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.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Rights and Entitlement
For some time, francophones in the Kennebecasis Valley have been pushing for a new school to be built in their area. The following letter published in the Jan. 21 edition of the Telegraph Journal, would appear to a reference to that.
The letter is signed Tom Hickie, in Fredericton. Well, where do I start?
Mr. Hickie seems to think it natural that students must travel far to attend school. That is unfortunately the case in many areas of the province. However, many factors enter into the equation.
For example, in the area from St. Anne de Madawaska to Edmundston, there is only one English school, St. Mary's Academy, which is located in Edmundston. Given that English students in that area are few and the vast majority are in the immediate area of Edmundston, it makes perfect sense. But try doing the same thing with French students. It can't be done because there are too many of them, and it makes sense that the youngest attend school as close to home as possible. Unless the student population goes down significantly, the smaller schools should stay open.
In the Acadian Peninsula (the eastern part of Gloucester County), many schools are on the chopping block due to a decline in student population. All we're waiting for is a final decision. But in the Kennebecasis Valley, the opposite is happening. If there are enough students there to justify it, there should at least be an elementary school.
Further on in his letter, Mr. Hickie eventually agrees that duality is necessary in the school system so each language community can oversee the educational programs of their respective students. However, his suggestion that parents lobby the school district rather than politicians is, to say the least, misguided. School districts do nothing more than manage the schools assigned to them. To build a school, you need provincial government approval.
Mr. Hickie seems to think that everyone knows the situation of the school in Balmoral. I'm not one of them. It can't be denied that when funds are allocated to a project, they cannot be used for anything else. But governing means making choices. Mr. Hicks may be right in saying too many people have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. But why should it be "all about me no matter what the cost"? It could be "according to the taxes I pay."
"Language is not culture ..." This is an interesting philosophical debate to which I unfortunately have to limit myself to presenting my vision. Ann Duncan is an Associate Professor of Education (Counselling) at the University of Tennessee at Martin, and teaches courses that address multicultural issues in education. She offers a series of definitions of culture at this site. If you look at these definitions, you will find the following common themes:
We often hear about a statement or text whose meaning gets "lost in translation." Since languages were never created with translation in mind, there is no process to make sure two languages develop in a way that is complementary to each other. Therefore, there will sometimes be concepts that cannot be easily rendered into another language, so the translation can only be approximate.
In fact, a good example of this is the English word "entitlement," which we see quite a bit in Mr. Hickie's letter. In French, we speak of "something one has by right." I translate the phrase with a definition because French does not seem to have an expression which reflects the word "entitlement." Unless, of course, we stick to specific fields such as law and insurance.
Language shapes culture and vice-versa. That is perhaps the best evidence to show Mr. Hickie's last sentence is wrong. Language and culture may not be, per se, the same thing. However, they are so inextricably linked that one could not fully operate without the other.
It's only natural that francophones in the valley desire a community French school. Who doesn't want a school or hospital next door? The truth is that many students, French and English, travel much further to attend class in many areas of the province than the trip to Saint John.
Bilingualism was never supposed to create duality in government, but we have de facto dualism in education and fledging duality in health.
The French-speaking residents of the valley should be lobbying their school district for a new school, not the politicians or provincial government. They could ask Donald Arsenault, the former minister, to explain the new French school in Balmoral, even though the area's existing schools are less than full. Whatever resources are spent in the valley will be at the cost of some other area, just as the school in Balmoral was. The sense of entitlement is alive and well in our province, and it's often "all about me regardless of the cost."
We should fully accept dualism in education and have separate systems, with each being funded on a per-student basis to ensure equality. This would allow different groups to invest the education dollars where they think it will be most beneficial.
It troubles me to see the population decline in the rural anglophone communities, but it saddens me even more to see the population decline in traditional Acadian villages.
Language is not culture, and we do ourselves a disservice when we allow this lie to exist.
Bilingualism was never supposed to create duality in government, but we have de facto dualism in education and fledging duality in health.
The French-speaking residents of the valley should be lobbying their school district for a new school, not the politicians or provincial government. They could ask Donald Arsenault, the former minister, to explain the new French school in Balmoral, even though the area's existing schools are less than full. Whatever resources are spent in the valley will be at the cost of some other area, just as the school in Balmoral was. The sense of entitlement is alive and well in our province, and it's often "all about me regardless of the cost."
