"Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth." -- Ludwig BörneOn the face of it, I think there must be some truth to Börne's statement. But what do you think?
Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.
New Loves through the Ages
A new love at 15: "Is this love? Real love? Really, really real love?"
A new love at 30: "Should we marry?"
A new love at 45: "But are our investment strategies truly compatible?"
A new love at 60: "OMG! What a disaster! I must change all my habits!"
A new love at 30: "Should we marry?"
A new love at 45: "But are our investment strategies truly compatible?"
A new love at 60: "OMG! What a disaster! I must change all my habits!"
Fifty Dollar per Serving Coffee
The coffee beans are first passed through the digestive tract of an elephant before being roasted and ground. Critics say the result is a rich, smooth cup of coffee that sells for $50. Just out of curiosity, would you try it, if you had the opportunity?
More Mischief
Here's what I've been up to this past week. I'd call it more of a color sketch than a finished portrait. At least, there are things I'd want to correct about it if I was going to call it finished. At any rate, it's an acrylic on 12x16 canvas panel. The subject is a friend of mine.
Reflections on Iceland's Ban on Striptease
Iceland outlawed striptease back in March 2010. Johanna Sigurðardottir, Iceland's prime minister, said: "The Nordic countries are leading the way on women's equality, recognizing women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale." The politician behind the bill, Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, said: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." -- Wikipedia.I think Iceland make a mistake to outlaw striptease. It's not a major mistake on the order of, say, invading another country in a war of aggression, but I believe it's a mistake nonetheless. By banning all striptease, Iceland threw out the baby with the bathwater. Or so I would guess.
To be sure, I'm largely basing my guess on my own limited experience of stripping, along with a bit of more general information I've picked up over the years. And, based on what little I know of it, there is good room for improving the lot of strippers. For one thing, strippers tend to be exploited by their employers. And, depending on the club, their work environment can be dismal. Then, too, the audiences tend to treat strippers like commodities. But, to me, these problems have solutions short of banning stripping.
The first time I saw a stripper, I was 18 or 19 years old. She was so pathetic at her job that I didn't enter another strip club for 20 years. Then I told the story of my first encounter with a stripper to a friend of mine, an artist, who promptly set out to correct my first impression.
He took me to a club here in town and then to another, and another, until I had seen enough strippers to have a more balanced view of them. He also showed me how to view striptease as an art.
To think of striptease as an art comes unnatural to many of us. And, in a sense, we are right. It is quite possible -- it is actually easy -- to regard striptease as mere prurient entertainment. But it is also possible -- if not quite as easy -- to regard striptease as a form of self expression. That is, as an art in which the stripper expresses her sexuality -- or, at least, her ideas about sex and sexuality.
Indeed, there is a sense in which a stripper cannot do otherwise than to express her sexuality or at least her ideas about it. For, unless she is merely aping the views of someone else, she is expressing something of what she thinks it means to be sexy.
Now, in my experience, about 15% of strippers do an inferior job expressing sexuality; about 70% do a mediocre job; and about 15% are above average -- very competent artists at it. The latter may or may not be the best tipped strippers in the club, for mediocre almost always outsells quality, but for my money, they are the most interesting to watch.
What makes them the most interesting? I think it's largely their authenticity. That is, I believe most of us are at least somewhat attracted to people who are more or less uncompromisingly true to themselves. When we find such a person -- and such people can be rare -- we often enough seem willing to cut them some slack. They may not be perfect people, but we are drawn to them nonetheless. And that goes no less for strippers than it does for anyone else.
Back when I went to strip clubs, I usually found myself more drawn to the women who seemed authentic, confident in their sexuality, and honest in their expression of it, than to the women who seemed less so. The less authentic women most often left me feeling pandered to, while the more authentic often enough left me feeling liberated.
I believe that's important because it is, for me, that feeling of liberation that justifies stripping. To many of us, stripping is merely a matter of prurient entertainment, but I would suggest that we are cheating ourselves if that's all we get from it. For it can be a means of discovering a sense of intimacy that opens us up beyond ourselves and that, in the end, might best be summed up as "liberating".
Nor is that entirely a heterosexual male perspective on it. On different occasions, I have taken two heterosexual women to strip clubs and both -- without prompting from me -- used exactly that word, "liberating", to describe how viewing strippers made them feel.
I bring all of this up because I think it's the baby, so to speak, that Iceland threw out with the bathwater. I think that was a mistake. And while a relative minor mistake, I know of no other art form that leaves one feeling liberated in precisely the same way stripping can -- and sometimes -- does. If so, then Iceland has lost something it needn't have lost.
