Saturday, September 10, 2005
A lesson in courtesy from the Maasai
No, I didn't misspell the name of that familiar African culture, although the spellchecker thinks I did; according to this wonderful site
http://www.maasai-infoline.org/
"Maasai is the correct spelling not Masai. Masai with one 'A' is incorect. In the future please spell Maasai with two AAs. We prefer Maasai, not Masai. The title Maasai derives from the word Maa. Maa-sai means my people."
How did we end up with the wrong spelling? Gee, I wonder... it couldn't be that whatever arrogant, condescending white person introduced the Western world to the Maasai decided that they didn't need the double "a," could it?
There's a great deal of valuable and interesting info on that site, which is run by a Maasai man, Kakuta ole Maimai, and therefore should actually reflect the views of their culture, as opposed to the subjective views of them put forth by white people who've studied them; the most interesting, and disturbing, section is the one called "Photo Raiders," which provides a long-overdue description of how at least some so-called "primitive" people view the eagerness of Westerners to exploit their "colorful" culture:
"Photographers are invading our culture
The Maasai people are among the indigenous people hunted by photographers..."
Invading... hunted. You can already see how they view camera-bearing white people.
"... who found free access into a land filled with exoticism, wildlife and tribal people, where the law to protect indigenous people remains scarce."
When you see documentaries about tribal cultures, or read about them in National Geographic, do you ever wonder what laws, if any, protect the people under observation, to keep them from being exploited or even mistreated? I'M going to think about that from now on, I guarantee it.
"Some western photographers are stepping over boundaries; they are not being sensitive to our culture and way of life. They are invading and exploiting our people and culture for profit purposes."
Well, there you have it; there's no reason to have ever thought that tribal peoples are thrilled to have white men charging around self-importantly in their midst, but this is truly shameful.
"Here are some questions to ask yourself, when looking at a portrait book with Maasai images:
Who is this person in the picture? What is her name? How does she feel being in a portrait book? Does she know that her picture is being sold in the western world? Did she receive anything in return? Has the photographer obtain a letter of consent from this person or from the community?"
I'm terribly afraid that I know the answers to those questions.
"Now look at a portrait book, or magazine, with images of western people. Repeat the same questions stated above."
I'm embarrassed to say that I never thought about these issues before, but everyone SHOULD think about them, because what good is our love of human rights, and the laws that protect those rights, if we're still acting like it's ok for us to treat indigenous cultures as if they don't deserve the same consideration as "civilized" (there's a laugh) people?
"It appeared that a wild animal is given a better recognition than a Maasai person.
When you visit a zoo, for example, you'll find that every animal, whether a lion, giraffe, gorilla, zebra, hippo, etc., has a name. If you talk to the keeper s/he will present that animal to you by its name. Why can't a photographer name a Maasai if s/he can name a wild animal? A Maasai is not less of a human being."
Did you cringe when you read that? How many times have you seen zoo animals in magazines or on TV where their names were given... and how many times have you seen images of tribal people with no names given for them?
"We have discovered disturbing images of our people in the western world
Recently, we came across images of a circumcision event, a sacred rite of passage that is not intended for the public. This discovery was shocking, sad, and disappointing to us, as this is a personal and sacred rite of passage that should have not been photographed, published, and sold to the public."
Shame, SHAME on whoever thought it was ok to take and publish those photos without the consent of those involved!!
"The photographers must stop invading the privacy of the Maasai people, community, and culture. There are other ways to take images of the people without humiliating, invading, and exploiting the culture. Photographers can make profits without disrespecting the culture."
Damn straight.
"We are different from wild animals and are not running naked like monkeys, as the photographers depicted us. Each Maasai person has a name and disserves a respectful recognition and representation just as a westerner would do."
So, they've been mis-portrayed to make a buck? There's a shocker.
"On the other hand, the reader/viewer can learn about Maasai culture without supporting a disrespectful photographer. The reader has the power to change this behavior of a misbehaving photographer."
I truly hope that enough people can be persuaded to make the effort, because we SHOULD.
"We are appealing for assistance from people from all walks of life to help us protect Maasai culture from disrespectful photographers.
How you can help?