We should fully accept dualism in education and have separate systems, with each being funded on a per-student basis to ensure equality. This would allow different groups to invest the education dollars where they think it will be most beneficial.
It troubles me to see the population decline in the rural anglophone communities, but it saddens me even more to see the population decline in traditional Acadian villages.
Language is not culture, and we do ourselves a disservice when we allow this lie to exist.
Mr. Hickie seems to think it natural that students must travel far to attend school. That is unfortunately the case in many areas of the province. However, many factors enter into the equation.
For example, in the area from St. Anne de Madawaska to Edmundston, there is only one English school, St. Mary's Academy, which is located in Edmundston. Given that English students in that area are few and the vast majority are in the immediate area of Edmundston, it makes perfect sense. But try doing the same thing with French students. It can't be done because there are too many of them, and it makes sense that the youngest attend school as close to home as possible. Unless the student population goes down significantly, the smaller schools should stay open.
In the Acadian Peninsula (the eastern part of Gloucester County), many schools are on the chopping block due to a decline in student population. All we're waiting for is a final decision. But in the Kennebecasis Valley, the opposite is happening. If there are enough students there to justify it, there should at least be an elementary school.
Further on in his letter, Mr. Hickie eventually agrees that duality is necessary in the school system so each language community can oversee the educational programs of their respective students. However, his suggestion that parents lobby the school district rather than politicians is, to say the least, misguided. School districts do nothing more than manage the schools assigned to them. To build a school, you need provincial government approval.
Mr. Hickie seems to think that everyone knows the situation of the school in Balmoral. I'm not one of them. It can't be denied that when funds are allocated to a project, they cannot be used for anything else. But governing means making choices. Mr. Hicks may be right in saying too many people have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. But why should it be "all about me no matter what the cost"? It could be "according to the taxes I pay."
"Language is not culture ..." This is an interesting philosophical debate to which I unfortunately have to limit myself to presenting my vision. Ann Duncan is an Associate Professor of Education (Counselling) at the University of Tennessee at Martin, and teaches courses that address multicultural issues in education. She offers a series of definitions of culture at this site. If you look at these definitions, you will find the following common themes:
- Culture includes assumptions, beliefs, practices, attitudes and perceptions;
- Among others things, culture is expressed through behaviours, patterns, symbols, institutions and values.
We often hear about a statement or text whose meaning gets "lost in translation." Since languages were never created with translation in mind, there is no process to make sure two languages develop in a way that is complementary to each other. Therefore, there will sometimes be concepts that cannot be easily rendered into another language, so the translation can only be approximate.
In fact, a good example of this is the English word "entitlement," which we see quite a bit in Mr. Hickie's letter. In French, we speak of "something one has by right." I translate the phrase with a definition because French does not seem to have an expression which reflects the word "entitlement." Unless, of course, we stick to specific fields such as law and insurance.
Language shapes culture and vice-versa. That is perhaps the best evidence to show Mr. Hickie's last sentence is wrong. Language and culture may not be, per se, the same thing. However, they are so inextricably linked that one could not fully operate without the other.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Meaning of Respect
From Caroline:
You are all ignorant. I personally believe in God and modesty, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should disrespect me by trying to tell me my beliefs are false. I respect your beliefs, so why must everyone constantly fight about it. Stop being immature and learn to respect each other. This discussion is about being bare breasted, not God. If someone makes a comment that they’re for modesty because of their beliefs, it is rude and disrespectful to tell them otherwise and vice versa. Grow up. (Pokedandprodded.health.com, my emphasis.)
The above came from a health website where the author was promoting topfreedom. Naturally, the web being what it is, some supported the idea (and this included males who simply wanted a change of scenery), while others disagreed. Many, if not most, who disagreed did so for religious reasons. While they spoke of modesty, they always tied it to a belief in what they thought was the will of God.
To be fair, some were fine with a belief in God, but added that God, as far as they knew, never intended for breasts to be reduced to nothing more than objects of sexual attraction. Others, though, made it clear they did not have any religious beliefs and criticised those who did. I won’t pick sides on this specific issue.
However, Caroline’s reaction to comments by others does bring up an interesting philosophical issue. She wants atheists and agnostics to show her respect by not telling her that her false beliefs are exactly that: false. She says she respects the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, but she clearly doesn’t want to hear them because they are, apparently, disrespectful – even if she respects them. If she at least tried to criticise both sides by also castigating the religious people for criticising those who see no problem with baring breasts, religious or not, I might have given her the benefit of the doubt. But she didn’t. Only we atheists and agnostics are capable of disrespect, it seems.