But what about the charges that strippers are often exploited by their clubs, that they often work in undesirable conditions, that they are too often seen as commodities by their audience? In truth, I think those are common problems in many work environments today. For instance, people working in customer service jobs are too often treated as serfs by their clients. And I have known corporations that treated their employees as interchangeable cogs. To say that such problems are limited to strippers seems an exaggeration at best. In the end, the same solutions that would work to solve most of the problems strippers face could be adopted to solve most of the problems that many employees face in many different fields of work.
But what am I missing here? Is this just another one of my harebrained ideas? Or does stripping have at least some merit as an art? Perhaps most importantly, what are all those Icelanders going to do to keep warm in the North Atlantic winters without strip clubs?
Iceland's Ban on Internet Pornography and America
A movement is afoot in Iceland to ban internet porn. Yet, it is
currently unclear exactly what that entails, for, depending on the
source you use, the movement is either bent on banning all sexually
explicit material or only banning sexually explicit material that is
violent or hateful in nature.
The reasons given for banning some or all porn include protecting women and children. Specifically, the women who work in the porn trade. As for children, there seems to be a growing consensus in Iceland that viewing porn has harmful effects on kids and can even lead to violent crime later on in their lives.
I would suggest that the Icelandic movement to ban porn may presage the future in many Western countries. Perhaps not immediately, but over the long haul. If so, then a major reason for that might be that internet porn, on the whole, is becoming increasingly violent and misogynist. That's to say nothing of how the internet has allowed an especially heinous form of porn -- child pornography -- to flourish.
Regardless of whether or not many people think the government should ban porn, very few people, it would seem, think it's a good idea for children to view porn, especially violent porn. I have three young nephews and I cringe at the thought that some day they are likely to come across the stuff. So, a large part of me is sympathetic to the Icelandic movement.
Of course, I do not have the honor of being an Icelander, so it's not my position to tell them how to run their country. But if such a ban were proposed in America, I would be sympathetic to banning violent and/or hateful porn.
Nevertheless, my sympathies do not extend to banning all porn from the net. If it were up to me, I would limit any ban to pornography that was violent or hateful in nature. But I would not ban porn that was merely sexually explicit.
One reason not to ban the merely sexual explicit is that the category is so broad as to potentially include such things as biological texts on reproduction. And, if it seems far fetched that anyone would use a ban on pornography to attack the dissemination of factual information on biological reproduction, one only has to look at how prudish Americans can be. I don't know about Iceland, but here in America there are quite a few people who would gut public eduction of fact based courses in sex ed. A ban on sexually explicit porn might easily give them a tool with which to accomplish that. I would argue, however, that people have a right to know how their bodies work.
Another reason not to ban the merely sexually explicit is that much great art could be -- and in times past, has been -- defined as sexually explicit. However preposterous it might sound to us today that at some point in the future we will be unable to google up a photo of Michelangelo's David, the fact remains that in some ages past the statue was censored. That's to say, censorship can be as much of a progressive disease as pornography. Just as porn ever seems to tend towards the more violent and hateful, censorship, once allowed out of its cage, ever seems to tend towards a broader and broader definition of what is objectionable.
Last, it might only be me, but I think that some of what is easily classified as "sexually explicit" is actually beneficial. I have in mind especially such websites as DOMAI. I would not personally characterize DOMAI as a porn site, nor would I call it's photos "sexually explicit". Rather, I would characterize it as something along the lines of an often enough liberating celebration of feminine beauty and sexuality -- which I take to be very much a positive thing. But I can see how the site would easily fit many people's definitions of sexually explicit pornography.
At least, that's how I see it. What do you think of Iceland's proposed ban on internet porn? And would it work in the US?
____________________________
For more reading on the proposed ban:
Iceland Considers Pornography Ban
Can Iceland Lead the Way Towards a Ban on Violent Online Pornography?
Iceland Porn Ban: Minister says Pornography on Net must be Blocked to Protect Children
The reasons given for banning some or all porn include protecting women and children. Specifically, the women who work in the porn trade. As for children, there seems to be a growing consensus in Iceland that viewing porn has harmful effects on kids and can even lead to violent crime later on in their lives.
I would suggest that the Icelandic movement to ban porn may presage the future in many Western countries. Perhaps not immediately, but over the long haul. If so, then a major reason for that might be that internet porn, on the whole, is becoming increasingly violent and misogynist. That's to say nothing of how the internet has allowed an especially heinous form of porn -- child pornography -- to flourish.
