Why do people make such big deals at certain body parts? Why so much self hatred?

If I have a vote, can I say, "Please don't"? For me, the colors distract from the message; they don't accentuate it unless it's used sparingly. One color? Distracting, but okay (depending on the color). Multiple colors in one post? Visual overload, and I would find it much more work to get to the message of your post.

You're opinion is truly noted, but I think the opposite way as colors are a very integral part of me and I feel that I express myself more with many colors rather than with just one color.~

I will post many of my posts in black text for convenience, but I also decided to experiment with many colors and their different shades trying my best to make them "colorful yet soft and easy to read".~

Too light?~ (this is "Pink" to me, but I think it might be too hard to read for many people)

Better or worse?~ (this is "Rose Pink" (#F778A1) to me, I like it and I'm having a hard time deciding between this one and the "Pink" below)

Not light enough or not intense enough?~ (the feels like a easier to read "Pink" (#F660AB) to me)

Too intense?~ (this is "Bright Pink" (#F433FF) to me, a slightly "lighter" version of "Magenta" or "Hot Pink")
 
Last edited:
I just meant that one would be "clothed when practical" and of course hygiene is very important especially in a country where the people who live there believe wiping themselves with dry paper is making themselves "clean", but hygiene is important with or without clothes:

Then we are in agreement. :)

how many people have you shaken hands with without knowing they were carrying a contagious illness like the common cold?, we adapt our "hygienic practices and policies" according to the circumstances: wearing clothing is no more going to protect you from all illnesses than not wearing clothing: just like the myth that "only homosexuals" got "AID's".~:

Sure - I never said that wearing clothing would protect you from all illnesses. Nothing will, except perhaps a bubble.

Blaming all our problems on a group of people who act, think, or are a certain way is not going to make our problems go away if we decide to "remove these groups of people".~

All this does is distract from the actual issues and encourages us to not actually make any meaningful effort to work towards solving these issues.~

Is this in reference to my post? I don't believe I blamed any problems on anyone, nor advocated "removing" anyone. I doubt we're going to find one source for "body shame" and be able to eradicate it, although I agree that the media is a big, ugly source in and of itself.

Just stating that there are other reasons for wearing clothes than shame.
 
You're opinion is truly noted, but I think the opposite way as colors are a very integral part of me and I feel that I express myself more with many colors rather than with just one color.~

And your audience will, of course, choose to read or not read as they see fit.

And BTW, that first one is way too light and unreadable.
 
Is this in reference to my post? I don't believe I blamed any problems on anyone, nor advocated "removing" anyone. I doubt we're going to find one source for "body shame" and be able to eradicate it, although I agree that the media is a big, ugly source in and of itself.

Just stating that there are other reasons for wearing clothes than shame.


I didn't direct that last part towards you specifically but I was imparting some wisdom towards every one.~

And let me "add" to and clarify that wisdom now:

Blaming all our problems on a group of people who act, think, or are a certain way is not going to make our problems go away, even if we decide to "remove these groups of people" these problems of ours will still persist.~

This because many of the times, the cause of these problems are not "these groups of people" but the "circumstances" surrounding each individual situation.~

All this does is distract from the actual issues and encourages us to not actually make any meaningful effort to work towards solving these issues.~

^_^
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's an additional question: How did baby formula come to be invented, I mean, how/why did anyone get the idea to do such a thing? "Hey, I know, let's invent something that will make breastfeeding obsolete. We'll make lots of money on it." How'd they even know that the idea would "take off?"

When refrigeration and modern canning techniques developed, many many convenience foods were marketed. Modern farming techniques also gave us a "surplus" of cow's milk. The first formulas were home made by mothers who were told their own milk was loaded with bacteria, because "scientific studies" found bacteria on human skin. The milk itself was barely studied til much more recently. All mammal milks actually contain healthy bacteria as well as antibacterial and anti-viral properties. But women were told by doctors that pastuerized cow's milk, diluted and sweetened with sugar syrup (Karo) was more healthful than human milk produced by their own breasts! It's mind boggling.

Also, early feminism made women think breastfeeding would "tie them down" to their babies. Rubber nipples and glass bottles were mass produced. Mass advertising made families believe cow's milk was better for babies than human milk. Voila! Bottlefeeding culture took off with a bang.

Quite a thing, to see natural behavior hundreds of thousands of years old suddenly come to an end. :eek:

It didn't come to an end, but it became very unpopular. Luckily science got a clue when human milk was thoroughly studied, and breastfeeding had a great resurgence.
 