While it’s fun to wax philosophical on such issues, there is one thing we must remember: Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and its constraints, and this must include the right to criticise religion. Is it possible to do so in such a way that religionists will not feel disrespected? I doubt it. After all, many tend to not see the plank in their own eyes when they criticise non-believers for the sawdust in theirs. (Matthew 7, 3.)
If they bring up the subject of religion, they should expect to be soundly rebuked by whatever Internet user is on at that time. It’s the nature of the medium as well as a natural consequence of debate in a public space.
You are all ignorant. I personally believe in God and modesty, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should disrespect me by trying to tell me my beliefs are false. I respect your beliefs, so why must everyone constantly fight about it. Stop being immature and learn to respect each other. This discussion is about being bare breasted, not God. If someone makes a comment that they’re for modesty because of their beliefs, it is rude and disrespectful to tell them otherwise and vice versa. Grow up. (Pokedandprodded.health.com, my emphasis.)
The above came from a health website where the author was promoting topfreedom. Naturally, the web being what it is, some supported the idea (and this included males who simply wanted a change of scenery), while others disagreed. Many, if not most, who disagreed did so for religious reasons. While they spoke of modesty, they always tied it to a belief in what they thought was the will of God.
To be fair, some were fine with a belief in God, but added that God, as far as they knew, never intended for breasts to be reduced to nothing more than objects of sexual attraction. Others, though, made it clear they did not have any religious beliefs and criticised those who did. I won’t pick sides on this specific issue.
However, Caroline’s reaction to comments by others does bring up an interesting philosophical issue. She wants atheists and agnostics to show her respect by not telling her that her false beliefs are exactly that: false. She says she respects the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, but she clearly doesn’t want to hear them because they are, apparently, disrespectful – even if she respects them. If she at least tried to criticise both sides by also castigating the religious people for criticising those who see no problem with baring breasts, religious or not, I might have given her the benefit of the doubt. But she didn’t. Only we atheists and agnostics are capable of disrespect, it seems.
While it’s fun to wax philosophical on such issues, there is one thing we must remember: Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and its constraints, and this must include the right to criticise religion. Is it possible to do so in such a way that religionists will not feel disrespected? I doubt it. After all, many tend to not see the plank in their own eyes when they criticise non-believers for the sawdust in theirs. (Matthew 7, 3.)
If they bring up the subject of religion, they should expect to be soundly rebuked by whatever Internet user is on at that time. It’s the nature of the medium as well as a natural consequence of debate in a public space.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Reaping What We Sow
Note: Some time ago I was sent an email which was said to contain a monologue from Ben Stein, although alterations to the original text showed it to be more than it pretended to be. I began writing a blog entry in reaction to it. Before I could finalise it, Gabrielle Giffords, a U.S. member of Congress, was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, who then turned the gun on other people, killing six and wounding 13 others. She was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” public meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, when the shooting occurred. Given some of the parallels between the event and the email I was writing about, I’ve decided to combine the two.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
- - - - -
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
- - - - -
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Germ Theory
What is the best way to avoid catching diseases caused by bacteria and viruses? Obviously, it would be to avoid exposure to the bacteria and viruses.
This is simple enough for us to understand. But how does one explain this to people who, for all sorts of reasons, have never been exposed to the germ theory of disease?
This is a challenge facing those who would teach AIDS prevention in parts of Africa where the idea of communicable disease through sexual relations is unknown. This is undoubtedly a problem in many other parts of the world, but given how widespread AIDS is in Africa, it is particularly troublesome there.
Geoffrey Clarfield spent more than 25 years working in Africa and the Middle East in policy, education, culture and institutional capacity building. I recently saw a video in which he was commenting on a question that was posed to him by a young worker in the field: How does one teach basic health and prevention programs when the intended audience does not believe in the germ theory of disease? And in the case of AIDS, things get complicated when someone asks, “Why should having sex with a beautiful woman (or a handsome man) kill me? We’ve been doing this for gazillions of years; otherwise I wouldn’t be here.”
Clarfield adds that the ideal ages at which work can be done to change attitudes regarding sex is between the ages of five and 15. But non-governmental organisations are forced to accept projects aimed at university students or mine workers, for example, because that’s all the governments are interested in funding.
