my intake and evaluation of information on sex continued well beyond my university years. Everything was receivable and debatable, whether in books, newspapers, radio, TV, etc. I loved documentaries and talk shows à la Phil Donahue. At the time, sex included nudity, something that would change when I discovered the World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation, followed by Clothed With The Sun.
Then came the Internet. All of a sudden, it was possible to find information – some of it reliable – on just about anything. The concepts of swinging, polyamoury and “third-wave feminism” were explored. While I have no regrets at all regarding the life path I have chosen, I sometimes wonder how that knowledge would have affected me way back when. I mean, I continue to be astounded that some people can actually not feel jealous when their spouse is having sex with someone else, sometimes with everyone in the same room. Yet, it happens. If my wife had been interested, maybe we would have explored that. If I hadn’t met my wife yet, I might have explored it further!
And there are all the shapes sex can take, from the missionary position to sixty-nining to alternate lifestyles. There is the truth about prostitution as told by the sex workers themselves rather than the academics who think they have all the answers. There is the constantly evolving definition of pornography, whether it applies to all nude pictures or just those that actually show a sex act, and in what context.
Are you astounded that I would show such curiosity and possibly approval for such things? If you have been following my postings on True Nudists, you could be forgiven for that. I believe everything I have written there. Despite my rather liberal opinions on sex and seeing to the rights of consenting adults to engage in whatever consensual acts are agreed to, I tend to subsume that in my postings to True Nudists for the simple reason that ALL MEMBERS are expected to AVOID sexually suggestive topics. Why? Because nudism is not the same thing as sex, and the misinformation concerning nudism and sex is still prevalent in 2010. We must present correct information to the uninitiated and, especially, we must offer to members an atmosphere that truly reflects nudism.
I have done my best to follow the rule in this regard. I have also taken part in pointing out the people who don’t follow the rules. In some cases, it is blatant. In others, it starts innocently enough and slips into something potentially objectionable. The hardest part when the person is merely expressing his or her sincerely held opinion on something. Should that person be called to account or should I just let it go?
After all, we have all been asked to help police this site by flagging those who will not play by the rules. Indeed, it is one of the reasons I started this blog so I could express myself without having to self-censor my writings to too great a degree.
In the time I have spent on True Nudists, I have to come to know various people from various walks of life and various outlooks on life. I can truthfully say that except for a few times where I’ve just had to agree to disagree with some, all have been congenial and true joy to talk (write) to. Among my friends and other people I have met there have been some who, while truly espousing the ideals of nudism, tend to be more – how shall I say? – “free spirited” in their approach. Some of their posts do – it could be argued – cross the line that seems to have been drawn by TT1. As a member in good standing of True Nudists I would normally be called upon to flag such postings.
In some cases, flagging come naturally. In other cases, it’s harder because the nature of the conversation seems innocent enough despite the theme discussed, or vice versa. In any other venue, such discussions might even be welcome. In fact, I tend to enjoy them! However, TT1 has decided that they shouldn’t be welcome here because this is supposed to be a site where one can explore the concept of social nudity without sexual connotations.
Unfortunately – and I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here – confusion does exist surrounding the definition of “sexually suggestive.” When a woman writes about how she fantasises about having a penis and how it must feel when a man comes, she may simply be honest about her feelings. But I would consider this to be sexually suggestive because of the very nature of the subject.
I tend to flag slowly, but I usually point things out quickly. With some, I have been biting my tongue because the theme seems innocent enough, but the postings turn into something else. A joke with a sexual theme is one thing (the jokes thread is full of them). A full dissertation on why one loves to see and touch another person’s ass is another. It would be easier if, as a member once said, the discussions could be “R” rated rather than “PG” rated, but the rules are what they are.
Therefore, I respectfully ask all my friends to exercise caution in what they decide to post. So many people call True Nudists the best nudist site on the web. It’s up to all of us to keep it that way.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The cost of bilingualism
The Telegraph Journal, a newspaper based in Saint John, New Brunswick, recently printed a letter from a person who was identified as D.V. Wilcox from Saint John. See the letter here: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1089906. The heading to the letter was Bilingualism seems to be costly. You will see portions of that person’s letter along with my quick concise replies.