Do not buy books with nude images of indigenous people
Encourage your bookseller to buy books that are culturally sensitive to indigenous cultures
Let the bookseller and photographer know that you care about the source where images came from
Ask the photographer to show names of the persons s/he photographed
Ask the photographer to respect the privacy of the individual, community, and culture
Ask the photographer to respect the customs of indigenous people
Write to the photographer and encourage her/him to give something back to the community in which s/he photographed
We are confidence that your voice can make a difference."
Will you do it?
"It is important to make clear that we are not opposed to ordinary and respectful photographers. A tourist, for example, is free to take family pictures, as s/he wish, so long as s/he has obtained a consent from the individual.
Also, we are not opposed to learners who wish to understand the Maasai culture. In fact, we are glad to learn that people from all corners of the world are willing to learn about our culture."
They're not saying "you screwed us, so get lost," which is what WE would say under similar circumstances; they only ask to be treated with simple human dignity.
"What we are opposed to is commercial photography obtained without consent.
We have a problem when our culture is inaccurately and irrespectively documented and represented. We are not animalistic-like, and we do not run around without cloths. This is not how we live and see ourselves.
We respect other cultures and their way of life. As such, we expect the outside world to respect us in return. What might be accepted in your culture, might not be accepted in our culture. Cultural boundaries must be obeyed. Our culture must be represented in a respectful manner."
This is so basic, but I might have gone my entire life without ever seeing this sort of plea, or realizing just how hurtful and ugly our portrayal of them all too often is; maybe it's just too easy to assume that they'll never know, but whether they know or not, we should still NOT use images of them in improper ways.
"How do photographers raid for Maasai Images?
In many cases the photographers came in to the Maasai region accompanied by corrupt persons, officials, drivers, and tour guides, who received bribes from the photographers.
Upon their arrival to our community, we'd welcome them with open arms, and offer them the best accommodation available in our capacity.
At the end of his/ her visit, the photographer would turn around and spear us from the back.
It is unfortunate to see photographers misusing our noble generosity."
Taking advantage of the innocent kindness of a less devious, less "using" culture; they must be so PROUD. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The essay doesn't specify, but you know darned well that there have been plenty of scientists among the offenders; yet another example of arrogant white men being blinded by their contempt of people with brown faces and tribal cultures and thus veering sharply from anything like a scientific analysis of those cultures.
Regular readers are aware of my interest in indigenous peoples, for their spiritual perceptions and in general, because of which I watch alot of educational programming about them; I'll never look at those programs the same way again, and I'm going to take what they say about those cultures with a far bigger grain of salt than I did previously.
Let's show that not everyone thinks it's ok to take advantage of tribal cultures; pass the word about this issue.
http://www.maasai-infoline.org/
"Maasai is the correct spelling not Masai. Masai with one 'A' is incorect. In the future please spell Maasai with two AAs. We prefer Maasai, not Masai. The title Maasai derives from the word Maa. Maa-sai means my people."
How did we end up with the wrong spelling? Gee, I wonder... it couldn't be that whatever arrogant, condescending white person introduced the Western world to the Maasai decided that they didn't need the double "a," could it?
There's a great deal of valuable and interesting info on that site, which is run by a Maasai man, Kakuta ole Maimai, and therefore should actually reflect the views of their culture, as opposed to the subjective views of them put forth by white people who've studied them; the most interesting, and disturbing, section is the one called "Photo Raiders," which provides a long-overdue description of how at least some so-called "primitive" people view the eagerness of Westerners to exploit their "colorful" culture:
"Photographers are invading our culture
The Maasai people are among the indigenous people hunted by photographers..."
Invading... hunted. You can already see how they view camera-bearing white people.
"... who found free access into a land filled with exoticism, wildlife and tribal people, where the law to protect indigenous people remains scarce."
When you see documentaries about tribal cultures, or read about them in National Geographic, do you ever wonder what laws, if any, protect the people under observation, to keep them from being exploited or even mistreated? I'M going to think about that from now on, I guarantee it.
"Some western photographers are stepping over boundaries; they are not being sensitive to our culture and way of life. They are invading and exploiting our people and culture for profit purposes."
Well, there you have it; there's no reason to have ever thought that tribal peoples are thrilled to have white men charging around self-importantly in their midst, but this is truly shameful.
"Here are some questions to ask yourself, when looking at a portrait book with Maasai images:
Who is this person in the picture? What is her name? How does she feel being in a portrait book? Does she know that her picture is being sold in the western world? Did she receive anything in return? Has the photographer obtain a letter of consent from this person or from the community?"