In the video, Clarfield doesn’t specify why governments would do this. But I wonder if it may have something to do with the queasiness often felt when the topic of sex education comes up. Not that long ago, “abstinence only” sex education was being promoted by far right and not-so-far right governments, despite mounting evidence that such education doesn’t work. For purely ideological reasons, important opportunities at home were lost. Could the same thing be happening internationally?
This is simple enough for us to understand. But how does one explain this to people who, for all sorts of reasons, have never been exposed to the germ theory of disease?
This is a challenge facing those who would teach AIDS prevention in parts of Africa where the idea of communicable disease through sexual relations is unknown. This is undoubtedly a problem in many other parts of the world, but given how widespread AIDS is in Africa, it is particularly troublesome there.
Geoffrey Clarfield spent more than 25 years working in Africa and the Middle East in policy, education, culture and institutional capacity building. I recently saw a video in which he was commenting on a question that was posed to him by a young worker in the field: How does one teach basic health and prevention programs when the intended audience does not believe in the germ theory of disease? And in the case of AIDS, things get complicated when someone asks, “Why should having sex with a beautiful woman (or a handsome man) kill me? We’ve been doing this for gazillions of years; otherwise I wouldn’t be here.”
Clarfield adds that the ideal ages at which work can be done to change attitudes regarding sex is between the ages of five and 15. But non-governmental organisations are forced to accept projects aimed at university students or mine workers, for example, because that’s all the governments are interested in funding.
In the video, Clarfield doesn’t specify why governments would do this. But I wonder if it may have something to do with the queasiness often felt when the topic of sex education comes up. Not that long ago, “abstinence only” sex education was being promoted by far right and not-so-far right governments, despite mounting evidence that such education doesn’t work. For purely ideological reasons, important opportunities at home were lost. Could the same thing be happening internationally?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Jane Doe’s profile at NudistSpace.org
Yep, if you know a person by his or her full name, and that person happens to be registered with nudistspace.org, you can probably find the profile through a regular Google search. If you’re a member of nudistspace.org, did you know that?
I had heard some rather unflattering things about nudistspace.org and normally wouldn’t even be writing about that site. However, I once read an article I liked a lot in Going Natural and discovered the author had a profile at nudistspace.org. Now, it’s possible it’s a case of stolen identity and someone is just posing as the author. Many other people were victims before and many more will fall victim as time goes on. However, for now, I have no reason to believe the author didn’t knowingly create the profile.
In the short time I was a “member,” I could see that the site really was the antithesis of naturism. The site offers the following warning to all potential new members:
Please Note before the registration:
• We are Nudists oriented club, we are very against to the sexual life style. (sic)
• We are not an "adult" site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
• We are not an erotic picture site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
Despite this warning, the truth is there is much talk of sexual activity (and not just theory), and even swinging and gang bangs. Indeed, the author I referred to earlier was a member of some of those groups. And while I don’t think any of their photos may be “erotic” per se, “crotch shots” are definitely rampant.
Now, I like the idea of being able to discuss such things with other nudists. I just don’t think it should happen on a site that says, “we are very against to the sexual life style” (sic). Is it really so difficult to create a website for “sexual enthusiasts” that includes a section for those enthusiasts who also happen to be nudists? That would seem so much more appropriate than trying to accommodate sexual groups on a nudist site.
However, that’s not even my main objection. Because of the stigma attached to naturism, a large number of naturists/nudists would rather be known by their “usernames” until such time as trust is formed between different members. Also, usernames are meant to reduce the risk of an employer or other non-understanding person from discovering his or her employee’s “extra-curricular” activities. Nudistspace.org does not do that. Rather, if you do write in your real name when asked, you will be easy to find on Google after enough time has passed.
Don’t believe me? I came to discover this by looking up a very well-known nudist. While she has scaled back her Internet activities in recent years, she used to run her own website dealing with nudity and sex for teens. I put her name into the Google search field, added the word “nudist,” and instantly found “Jane Doe's profile at NudistSpace.org” near the top. (Of course, for this article, I replaced her real name with "Jane Doe.") I clicked on the link and came to her profile.
While she did give her first name on that page, her last name was nowhere to be seen. But the Google search gave her full name. In checking out my own profile page, I discovered that if one were to save the Internet page to one’s hard drive, the file name would include the name under which the person is registered. Not the username, but the REAL name. For those who truly value their privacy, this can only be described as a dead giveaway.