First, just how much does this social experiment cost the province of New Brunswick? Is it really as important as the many other things that have to be paid for? Does Quebec give English equal treatment?
• Social experiment? Who’s conducting it?
• How much does it cost? It depends on how you calculate that. The bulk of bilingualism costs would come from translation and interpretation. I’m told the cost is about twenty-two cents per written word and $500 a day per interpreter, not counting the equipment needed for this work. I’m not counting the French schools because even if they didn’t exist, we’d still need teachers and schools to teach English to the French.
• Well, I think it’s as important as many other things, but what do I know?
• Of course not! We’re better than Quebec!
I know that French is taught in schools. However, just how many students have the ability to speak French at the time they graduate?
• All the people who graduate from French schools speak French quite well.
French is not a widely used language so if you don't live in Quebec, northern New Brunswick or France, where do you use it?
• At last count, the World Francophonie Organisation included 56 member states and governments, three associate members, and 14 observers, according to Wikipedia.
Requiring so many things to be printed in French and English must add an expense to these products that we all have to pay. Is it really necessary?
• The more we write, the higher the costs. Then again, we could just do more electronically.
Someone proposed that all Supreme Court justices be bilingual. Wouldn't that exclude many qualified unilingual candidates?
• Of course unilingual candidates would be excluded. It’s in the definition.
Many jobs in the province are open only to bilingual candidates. The amount of French used in some of these jobs is often very little. Is this the right thing to do or is it discrimination?
• Don’t you mean many GOVERNMENT jobs? Most private companies don’t have to worry about bilingualism.
Why do legal court documents have to be sent to Halifax for translation to French? Who has to pay for this added expense? Couldn't it be done in N.B.?
• Court documents don’t have to be sent to Halifax for translation unless there is a directive to do so. If it doesn’t make sense, maybe someone should point that out.
I'd love to be bilingual. However, when I read how wonderful bilingualism is, the items I noted come to mind.
• Well, I’m glad to hear that you’d at least love to be bilingual.
It would appear this impacts in a negative way on English Canadians. We don't like to talk about such things but do they not exist?
• The only way this could have an impact on English Canadians is if English Canadians enjoy advantages that the French don’t. If this is not the case, then the English have nothing to fear.
First, just how much does this social experiment cost the province of New Brunswick? Is it really as important as the many other things that have to be paid for? Does Quebec give English equal treatment?
• Social experiment? Who’s conducting it?
• How much does it cost? It depends on how you calculate that. The bulk of bilingualism costs would come from translation and interpretation. I’m told the cost is about twenty-two cents per written word and $500 a day per interpreter, not counting the equipment needed for this work. I’m not counting the French schools because even if they didn’t exist, we’d still need teachers and schools to teach English to the French.
• Well, I think it’s as important as many other things, but what do I know?
• Of course not! We’re better than Quebec!
I know that French is taught in schools. However, just how many students have the ability to speak French at the time they graduate?
• All the people who graduate from French schools speak French quite well.
French is not a widely used language so if you don't live in Quebec, northern New Brunswick or France, where do you use it?
• At last count, the World Francophonie Organisation included 56 member states and governments, three associate members, and 14 observers, according to Wikipedia.
Requiring so many things to be printed in French and English must add an expense to these products that we all have to pay. Is it really necessary?
• The more we write, the higher the costs. Then again, we could just do more electronically.
Someone proposed that all Supreme Court justices be bilingual. Wouldn't that exclude many qualified unilingual candidates?
• Of course unilingual candidates would be excluded. It’s in the definition.
Many jobs in the province are open only to bilingual candidates. The amount of French used in some of these jobs is often very little. Is this the right thing to do or is it discrimination?
• Don’t you mean many GOVERNMENT jobs? Most private companies don’t have to worry about bilingualism.
Why do legal court documents have to be sent to Halifax for translation to French? Who has to pay for this added expense? Couldn't it be done in N.B.?