Last edited:
There is the issue too about money. Don't forget that the manufacturers of baby formula are very keen to promote its use - they make a lot of money from it and the last thing they want is for women to breast feed. Particularly a problem for people living in poverty - as highlighted by this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/15/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

I'd guess that a similar mechanism is at work when it comes to clothing. Don't forget that money is made selling clothing and the more clothing people buy the more money is made. So helping people understand that if they only buy the right clothes they will look perfect is in the interests of lots of business people. Using beautiful models and implying that buying those clothes will turn ordinary people into them would fit well within that paradigm.

I suspect that we shouldn't really expect anything else from a system built on the notion that making as much money as possible is a good thing.

IP
 
Re (from ColorsWolf):
"Sorry if I ever made your feel as if I was upset with you, I wasn't and am not ..."

Yeah, I guess "frustrated" (in the past) would be the better word for me to use. It's back there in one of those older posts, and I can look it up if needed but too lazy at the moment. Thing is, whether it be anger, upsetness, frustration, etc., it poses a problem for me for which I have no good answer. I wouldn't propose that you're not allowed to feel this way or that way, but I do ask that the expression of any given feelings be calm and considerate. Can't emphasize that enough, cause I'm plum out of the emotional resources to warn again rather than act. The counter must remain right where I set it, sorry it has to be that way.

Re:
"For future reference: if I am typing words on the screen just like this without 'caps,' 'bold,' etc., it means I am speaking in a very calm and mellow voice."

Which is an excellent start. But be duly warned: The intent, content, and direction of your expressions can also pose a problem (for me) no matter how soothing the tone of "voice." I spoke of that somewhat in my infamous October 30 post, a post which is probably always a good post to review, but perhaps I could be a bit more clear and advise caution about what's being said as well as how it's being said.

I'm neither utterly intolerant nor set on a hair trigger, but I do intend to make judgment calls based on how stressful any post feels to me, even if the stress be solely my fault. In other words, no promises about what will or won't keep me active in the conversation, and it's not like I can be held to any technicality.

Everyone's participation on any thread in this site is without question voluntary, and can be based on any criteria any particular person wants (for themselves and their own participation). That's the caution I want to express. I don't need to withdraw for any reasons that anyone else would understand. As long as I understand the reasons, it's good enough.

Now having said all that, let me be clear that I'd really (ideally) like to continue our conversation, and I sure hope that the cautions/warnings I've already given will suffice to keep both of us on the right track. Sorry communication couldn't be a simpler or easier process, but unfortunately it does often involve interactions between souls with widely-spaced perspectives, hard-to-reconcile opinions, diverse language usage, and thin skins. In those cases, both/all such parties need to be really freakin' careful how they express themselves and what they say, otherwise it's just a matter of time before the conversation breaks down and disappears. Sometimes that's just the nature of the beast and we all have to live with it (in our own various ways).

The best I can promise is that I'll be as careful as I can in interpreting/digesting whatever needs to be said. In turn I hope you'll agree to be hella careful about your approach, both tone-wise and content-wise. Wish I could offer you a better deal, but sadly that's all I got.

I am glad to hear that you are "feeling this idea" of turning over a new leaf and rising to a whole new level of acceptance towards things that might have previously, well, frustrated you. I'm sure you feel it's a much better, more logical use of your time and energy, as well as a welcome opportunity to spread the love around, so to speak. Receiving those vibes from you is a reassuring experience, and I do appreciate it, honest injun. If I could tap into that improved mindset and reset my counter, I would. But as it stands, I've found that I myself probably won't be able to so easily turn over a new leaf. So please, keep all the already-established cautions and warnings in mind as I'm sure they'll all remain in effect. Doesn't make me feel happy to say so, but there it is.

Your reasons for use of italics, underlines, caps, boldface, and quotes all seem to line up with established internet protocol, so as long as I can count on you to adhere to those usages, we should have a good foundation of mutual understanding to build on. Note that we agree that caps usage almost always indicates some kind of shouting, so basically I'd recommend swearing off caps usage altogether unless there's a *really* unusual instance where they *definitely* wouldn't infer shouting of any kind.

Re: use of a variety of colors in your text ... that's fine by me, though you obviously noticed that some folks might prefer boring old black. I do resort to navy-blue-colored text here and there, to match up with my asterisked words/phrases, but it'd be pretty rare for me to go further with color than that. On the other hand, your username is ColorsWolf, :), so I can see how colorful text would suit you well.

Pink seems readable as long as it's not light pink; purple seems readable (and I'm a bit of a purple fan). Just curious, are you considering using other colors as well such as green or whatever?

---

Re (from YouAreHere):
"Social acceptance is certainly part of it, and I don't think 'shame' is the right word, but the urge to be part of the larger social unit and not 'rock the boat.'"