I'm terribly afraid that I know the answers to those questions.
"Now look at a portrait book, or magazine, with images of western people. Repeat the same questions stated above."
I'm embarrassed to say that I never thought about these issues before, but everyone SHOULD think about them, because what good is our love of human rights, and the laws that protect those rights, if we're still acting like it's ok for us to treat indigenous cultures as if they don't deserve the same consideration as "civilized" (there's a laugh) people?
"It appeared that a wild animal is given a better recognition than a Maasai person.
When you visit a zoo, for example, you'll find that every animal, whether a lion, giraffe, gorilla, zebra, hippo, etc., has a name. If you talk to the keeper s/he will present that animal to you by its name. Why can't a photographer name a Maasai if s/he can name a wild animal? A Maasai is not less of a human being."
Did you cringe when you read that? How many times have you seen zoo animals in magazines or on TV where their names were given... and how many times have you seen images of tribal people with no names given for them?
"We have discovered disturbing images of our people in the western world
Recently, we came across images of a circumcision event, a sacred rite of passage that is not intended for the public. This discovery was shocking, sad, and disappointing to us, as this is a personal and sacred rite of passage that should have not been photographed, published, and sold to the public."
Shame, SHAME on whoever thought it was ok to take and publish those photos without the consent of those involved!!
"The photographers must stop invading the privacy of the Maasai people, community, and culture. There are other ways to take images of the people without humiliating, invading, and exploiting the culture. Photographers can make profits without disrespecting the culture."
Damn straight.
"We are different from wild animals and are not running naked like monkeys, as the photographers depicted us. Each Maasai person has a name and disserves a respectful recognition and representation just as a westerner would do."
So, they've been mis-portrayed to make a buck? There's a shocker.
"On the other hand, the reader/viewer can learn about Maasai culture without supporting a disrespectful photographer. The reader has the power to change this behavior of a misbehaving photographer."
I truly hope that enough people can be persuaded to make the effort, because we SHOULD.
"We are appealing for assistance from people from all walks of life to help us protect Maasai culture from disrespectful photographers.
How you can help?
Do not buy books with nude images of indigenous people
Encourage your bookseller to buy books that are culturally sensitive to indigenous cultures
Let the bookseller and photographer know that you care about the source where images came from
Ask the photographer to show names of the persons s/he photographed
Ask the photographer to respect the privacy of the individual, community, and culture
Ask the photographer to respect the customs of indigenous people
Write to the photographer and encourage her/him to give something back to the community in which s/he photographed
We are confidence that your voice can make a difference."
Will you do it?
"It is important to make clear that we are not opposed to ordinary and respectful photographers. A tourist, for example, is free to take family pictures, as s/he wish, so long as s/he has obtained a consent from the individual.
Also, we are not opposed to learners who wish to understand the Maasai culture. In fact, we are glad to learn that people from all corners of the world are willing to learn about our culture."
They're not saying "you screwed us, so get lost," which is what WE would say under similar circumstances; they only ask to be treated with simple human dignity.
"What we are opposed to is commercial photography obtained without consent.
We have a problem when our culture is inaccurately and irrespectively documented and represented. We are not animalistic-like, and we do not run around without cloths. This is not how we live and see ourselves.
We respect other cultures and their way of life. As such, we expect the outside world to respect us in return. What might be accepted in your culture, might not be accepted in our culture. Cultural boundaries must be obeyed. Our culture must be represented in a respectful manner."
This is so basic, but I might have gone my entire life without ever seeing this sort of plea, or realizing just how hurtful and ugly our portrayal of them all too often is; maybe it's just too easy to assume that they'll never know, but whether they know or not, we should still NOT use images of them in improper ways.
"How do photographers raid for Maasai Images?
In many cases the photographers came in to the Maasai region accompanied by corrupt persons, officials, drivers, and tour guides, who received bribes from the photographers.
Upon their arrival to our community, we'd welcome them with open arms, and offer them the best accommodation available in our capacity.
At the end of his/ her visit, the photographer would turn around and spear us from the back.
It is unfortunate to see photographers misusing our noble generosity."
Taking advantage of the innocent kindness of a less devious, less "using" culture; they must be so PROUD. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The essay doesn't specify, but you know darned well that there have been plenty of scientists among the offenders; yet another example of arrogant white men being blinded by their contempt of people with brown faces and tribal cultures and thus veering sharply from anything like a scientific analysis of those cultures.