• Court documents don’t have to be sent to Halifax for translation unless there is a directive to do so. If it doesn’t make sense, maybe someone should point that out.
I'd love to be bilingual. However, when I read how wonderful bilingualism is, the items I noted come to mind.
• Well, I’m glad to hear that you’d at least love to be bilingual.
It would appear this impacts in a negative way on English Canadians. We don't like to talk about such things but do they not exist?
• The only way this could have an impact on English Canadians is if English Canadians enjoy advantages that the French don’t. If this is not the case, then the English have nothing to fear.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Maleness, femaleness,… happiness?
I sometimes happen upon articles claiming that women today aren’t as happy as they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago, while men tend to be happier. The more misogynistic among them claim that feminism has failed women by making them believe that they could have it all. They even claim that feminism has ironically been more beneficial to men.
One thing I never see in these articles is a definition of happy. Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether a truly objective definition could ever exist for this word. So to simplify things, I’ll adopt a Buddhist maxim: “One can never be happy in all things, but it is possible to be content.” Contentedness implies, generally, a degree of satisfaction. If your basic minimum needs are met, you can be content. Any more than that and you may become happy. Clear enough?
But even contentedness is a matter of perception. And maybe that’s what we’re really exploring here: How does happiness in 2010 compare to happiness in 1970 or 1980?
The feminist movement was still relatively in its infancy during the 1960s and early 1970s. The number of families where women were expected to work outside the home were relatively few. It was thought by many that men earned money for the family while the woman earned pocket money. A man needed a career while a woman could be satisfied with a job. Truly ambitious women would sacrifice family and join a religious order or have to constantly justify her decision to not marry and found a family. Those were the bars set in those days.
By 2010, the bars had been raised. Two-income households are now the norm, and women are indeed having careers, or at least working outside the home, in greater numbers, and usually out of necessity. Some manage to have a family throughout their career, while others have one followed by the other, sometimes sandwiching the younger children between two periods of career work, or forego children altogether at a time where childlessness is considered good for the environment and a legitimate lifestyle choice.
Men always worked for pay because they had to. There was never any matter of whether a career could be satisfying or not. Some did have satisfying careers, but it was always a means to an end: put food on the table and keep a shelter over their families. For women, though, a career was the end in itself. It was a way of moving into a world that used to be reserved for men, and that seemed to be a good idea.
I sometimes wonder if our “work-ethic” ways may have influenced feminism in an unexpected way, especially in North America. Yes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But who said we actually had to enjoy selling our services to a boss who could often be abusive toward us? Who said that working 60 hours a week for 40 hours of pay was supposed to lead to self-fulfillment? For that matter, who ever said that being one’s own boss is a true sign of success? As if government regulations aren’t bad enough, imagine having to track down people who owe you money and just don’t want to pay.
While I don’t want to discourage women from having careers, and while I don’t want to appear to support the antifeminists, I do think they may have a point when it comes to the bill of goods we call self-fulfillment through careers. The most basic fact of life is we must eat to survive. We can hunt, fish or gather our food from the wild, we can raise or cultivate it or we can obtain it through trade or purchase. For all of our lofty accomplishments as a species, that basic fact has not changed. Almost everything we do at work, and sometimes away from work, deals with getting our next meal, as well as securing shelter and medicine.
I have nothing against self-fulfillment, but I gave up on it ages ago where work is concerned. I can find aspects of my job that I either like or not. I will not expect my job to fulfill me because being fulfilled is my own responsibility.
I’m still hopeful for contentedness. It’s a matter of perception, but sometimes I’m content just to be doing the job I do. I can think of a few jobs I wouldn’t be cut out for. At this time, I don’t have to think about them. And that’s actually a happy thought!
One thing I never see in these articles is a definition of happy. Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether a truly objective definition could ever exist for this word. So to simplify things, I’ll adopt a Buddhist maxim: “One can never be happy in all things, but it is possible to be content.” Contentedness implies, generally, a degree of satisfaction. If your basic minimum needs are met, you can be content. Any more than that and you may become happy. Clear enough?