That sounds a bit more like it fits in the "modesty" class of motivation. Which is really just a side note; my main deal is to say that what you're describing sounds fairly innocuous to me. If we were talking about hurting people, then I would say that "fitting in," "going along," or "keeping the peace" would be inadequate reasons for doing it. But wearing clothes doesn't really hurt anyone, unless you wanted to argue that it was hurting yourself (either due to stifled self-expression or because it was too hot to be wearing anything). Oh, I suppose you could argue that wearing clothes hurts society as whole, due to setting a bad example or exerting bad peer pressure on those who feel the need to go nude. But I'd see that as splitting hairs with respect to deciding where my nose ends and yours begins.

Re: hygeine and whatnot ... yes, I, too, have heard about nudist communities' standard of using towels to sit on, and yes all joking aside you do "conform" to a particular community's standards if you obey that rule. It's just that it's a sensible rule, that's all.

In all fairness, I can tell that ColorsWolf isn't advocating 100% nudity all the time, just nudity when the mood strikes for whatever reason. On the other hand, what about those of us for whom the mood *never* strikes? Is that proof that we're brainwashed, thus obligating us to "force" ourselves to be in the "mood" at times (especially when out in a common public area)? and even assuming that, how are we supposed to determine when it would be appropriate to force ourselves to be in the mood? Since we're (purportedly) brainwashed, our judgment in that regard is (by definition) quite hobbled.

Side note: The standard convention for hot weather isn't *undressing,* it's *dressing down.* Not saying the argument for nudity doesn't increase as the temperature continues to rise, just saying there *is* a middle ground in there that could also be argued for in most cases.

Re:
"The cats can't start kneading your lap without a lot of pain involved."

Haha, damn, that's it, that's the reason I clothe myself, because there's a cat in the house! Bad kitty, very very bad.
 
Question: When is it practical/logical to wear clothes, versus when it's practical/logical to go without? I'm sure one could say "depends on the temperature," but what if the temperature is neither particularly hot/warm nor cold/cool? Wouldn't the "logical criterion" for clothing-or-nudity then become mood/inclination?

Re: a country where the people who live there believe wiping themselves with dry paper is making themselves "clean" ... uh yeah well, I'd really only say "guilty as charged" on the basis of the given definition of the word "clean." I don't love toilet paper as a solution to the "not clean" problem, but since it's really all I have available I kind of have no choice but to do the best I can with it and then carry on with life's many other affairs. (And I reeeally try to make the best of it, let me tell ya ...)

Now I know there's a kind of "wet wipe" or what have you available as a substitute for toilet paper, but I'm thinking it's rather expensive? and besides, what I'd really like is one of those spray/fountain-type devices -- what the heck are those called? and let's be fair, I'm pretty sure that a lot of rich people tend to have them, right here in the United States. Are they more common in other countries? which other countries? France maybe? Where else?

From stories I've heard, people who travel around the world tend to encounter a lot of dry toilet paper, and in a whole lot of countries (yes even European), it tends to be considerably lower grade than "American toilet paper." So let's not be too quick to "villainize America -- or whatever country" as being rather unclean (and delusional about it). If I must point my finger, I'll point it at Japan and/or nearby countries where a mere hole in the ground counts as a toilet. Damn, that sucks. I don't think I'd ever want to brave a visit to any of those countries, purely for that reason. I hate going #2 as-is. A spray/fountain thingy would be mighty helpful, but I still wouldn't exactly like the experience as a whole. I even find going #1 to be mildly annoying, since I'd prefer to spend my time doing something else. (Sooo ... does that count as self-hatred? I don't know but I'm personally inclined to say it doesn't.)

Hey, while we're on the ever-pertinent subject of self-hatred, what about regrets? I'm chock full of those. Do those constitute self-hatred (one of the many kinds, shall we say)? What about guilt? barely any different from shame, right -- or is it different at all? Does it depend? If so, what types of things (examples invited) does it depend on?

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"Wearing clothing is no more going to protect you from *all* illnesses than not wearing clothing ..."

Ah, but will clothing protect me from *some* illnesses? a significant number of illnesses? Would we all be wise to carry a towel around to sit on if we're unclothed?

Re:
"Blaming all our problems on a group of people who act, think, or are a certain way is not going to make our problems go away if we decide to 'remove these groups of people.'"

Obviously true in the example of Hitler "blaming the Jews for everything" and then "ridding the world of them" to "solve the problems." Doubtlessly true in the example of "blaming nudists for everything" and then "forcing them to stop being nudists" to solve the problems. Even true in the example of "blaming cold-blooded murderers for everything" and then "sentencing them for life" to "solve the problems." After all, murderers don't cause *all* of our problems -- only some of them.

It is a standard, though, in most (all?) countries to label some problem-causing actions as crimes, and then, to mitigate the particular problems caused by incarcerating some criminals at least until they're adequately rehabilitated. The question being this: Does it *ever* solve *any* problem to incarcerate anyone for any length of time? What about labeling some people as having a mental disorder and, if they've already proven to be physically dangerous towards (themselves and) others, institutionalizing them until they're at least "well" enough to cease being physically dangerous towards (themselves and) others?