Regardless of whether or not many people think the government should ban porn, very few people, it would seem, think it's a good idea for children to view porn, especially violent porn. I have three young nephews and I cringe at the thought that some day they are likely to come across the stuff. So, a large part of me is sympathetic to the Icelandic movement.
Of course, I do not have the honor of being an Icelander, so it's not my position to tell them how to run their country. But if such a ban were proposed in America, I would be sympathetic to banning violent and/or hateful porn.
Nevertheless, my sympathies do not extend to banning all porn from the net. If it were up to me, I would limit any ban to pornography that was violent or hateful in nature. But I would not ban porn that was merely sexually explicit.
One reason not to ban the merely sexual explicit is that the category is so broad as to potentially include such things as biological texts on reproduction. And, if it seems far fetched that anyone would use a ban on pornography to attack the dissemination of factual information on biological reproduction, one only has to look at how prudish Americans can be. I don't know about Iceland, but here in America there are quite a few people who would gut public eduction of fact based courses in sex ed. A ban on sexually explicit porn might easily give them a tool with which to accomplish that. I would argue, however, that people have a right to know how their bodies work.
Another reason not to ban the merely sexually explicit is that much great art could be -- and in times past, has been -- defined as sexually explicit. However preposterous it might sound to us today that at some point in the future we will be unable to google up a photo of Michelangelo's David, the fact remains that in some ages past the statue was censored. That's to say, censorship can be as much of a progressive disease as pornography. Just as porn ever seems to tend towards the more violent and hateful, censorship, once allowed out of its cage, ever seems to tend towards a broader and broader definition of what is objectionable.
Last, it might only be me, but I think that some of what is easily classified as "sexually explicit" is actually beneficial. I have in mind especially such websites as DOMAI. I would not personally characterize DOMAI as a porn site, nor would I call it's photos "sexually explicit". Rather, I would characterize it as something along the lines of an often enough liberating celebration of feminine beauty and sexuality -- which I take to be very much a positive thing. But I can see how the site would easily fit many people's definitions of sexually explicit pornography.
At least, that's how I see it. What do you think of Iceland's proposed ban on internet porn? And would it work in the US?
____________________________
For more reading on the proposed ban:
Iceland Considers Pornography Ban
Can Iceland Lead the Way Towards a Ban on Violent Online Pornography?
Iceland Porn Ban: Minister says Pornography on Net must be Blocked to Protect Children
How Fast do Lies Travel?
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." -- Mark TwainOn the whole, I think lies tend to be simpler than truths. If so, that might explain their relative "velocity". Lies spread faster than truths because they are easier to communicate.
Take the Theory of Evolution. Most of lies told about it can be expressed in a sentence or two. Most of the truths told to counter those lies require a bit more explanation. For instance, I recently came across a post on the internet that consisted of the assertion "human footprints found beside dinosaur tracks", a photo of the alleged footprints and tracks, and the question, "How can evolutionists disprove this evidence?"
Of course, "evolutionists" can indeed disprove that claim. But only by going into some detail about how the various marks were made. That sort of detail is at a competitive disadvantage with a lie that's just as pithy as a joke's punchline.
But do you think Twain is right? Do lies generally spread faster than truths? And if so, is it because lies are often enough simpler than truths, and therefore easier to communicate?
New Atheism and Accommodationalism
As I understand it, one of the debates going on in the nontheist community is between the New Atheists and the Accommodationists. Basically, it seems the New Atheists argue that all faith based ideas run counter to scientific thought and should be criticized, while the Accommodationalists seem to argue, among other things, that only faith based beliefs that are disruptive or harmful to others should be criticized.
I'm not sure I'm a good fit for either side in this debate. That is, I can see merit in both sides. For instance, I agree with the New Atheist position that beliefs which run counter to a weight of reason and empirical evidence ought to be open to criticism.
Yet, I agree with the Accommodationists in so far as I think that virulent criticism of faith based beliefs is of limited or no usefulness. Specifically, such criticism seems most likely to cause people to double down on their beliefs. And those who disagree with you will double down at least as much as those who actually do agree with you.
Consequently, if you are preaching to your choir, and you wish to get them to double down on their beliefs, then virulent criticism of the other guy's positions might work to your benefit. But it is the odd person out who will convert to your cause because of it. At least, that's my understanding of the current science on the issue.