But even contentedness is a matter of perception. And maybe that’s what we’re really exploring here: How does happiness in 2010 compare to happiness in 1970 or 1980?
The feminist movement was still relatively in its infancy during the 1960s and early 1970s. The number of families where women were expected to work outside the home were relatively few. It was thought by many that men earned money for the family while the woman earned pocket money. A man needed a career while a woman could be satisfied with a job. Truly ambitious women would sacrifice family and join a religious order or have to constantly justify her decision to not marry and found a family. Those were the bars set in those days.
By 2010, the bars had been raised. Two-income households are now the norm, and women are indeed having careers, or at least working outside the home, in greater numbers, and usually out of necessity. Some manage to have a family throughout their career, while others have one followed by the other, sometimes sandwiching the younger children between two periods of career work, or forego children altogether at a time where childlessness is considered good for the environment and a legitimate lifestyle choice.
Men always worked for pay because they had to. There was never any matter of whether a career could be satisfying or not. Some did have satisfying careers, but it was always a means to an end: put food on the table and keep a shelter over their families. For women, though, a career was the end in itself. It was a way of moving into a world that used to be reserved for men, and that seemed to be a good idea.
I sometimes wonder if our “work-ethic” ways may have influenced feminism in an unexpected way, especially in North America. Yes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But who said we actually had to enjoy selling our services to a boss who could often be abusive toward us? Who said that working 60 hours a week for 40 hours of pay was supposed to lead to self-fulfillment? For that matter, who ever said that being one’s own boss is a true sign of success? As if government regulations aren’t bad enough, imagine having to track down people who owe you money and just don’t want to pay.
While I don’t want to discourage women from having careers, and while I don’t want to appear to support the antifeminists, I do think they may have a point when it comes to the bill of goods we call self-fulfillment through careers. The most basic fact of life is we must eat to survive. We can hunt, fish or gather our food from the wild, we can raise or cultivate it or we can obtain it through trade or purchase. For all of our lofty accomplishments as a species, that basic fact has not changed. Almost everything we do at work, and sometimes away from work, deals with getting our next meal, as well as securing shelter and medicine.
I have nothing against self-fulfillment, but I gave up on it ages ago where work is concerned. I can find aspects of my job that I either like or not. I will not expect my job to fulfill me because being fulfilled is my own responsibility.
I’m still hopeful for contentedness. It’s a matter of perception, but sometimes I’m content just to be doing the job I do. I can think of a few jobs I wouldn’t be cut out for. At this time, I don’t have to think about them. And that’s actually a happy thought!
Friday, June 4, 2010
This is NOT nudism
“Honestly, whatever happens between consenting adults on private property is one thing, but I strongly suggest leaving the children out of it. Nothing good can possibly come out of a child growing up as a nudist.” – Son-Burned, A Nudist Boy's Experience at Fraternity Snoqualmie Nudist Camp, A true story by Stefin Bradbury. Copyright (c) 2005 Stefin Bradbury. All Rights Reserved.
I kept all the copyright indications intact to respect the author’s creative work. Any further quote in this article is from that source.
This story comes from the Nudist Hall of Shame (easily found on Google). To sum things up, this is yet another victim of child molesters who has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying that because he was molested by nudists, then nudism must not be right for children. I can understand that because of his horrible experience he cannot separate child abuse and nudism. He admits as much when he says:
“For one thing, though Roy and Shirley were nudists, the abuse I endured happened at their apartment as well as at the nudist park. I found it impossible to extricate the geological conditions of my child abuse. For me, it wasn’t so much that they were nudists and they abused me, but, rather, they abused me and they were nudists.” (NOTE: Roy was the author’s natural father and Shirley was the new wife of Roy.)
I don’t doubt that the author has experienced real pain, and continues to do so at this time. Anyone who has been through what he has would be lucky just to live a normal life in adulthood. It’s unfortunate that he then makes a blanket statement for all other children, including those who have not been abused and have had mainly positive experiences. It’s also the type of fodder that keeps anti-nudists happy. If you haven’t read it yet, do so and then come back for the rest of my article.