If incarceration and institutionalization are *always* bad ideas, then what's a good alternative for coping with the reality of car-jackings, rape-killings, and other serious person-instigated problems (at least when the problems in question are repeatedly instigated by the same persons)? If we don't restrain those persons, is there another way to stop those kinds of problems from happening? Is it actually best if we just let any person repeatedly commit those kinds of crimes and accept the resulting losses as a natural part of life? Is it enough to offer rehabilitation therapy/classes for any who desire to take such therapy/classes, and then just hope that they'll take up on the offer? That, after all, is how we cope with the problem of alcoholism (as an example). I personally wish that's how we'd cope with the problem of drug addiction (rather than labeling it a "crime" and incarcerating people we catch abusing illegal drugs).

Is there a line to be drawn here? If there is, how do we determine where it should be drawn? Public nudity doesn't seem to me to be harmful even if it's shocking or offensive to some folks, and thus I don't think it should be labeled a crime and dealt with by incarceration. But some would say, "Maybe it's not a crime but it's still a problem and we need to deal with it somehow." Do I think public nudity is a problem? only insofar as it causes conflicts between people, but then I might backpedal far enough to venture that the conflicts are the problem (at least more than is the nudity).

You have to take into consideration that here we are, in this thread on this website, a bunch of polyamorists (not what you'd normally think of as conservative or closed-minded individuals) and poly-friendly folks, and yet we can't quite seem to arrive at a concensus on whether nudity in any old public place is generally appropriate. So I (and some or many others) can say that I'd personally "lift all bans on public nudity" if I could, but the problem of the conflicts that arise between people regarding "nudity in certain settings" remains. (If requested, I think I could find at least one post to illustrate that; just too lazy at the moment.)

Yes, even right here, there are those who'd be inclined to say, "Public nudity in a standard public place isn't necessarily a crime, but it's still a problem," and perhaps even, "We need to discourage it somehow." I can assure you that I wouldn't personally agree with those statements, but you know, my opinion is just one person's opinion, and right now at least I can't think of any way to "prove" (to everyone) that I'm right. Doesn't mean someone else couldn't think of a way, of course, and anyone that can think of a way is welcome in my book to have at it.

Re:
"All this does is distract from the actual issues and encourages us to not actually make any meaningful effort to work towards solving these issues."

Would I be out of line to ask how we can tell what kind of effort (to work towards solving the issues) would be meaningful? and, how can we tell what constitutes an issue that needs to be solved? These questions are in essence a sincere invitation to suggest some specifics/examples, especially those specifics/examples that would best apply to this thread -- this part of the thread even, if possible ... You see I'm feeling slightly lost in this spot (honest injun).

---

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"Blaming all our problems on a group of people who act, think, or are a certain way is not going to make our problems go away, even if we decide to 'remove these groups of people' these problems of ours will still persist.
This because many of the times, the cause of these problems are not 'these groups of people' but the 'circumstances' surrounding each individual situation.
All this does is distract from the actual issues and encourages us to not actually make any meaningful effort to work towards solving these issues."

Mmmm, no, I still don't get it. Examples, examples. Need examples.

It all sounds so agreeable, but I still feel disoriented and thus, scared to commit to agreeing.

Help help! Even one or two examples would help me get my sea legs.
 
Re (from YouAreHere):
"Just stating that there are other reasons for wearing clothes than shame."

Good statement and I even want to suggest that there are lots and lots of other reasons ... like, lots and lots of other kinds of reasons ... lots and lots of innocuous kinds of reasons ... but I still support public nudity for those who'd like to engage in it.

Oh ... except, what about those infamous guys who wear just a trenchcoat and go about intentionally flashing their erection to various individuals? That's not the kind of nudity we support, is it? any of us, right? Anyone disagree with me about that? (Care to elaborate if so?)

---

Re: breastfeeding ... having poked around for at least an hour or so, I found that it's not easy to get dates, names, and consistent facts with citations. I was disappointed with what Wikipedia had to offer; it covered the history of breastfeeding rather selectively with almost no narrative at all for the time period covering the 30's.

On a broader scale, I did come to understand that wet nurses have been around serving as substitutes for mothers' milk for a very long time, and while bottles weren't nearly as common as wet nurses, they did exist in crude forms going way, way back. It seems that people have come up with all kinds of substitutes for human milk, such as milk from various domesticated animals, animal milk with various additives, even non-milk formulas.

Inyourendo and Magdlyn, if you guys have or know of any citations for the info you provided, I'd be interested in having a look at those.