For those who truly want to give nudistspace.org a try, you have now been warned. If you have a relatively unknown given name and a substitute surname, you may want to consider using them.
I had heard some rather unflattering things about nudistspace.org and normally wouldn’t even be writing about that site. However, I once read an article I liked a lot in Going Natural and discovered the author had a profile at nudistspace.org. Now, it’s possible it’s a case of stolen identity and someone is just posing as the author. Many other people were victims before and many more will fall victim as time goes on. However, for now, I have no reason to believe the author didn’t knowingly create the profile.
In the short time I was a “member,” I could see that the site really was the antithesis of naturism. The site offers the following warning to all potential new members:
Please Note before the registration:
• We are Nudists oriented club, we are very against to the sexual life style. (sic)
• We are not an "adult" site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
• We are not an erotic picture site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
Despite this warning, the truth is there is much talk of sexual activity (and not just theory), and even swinging and gang bangs. Indeed, the author I referred to earlier was a member of some of those groups. And while I don’t think any of their photos may be “erotic” per se, “crotch shots” are definitely rampant.
Now, I like the idea of being able to discuss such things with other nudists. I just don’t think it should happen on a site that says, “we are very against to the sexual life style” (sic). Is it really so difficult to create a website for “sexual enthusiasts” that includes a section for those enthusiasts who also happen to be nudists? That would seem so much more appropriate than trying to accommodate sexual groups on a nudist site.
However, that’s not even my main objection. Because of the stigma attached to naturism, a large number of naturists/nudists would rather be known by their “usernames” until such time as trust is formed between different members. Also, usernames are meant to reduce the risk of an employer or other non-understanding person from discovering his or her employee’s “extra-curricular” activities. Nudistspace.org does not do that. Rather, if you do write in your real name when asked, you will be easy to find on Google after enough time has passed.
Don’t believe me? I came to discover this by looking up a very well-known nudist. While she has scaled back her Internet activities in recent years, she used to run her own website dealing with nudity and sex for teens. I put her name into the Google search field, added the word “nudist,” and instantly found “Jane Doe's profile at NudistSpace.org” near the top. (Of course, for this article, I replaced her real name with "Jane Doe.") I clicked on the link and came to her profile.
While she did give her first name on that page, her last name was nowhere to be seen. But the Google search gave her full name. In checking out my own profile page, I discovered that if one were to save the Internet page to one’s hard drive, the file name would include the name under which the person is registered. Not the username, but the REAL name. For those who truly value their privacy, this can only be described as a dead giveaway.
For those who truly want to give nudistspace.org a try, you have now been warned. If you have a relatively unknown given name and a substitute surname, you may want to consider using them.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Language policy
The following letter was published in the Nov. 26, 2010, edition of the Times Transcript, in Moncton, NB.
The letter is signed Daryl Doucette, of Moncton, and I underlined part of the letter myself. Let’s take that underlined portion and change it around a bit:
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual French New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual anglophones who simply refuse to talk French to their fellow employees!
Anyone want to bet that Doucette would see absolutely no problem with this?
The "Official Languages Act" of New Brunswick is "up for review" in 2012, meaning articles can be added or deleted, making them "law" in the province.
There is a policy in place now, in the provincial civil service, which is titled the "Language of Work" policy.
It states that the employee has the right to work in the "official language" of their choice.
The SANB (Acadian Society) is working with the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick, Michel Carrier and affiliates to have this "policy" implemented into the "Act."
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual English New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual francophones who simply refuse to talk English to their fellow employees!
This ludicrous discriminatory policy must be thrown out the door and not be allowed to be implemented into the Act.
There is a policy in place now, in the provincial civil service, which is titled the "Language of Work" policy.
It states that the employee has the right to work in the "official language" of their choice.
The SANB (Acadian Society) is working with the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick, Michel Carrier and affiliates to have this "policy" implemented into the "Act."
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual English New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual francophones who simply refuse to talk English to their fellow employees!
This ludicrous discriminatory policy must be thrown out the door and not be allowed to be implemented into the Act.
The letter is signed Daryl Doucette, of Moncton, and I underlined part of the letter myself. Let’s take that underlined portion and change it around a bit:
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual French New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual anglophones who simply refuse to talk French to their fellow employees!
Anyone want to bet that Doucette would see absolutely no problem with this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)