Okay. Let’s now take that article and remove all references to child molestation per se. Let’s imagine an alternate universe where the author was not molested as the term is properly understood, but all other events remain. Here’s what’s left:
A 12-year-old child who WAS NOT RAISED in the nudist lifestyle is brought to a nudist centre AGAINST HIS WILL and FORCED to undress and remain undressed in front of others. Anyone who knows anything about common courtesy and the importance of respecting a child’s limitations must see that what happened goes way beyond the euphemism “inappropriate.” The child was definitely not prepared for the nudist experience and should not have been forced into it. That fact is way too blatant to possibly offer any defence to the adults who forced their intentions on him.
When we add the fact that he was ALSO molested, we can only conclude that the birth father and his partner-in-crime (literally) had no real consideration for the child’s well-being.
My definition of nudism, and the one we generally hear, is social nudity without sex. What that author was exposed to as a child was not nudism. What his father and the other adult responsible for his welfare were seeking for themselves and imposing on him was not nudism. To that extent, he is right when he says children should be left out of it. Unfortunately, this also ruins it for so many other children who have not been molested and can enjoy being nude without shame and fear of molestation.
The author says the experience has left him imprisoned and he can’t imagine how being nude can be liberating. I can’t say he created his own prison because that was done by the adults who molested him. However, this is one prison for which he holds the key. Someday, perhaps, he will find the strength and courage within him use it.
I kept all the copyright indications intact to respect the author’s creative work. Any further quote in this article is from that source.
This story comes from the Nudist Hall of Shame (easily found on Google). To sum things up, this is yet another victim of child molesters who has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying that because he was molested by nudists, then nudism must not be right for children. I can understand that because of his horrible experience he cannot separate child abuse and nudism. He admits as much when he says:
“For one thing, though Roy and Shirley were nudists, the abuse I endured happened at their apartment as well as at the nudist park. I found it impossible to extricate the geological conditions of my child abuse. For me, it wasn’t so much that they were nudists and they abused me, but, rather, they abused me and they were nudists.” (NOTE: Roy was the author’s natural father and Shirley was the new wife of Roy.)
I don’t doubt that the author has experienced real pain, and continues to do so at this time. Anyone who has been through what he has would be lucky just to live a normal life in adulthood. It’s unfortunate that he then makes a blanket statement for all other children, including those who have not been abused and have had mainly positive experiences. It’s also the type of fodder that keeps anti-nudists happy. If you haven’t read it yet, do so and then come back for the rest of my article.
Okay. Let’s now take that article and remove all references to child molestation per se. Let’s imagine an alternate universe where the author was not molested as the term is properly understood, but all other events remain. Here’s what’s left:
A 12-year-old child who WAS NOT RAISED in the nudist lifestyle is brought to a nudist centre AGAINST HIS WILL and FORCED to undress and remain undressed in front of others. Anyone who knows anything about common courtesy and the importance of respecting a child’s limitations must see that what happened goes way beyond the euphemism “inappropriate.” The child was definitely not prepared for the nudist experience and should not have been forced into it. That fact is way too blatant to possibly offer any defence to the adults who forced their intentions on him.
When we add the fact that he was ALSO molested, we can only conclude that the birth father and his partner-in-crime (literally) had no real consideration for the child’s well-being.
My definition of nudism, and the one we generally hear, is social nudity without sex. What that author was exposed to as a child was not nudism. What his father and the other adult responsible for his welfare were seeking for themselves and imposing on him was not nudism. To that extent, he is right when he says children should be left out of it. Unfortunately, this also ruins it for so many other children who have not been molested and can enjoy being nude without shame and fear of molestation.
The author says the experience has left him imprisoned and he can’t imagine how being nude can be liberating. I can’t say he created his own prison because that was done by the adults who molested him. However, this is one prison for which he holds the key. Someday, perhaps, he will find the strength and courage within him use it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)