I guess what stands out the most so far for me is the inadvertent error scientists made in raising alarms over bacteria found on human skin. This strikes me as the first domino in the chain of defaming breastfeeding for much or most of the remaining 20th century; the rest was just details: scientists devising formulas, designers devising bottles, etc. ... all the things that would be needed to get the mother's breast out of the equation.

Re (from Magdlyn):
"Also, early feminism made women think breastfeeding would 'tie them down' to their babies."

Tied down emotionally, hampered from staying in the workplace? a combination of the two? any other such "ties?"

I take it scientists are starting to correct their error of nearly a century ago, and we're just waiting for popular trends to catch up with the up-to-date knowledge. Maybe substitutes for mothers nursing will eventually fade into just a blip on the long-term history of human evolution.

Two links that may interest some readers:

---

Re: breastfeeding and nudity too ... both natural states being underminded by capitalism? Which villain, then, is the more inimical, capitalism or self-hatred? or is it a chicken-and-egg problem where each engenders the other?

Here's a chicken-and-egg problem: Government's duty is to put oversized corporations in check, but, because said corporations are so rich and powerful, they're in an ideal position to buy and finagle just about any legislation they want. I guess we need a grassroots supercell, but that kind of thing isn't easily forced into existence, it tends to happen slowly as people's perspectives slowly change. Hence the reasoning behind raising awareness.
 
On the other hand, what about those of us for whom the mood *never* strikes? Is that proof that we're brainwashed, thus obligating us to "force" ourselves to be in the "mood" at times (especially when out in a common public area)?

Heh. Well, if we take this line of thought over to, say, polyamory, I can tell you that some folks would believe I'm mono because I'm still brainwashed, somehow, by society.

Proof? It's all subjective. I can say until I'm blue in the face that I've taken a look at it with a critical eye, thanks, and this is how I am and/or prefer to live my life, and some (a minority, I think) will say, "But that's just because society says so."

Honestly, the mood (the mood for nude? Sorry, Top Gun moment...) doesn't really strike me. I'm not comfortable in the nude, unless there are other circumstances involved (nudge nudge wink wink). I have no interest in BEING in the mood, either (outside of aforementioned circumstances), and at least I don't have nudists telling me it's because I'm brainwashed. ;)

Haha, damn, that's it, that's the reason I clothe myself, because there's a cat in the house! Bad kitty, very very bad.

NO KITTEH! THAT'S NOT A SCRATCHING PO...* OW!
 
Oh ... except, what about those infamous guys who wear just a trenchcoat and go about intentionally flashing their erection to various individuals? That's not the kind of nudity we support, is it? any of us, right? Anyone disagree with me about that? (Care to elaborate if so?)

As an aside, a friend who grew up in Queens and took the subway into school every morning learned that "point and laugh loudly" is the best means of getting rid of these guys. They prey on people who are too embarrassed to speak up. Turning the tables (and yes, using shame as a tool) apparently works.

(Tossing in the hand grenade, then leaving...)
In some instances, shame isn't a bad thing.
 
Re: breastfeeding and nudity too ... both natural states being underminded by capitalism? Which villain, then, is the more inimical, capitalism or self-hatred? or is it a chicken-and-egg problem where each engenders the other?

Sadly, some of those who would benefit greatly from breastfeeding (those who have low-paying jobs, for instance, and could avoid having to spend money on formula) simply can't if they want to keep a job. Pumping takes time (typically more than your standard break), and therefore takes time away from a job. It's almost impossible to pump enough during a standard work break to keep a baby fed. The less you pump, the more you supplement, and the less you produce. The cycle spirals down until you stop producing and end up on formula until they can move to other foods.
 
Re (from YouAreHere):
"Heh. Well, if we take this line of thought over to, say, polyamory, I can tell you that some folks would believe I'm mono because I'm still brainwashed, somehow, by society."

Ahhh ... then you must then force yourself to get in the mood to act poly at a time when society would think it would be inappropriate to do so. It's the only way to cast out that illogical monogamous brainwashing! :)

Society approved = illogical, impractical. You must stop doing all the things that (American) society approves of. Then you'll feel the love. :D

Re:
"I'm not comfortable in the nude ..."

Arrgh! Can't you see that's just because they've taught you to make big deals at certain body parts? Can't you feel the self-hatred when you shamefully dress yourself up, looking furtively from side to side, hoping no one will see?

And what about all the would-be nudists out there who need your banner-raising example to inspire them to do what nature is telling them to do? Society is in a crisis, man; our very species is going to destroy itself if we don't stop the attire-wearing madness!

Re: bad kitties ... how about them BDSM kitties who roll on their back to tempt you to revel in their angel-hair tummy, then, just when you cave into the temptation: cat attack! Kick kick kick, lick, bite, scratch, and all the while they're thinking, "Man, she can really take it."