But unlike both the New Atheists and, apparently, even some of the Accomodationalists, I do not foresee a coming time when religious beliefs -- or more largely, faith based beliefs of any sort -- will be eradicated. I feel human nature runs counter to that suggestion. To me, the question is not whether we will ever get rid of religion, but whether we can "stop burning witches at the stake", so to speak.
That is, whether or not we can ameliorate the harmful effects of religion is, for me, one of the key issues. Moreover, I recognize that task as endless, since I suppose religion is too deeply rooted in human nature to ever be wholly eradicated.
Another key issue, for me, is respect for people. I do not believe that ideas need respect. Even apparently true ideas should not be respected to the extent that they are never intelligently questioned. But people do deserve a certain degree of respect even when their ideas run counter to our own.
It is quite easy to lose respect for people who do not share our ideas or values. But I believe it is a mistake to do so, even though I have at times committed that mistake. So long as we all live in the same society -- or nowadays, so long as we all live in the same interconnected world -- it benefits us to give everyone a certain measure of respect regardless of their ideas and values. After all, it's when we respect ideas and values more than we respect people themselves that we find it all too easy to justify burning people at the stake. The first thing the tyrants and wannabe tyrants of this world try to take from people is their right to be respected. If they manage to achieve that, then they can convince their followers to do anything to you.
That, at least, is my current thinking on the subject. What do you make of the debate between the New Atheists and the Accommodationalists?
I'm not sure I'm a good fit for either side in this debate. That is, I can see merit in both sides. For instance, I agree with the New Atheist position that beliefs which run counter to a weight of reason and empirical evidence ought to be open to criticism.
Yet, I agree with the Accommodationists in so far as I think that virulent criticism of faith based beliefs is of limited or no usefulness. Specifically, such criticism seems most likely to cause people to double down on their beliefs. And those who disagree with you will double down at least as much as those who actually do agree with you.
Consequently, if you are preaching to your choir, and you wish to get them to double down on their beliefs, then virulent criticism of the other guy's positions might work to your benefit. But it is the odd person out who will convert to your cause because of it. At least, that's my understanding of the current science on the issue.
But unlike both the New Atheists and, apparently, even some of the Accomodationalists, I do not foresee a coming time when religious beliefs -- or more largely, faith based beliefs of any sort -- will be eradicated. I feel human nature runs counter to that suggestion. To me, the question is not whether we will ever get rid of religion, but whether we can "stop burning witches at the stake", so to speak.
That is, whether or not we can ameliorate the harmful effects of religion is, for me, one of the key issues. Moreover, I recognize that task as endless, since I suppose religion is too deeply rooted in human nature to ever be wholly eradicated.
Another key issue, for me, is respect for people. I do not believe that ideas need respect. Even apparently true ideas should not be respected to the extent that they are never intelligently questioned. But people do deserve a certain degree of respect even when their ideas run counter to our own.
It is quite easy to lose respect for people who do not share our ideas or values. But I believe it is a mistake to do so, even though I have at times committed that mistake. So long as we all live in the same society -- or nowadays, so long as we all live in the same interconnected world -- it benefits us to give everyone a certain measure of respect regardless of their ideas and values. After all, it's when we respect ideas and values more than we respect people themselves that we find it all too easy to justify burning people at the stake. The first thing the tyrants and wannabe tyrants of this world try to take from people is their right to be respected. If they manage to achieve that, then they can convince their followers to do anything to you.
That, at least, is my current thinking on the subject. What do you make of the debate between the New Atheists and the Accommodationalists?
I've been Interviewed
Grundy, over at Deity Shmeity, frequently puts up interviews of bloggers from around the net. All of the interviews that I've read are good, and some are exceptionally good. Today he posted an interview he did of me. If you're interested, the interview can be found here.
Memorable Compliments, Anyone?
I'm feeling miserable today. Headache, stuffy head -- that sort of thing. But it's put me in mind of a compliment I received some years ago.
A young woman who worked for me showed up one day. When I asked her how she was doing, she said, "Not good at all. I'm having a lousy day, so I decided to come to work."
"Did I hear you right", I asked, "You decided to show up because you're having a lousy day?"
"Yeah", she said, "You always make me feel better."
So, what are some memorable compliments you've received? Fork them over!
A young woman who worked for me showed up one day. When I asked her how she was doing, she said, "Not good at all. I'm having a lousy day, so I decided to come to work."
"Did I hear you right", I asked, "You decided to show up because you're having a lousy day?"
"Yeah", she said, "You always make me feel better."
So, what are some memorable compliments you've received? Fork them over!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)