Re: point and laugh loudly at the trenchcoat flashers ... wow, creativity has won a victory against debauchery. Reminds me of getting rid of a telemarketer by telling them about all your escalating credit bills, your upcoming bankruptcy filing, and all the little voices in your head that are telling the telemarketer their kinky fortune.

What? Shame a good thing? Nooo ... we need to teach those trenchcoat flashers to love themselves, and then they'll love everybody and then we can say to them, "Hey, high-five buddy! That's what I call a live torpedo."

Re: breastfeeding ... something in corporate policy needs to change ... seems like the ideal would be provisions for taking one's child to work so one could breastfeed the child directly ... and since that's a pipe dreams, longer breaks are needed for breastfeeding mothers to pump.

Will the government make this a requirement? depends on what kind of bribing and blackmailing the corporations can do, I suppose. :( For that kind of battle, you truly need a grassroots supercell. I don't suppose the unions would help?
 
Heh. Well, if we take this line of thought over to, say, polyamory, I can tell you that some folks would believe I'm mono because I'm still brainwashed, somehow, by society.

How irritating. For me the key thing is as you say, having looked at something with a critical eye and decided that it is or isn't for you.

I don't get accused of being brain washed but as a woman who has never married and plans never to have children and who spent the better part of her 30s single and living with dogs, people would sometimes suggest that I wasn't entirely sane. I don't help the situation by doing other things that are a bit odd. I work part time so that I can study things for fun, I don't have lots of shoes or buy lots of clothes, I'd rather go to a conference than on a holiday. I have gone through phases of being told regularly that I'm ruining my life. That I either need to focus on my career or get a husband and children.

Not often more than once by the same person. I have thought out all of my decisions and the way I live my life and can talk passionately about all of them. Plenty of people who came to try and talk me round to finding a husband and having children would go away feeling a bit jealous that they don't have the things I have in my life.

(my mum thinks my attitude is inherited - she reckons that her mum tended toward the unconventional and that I'm like her)

Plus - how can anybody tell if anything they do is because they want to or because of the environment they find themselves in? I'd think that in fact it's going to be pretty much always a combination.

I have a bunch of friends who had poly relationships when we were all younger. None of them do now. For a number of reasons. Some say that they just prefer monogamy. For others they have other things going on in their lives that take too much of their time and energy to allow them to maintain more than one romantic relationship. It seems normal to me that people would change their approach depending on what else is happening in their life.


Re breast feeding at work and having time to do so. Maybe moving to Venezuela would help? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/venezuela-baby-bottle-ban_n_3460190.html
 
Re:
"Plus -- how can anybody tell if anything they do is because they want to or because of the environment they find themselves in? I'd think that in fact it's going to be pretty much always a combination."

Oooh ... good one.

Re: article about Venezuela ... sounds like they're serious about breatfeeding if they're going to restrict/outlaw baby bottles. But I didn't see any mentions of passing laws requiring corporations to make breastfeeding easier for their female employees?
 
The quote is about Venezuelan breastfeeding laws as applied to employers.
articles 344-352 state that mothers have the right to two half hour breaks per day to breastfeed. If there is no breastfeeding room provided by the work place, that is extended to two 90 minute breaks, and all employers of more than 20 workers must maintain a nursery centre with a breastfeeding area.
From http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9740

Treating people like human beings, of course, can be done. Sadly, those of us living in the UK (and it's worse in the US I believe), live in a situation where psychopathic behavior is encouraged.

This article isn't at all critical and doesn't in any way address the fact that it's the system of capitalism that encourages psychopaths to hold executive positions but it does outline how well suited those people are to running corporations.

http://chiefexecutive.net/skilled-executive-or-psychopath

Scary stuff.
 
Since work breaks for breastfeeding mothers are already provided for in Venzuela, I'm relieved and won't worry about it so much.

Re: psychopaths and corporations ... I'm sure (in fact I've heard some of the horror stories) that the article is a needed glimpse into corporate reality. In fact I've read interview material from Bill Gates that has psychopath written all over it.

I also think that any powerful organization is going to have a similar tendency, because psychopaths like to control other people, and there's no better place to control other people than on top. So governments and churches get suspicious looks from me. Yes such institutions have rules/laws to prevent corruption. But then psychopaths are pretty adept at slip-sliding around any rules that get in their way.

Guess that makes me a little anti-authoritarian in general, but I don't know that I propose an answer as simple as, "Disband all the big organizations," much as I may like the sound of that. For the moment my proposal is, "Watch the big organizations like a hawk."

Some leaders are sincere and some are not-so-sincere. Some are straight-dealing and some are corrupt to the bone. I suggest extra wariness against leaders who seem to be prone to lie (and molding the truth like silly putty is basically the same thing) and prioritize their own personal interests. A corrupt leader is very hard to get rid of, but being aware of that leader's corruption is the first step.
 
Re. "brainwashing": I tend to see this in idealistic folks who say, "I believe EVERYONE is poly at heart" bla bla bla. You're free to believe what you want to believe, dude, but if you can get out of my face about it, that'd be great, mmkay? I don't really like to engage street preachers of any stripe.

P went through a phase like this, and it actually cost him some friends, and I damn near ripped him a new one (which he would probably just be ashamed of and cover up with clothes ;) ).

Re. flashers: your "torpedo" line made me snort coffee through my nose. LOL.

Re. environment versus innate behavior: I agree - some combination of both, and it's not always easy to figure it out. I'm sure that *some* of my mono-ness is environmentally grown (my discomfort with certain social situations, for example) - but that's just one aspect of it. Nature and nurture are both important.

Re. psychopaths: The Psychopath Test was an interesting read. It posits that maybe some CEOs have to be psychopaths to have gotten where they are. It does, however, suffer from the same problem I have with other books in that it cherry picks its pool of people, but it doesn't really come to any definitive conclusions, and it's some interesting stuff to think about. The definition of psychopath is an interesting thing, and in reading the book, it seems that some "normal" people would probably find themselves trapped in such a diagnosis (although I read elsewhere that the test is really more definitive than described).

Why yes, I read about psychopaths in my spare time. I'm not one, at least. Right? Right? :D
 
Re:
"'I believe *everyone* is poly at heart' bla bla bla."

Or, everyone's a nudist at heart? Idea being, perhaps, that all the animals appear to be nudists at heart, and humans are animals, so why shouldn't the same principle apply?

Humans have distinguished themselves from other animals in so very many ways, one of the most interesting being that, having started out in Africa (where it was nice and warm and humans could evolve as a species with hardly any fur to speak of), humans then developed this crazy wild wanderlust and started migrating around the world -- too quickly for evolution to keep up (and re-supply the migrating humans with a thick fur coat). At the same time, humans seem to have quickly developed an interest in "inventing things" -- such as clothing. Or was that interest and invention evolution's way of keeping up with all the rapid migrations?

It's not easy to understand why humans diverged so starkly from the paths of all previous evolution that by now we have to *remind* ourselves that we're animals because it's become so darn easy to forget.

You can like cities or hate 'em, but the reality is that because of humans, cities are now scattered across the globe, with their patterns of steel, cement, straight lines, dizzy skyscrapers, creative geometry, railways, runways, roads crawling with cars and trucks, the seas with ships, aircraft carriers, planes drawing contrails across the stratosphere, endless farmlands with their modern circular shapes, towers suspending wires everywhere, satellites transmitting enough signals to accomodate something called the "world wide web," languages the size of the Oxford dictionary, surgeons, scientists, astronauts, robots, musicians, magicians, clowns, comedians, movies, roller-coasters, sports stadiums, ice rinks, skis, skates, the Olympics ... none of this looks like "normal animal behavior."

And the official explanation for all of this (and much more, including our endless array of sophisticated tools of violence) is what? a total of two things:

  • large brains;
  • opposable thumbs.
Am I missing something, or does that seem like a rather teeny explanation for the amount of difference we observe between humans and *all* other animals? Oh sure, other animals have a variety of smarts, talents, and creativity that are quite a sight to see, but surely we can all agree that humans are "different" from the rest by orders of magnitude? far too different for me, at least, to be satisfied by the teeny explanation listed above.

I doubt that this "solves the case," but somehow, that teeny list may have worked in combination with the magical twist of fate we call serendipity. In particular, I've come (over my abundance of years) to believe that the brain's most powerful tool may very well be its "ability" (or tendency) to make mistakes. It's probably the main reason why we never quite seem to be able to pin down the secret to creating artificial intelligence. Our "intelligence" may actually be centered around our foolishness: George Carlin will always be fondly remembered for calling it our "brain farts."

It gives me considerable pause to look around at all the various levels of technology that surround me, that I depend on, and consider that every one of them is probably the ultimate outcome of a bunch of mistakes that various people made -- and thence hit upon the new and the unexpected.

Technically -- logically speaking -- in practical terms -- it was a mistake for humans to pack back down south the clothes they had invented. Once that mistake had been made, clothes were no longer about the weather, and as a result were perhaps then destined to become about all kinds of crazy things: shame, modesty, dignity, religion, fashion, decoration, symbolism, habit, whim; you name it. Humans do have, after all, a penchant for "inventing reasons" for things they can't scientifically explain -- and hanging on to the invented reasons long after science has tried to supplant them.

If we were really still like all the other animals, then I guess we would all be nudists at heart. But human history has been the strangest (best? worst?) part of the planet's history. So much so that we really *aren't* like the other animals -- not anymore. We've re-invented the type of life form that we are (for better or worse). Oh sure there's lots of animal left in us, but now there's a whole bunch more stuff that we've -- mistakenly? serendipitously? -- added.

And maybe that's why, in accordance to my own personal beliefs, humans are both monogamous and polyamorous. One thing's for sure, whatever humans are, it isn't consistent. Take language for example. Any species of animal with a large enough brain has its own "language" -- its ways of communicating with other animals of its own species. But humans -- a single species -- have multiple languages, in fact more languages than we know what to do with and it actually makes our interactions more, not less, complicated. Another mistake? How'd we make that mistake, when every other animal species managed to "do the job right?"

Or, does this "confusion of tongues" now mean something more than just our inability to finish the Tower of Babel? Has language, for example, become an art form? an expression of diverse cultures and their nuances? What meanings has language acquired that in some inexpressible way enhanced what communication can accomplish?

[continued below]
 
[continued from above]

Re:
"P went through a phase like this, and it actually cost him some friends, and I damn near ripped him a new one (which he would probably just be ashamed of and cover up with clothes ;))."

And then, he would have had to wipe with twice as much dry paper, of course still trying to kid himself into thinking he was then "clean." :) (Gods I'm a meanie ... Thor, I implore you to strike me now, as a public service.)

Re: monogamy (or proper clothing) as enforced by devious means on the general populace ... nurture's the obvious culprit, but did nurture press nature into service? that is, do you think social conformists have a better chance to live longer/better and pass on their genes? Maybe anyone who happened to already be naturally/comfortably clothed and monogamous, would thence tend to live a more successful life, woo more interested mates, and get lots of their genes spread into the next generation. A "natural-born rebel," perhaps scrambling just to survive each successive day, might attract fewer mates or even none at all (especially if that rebel were imprisoned or executed). In that way, the patterns and consequences of nurture could actually be supplementing themselves with reproduction through nature, and "conforming to the norm" might actually have become an evolutionary advantage.

Which by the way is part of the problem with out-and-out rebellion. How much can one accomplish when one is in the brig or in jail, or taken out by an executioner or an assassin, or suppressed in such a way that the rebel in question can scarcely get his ideas to be heard/seen by anybody (let alone have any kids he can train right)?

And if this rebel conforms enough to live and preach and raise children, does it then become his responsibility to teach his kids to rebel more than he himself did? "Kids, screw the social fallout, do the logical thing according to your inclinations and no matter what they do to you, you will have gotten the message out and raised awareness." Doesn't that make that parent a coward, a hypocrite, or even a bad parent?

Two examples of what I'm getting at is that attempting change (for the better) at a radical speed tends to awaken the powers that be, and the rebellion is crushed. Each of us conforms. Willingly. It's our choice, and as such, our responsibility. Because as individuals we *can't* rebel or we'll be snuffed out.

What we can do is rebel in small, gradual ways. And maybe teaching our kids to be radical rebels counts as a small, gradual gesture of rebellion by the parents, but then if the kids become the radical rebels their parents "couldn't" become, they will suffer the fate that their parents "couldn't afford to suffer." (And that's my second example.)

If we're really as brave and willing to practice what we preach as we think our kids should be, then we ourselves should be getting out there right now, doing the things that will get us thrown in the brig and in jail, and rejoicing in the chance to be a martyr for the cause of spreading the message of love. Forget teaching our kids to rebel without compromise; we should be teaching the kids to do so by our example.

Even Martin Luther King Jr., who died for the cause of racial healing, did so in such a way that he could reach an immense audience before he had to sacrifice his life. For that reason and many others, my advice to most people is to live in peace with what society now offers, encouraging change in ways small enough to be logical under the circumstances. And can we heal society by hating it? No -- we must be able to see the good in it and love it for the goodness that it has. Love, not hate, is the key to change. We need to "reason with society" on "society's own level," not try to force society to "rise" to our (superior?) level.

Is society insane? How does one answer that when insanity is a subjective, convenient concept?

Re:
"Why yes, I read about psychopaths in my spare time. I'm not one, at least. Right? Right? :D"

Only insofar as you conform to our insane society. And I of course, being likewise insane, can't accurately diagnose your condition. But Bill Gates, he's a different story. He's just a misunderstood genius who's been wrongly slandered with the "narcissist con man" label. Oh, how can they persecute him so when he brings the world so many great things (out of his own brilliant mind)?

The free/chaotic admixture of earnest and sarcastic swill in these posts, I leave to you and any who dare to sort out. Think of it as a puzzle or a brain-teaser. Or in some cases, just a teaser.

Subversively,
Kevin T.
 
Back
Top