Regular readers are aware of my interest in indigenous peoples, for their spiritual perceptions and in general, because of which I watch alot of educational programming about them; I'll never look at those programs the same way again, and I'm going to take what they say about those cultures with a far bigger grain of salt than I did previously.
Let's show that not everyone thinks it's ok to take advantage of tribal cultures; pass the word about this issue.
Friday, September 09, 2005
2-dimensional realities
"The Ring" was one of the scariest movies ever made; "The Ring Two" should never have BEEN made. I watched the latter tonight, and it got me thinking about one of our many odd tendencies as a species; to see the 2-dimensional images in mirrors, photos, paintings, movie and TV screens as windows into other kinds of realities, or doorways through which who knows what might be seen, or emerge, or through which we might be able to pass, voluntarily or by the will of some nameless force, and perhaps later return... or not. Think how many instances there are of horror or fantasy stories in every medium demonstrating this idea; the scariest example in anything I've ever read was in a short story by, who else, Stephen King, called "The Sun Dog," in which a "possessed" Polaroid camera spits out photos, not of our reality, but of... read it and see, you'll be glad you did.
What makes this sort of thing believable to us? Is it that our minds don't fully accept the existence of 2-dimensional images, which are the product of human creation or technology rather than nature, and thus at some level we believe that every such image is actually a real thing, that can be touched, and touch US, as is usually the case with real things... given the right (or wrong) circumstances? Whatever it is, something about 2-dimensional images, especially in mirrors, makes us uneasy; that's why the horror genre uses the concept so often.
Weirdly, though, when I used to have dreams incorporating this idea, it was always a positive and exciting thing; I had posters of a musician that I idolized, and in most of the dreams I'd reach my hand "into" one of the posters, take his hand, and bring him out to, er, hang around with me. Occasionally, he'd reach a hand out of the poster; one such time, as our hands met, a wave of "him-ness" flowed over me, and I BECAME him... which is a whole 'nother essay. Once, when I was deep into one of the grisliest nightmares I've ever had, I encountered him completely out of the poster (which was still there, but showing only the background he'd been posing in front of), leaning against my bureau and waiting for me; he looked down at me, crouched on the floor and covered in blood (don't ask), said "Come on, you've had enough," held out his hand, and, when I took it, instantly the blood, the pain, and the oozing cleft in the back of my skull where the ax had been buried (I said not to ask for a reason) were all gone, and I was able to stand up and... um, the dream got much better after that.
The more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes to me, especially since I'm aware that reality is NOT what it seems to be; when something makes us instinctively uneasy, it makes me wonder if our senses are picking up more about the true nature of reality than they usually do. In any case, I'll certainly never look at the classic plot of the Coyote painting a fake tunnel onto a rock wall, the Roadrunner running through it, a train coming out of it and flattening the Coyote, and then him inevitably trying to pass through it and getting flattened, the same way again... this thing is so much a part of us that even little kids "get it," or the cartoon wouldn't make sense to them.
Here's my final thought; some of the primates have been proven able to recognize 2-dimensional images... do they have the same innate uneasiness about them that we do?
What makes this sort of thing believable to us? Is it that our minds don't fully accept the existence of 2-dimensional images, which are the product of human creation or technology rather than nature, and thus at some level we believe that every such image is actually a real thing, that can be touched, and touch US, as is usually the case with real things... given the right (or wrong) circumstances? Whatever it is, something about 2-dimensional images, especially in mirrors, makes us uneasy; that's why the horror genre uses the concept so often.
Weirdly, though, when I used to have dreams incorporating this idea, it was always a positive and exciting thing; I had posters of a musician that I idolized, and in most of the dreams I'd reach my hand "into" one of the posters, take his hand, and bring him out to, er, hang around with me. Occasionally, he'd reach a hand out of the poster; one such time, as our hands met, a wave of "him-ness" flowed over me, and I BECAME him... which is a whole 'nother essay. Once, when I was deep into one of the grisliest nightmares I've ever had, I encountered him completely out of the poster (which was still there, but showing only the background he'd been posing in front of), leaning against my bureau and waiting for me; he looked down at me, crouched on the floor and covered in blood (don't ask), said "Come on, you've had enough," held out his hand, and, when I took it, instantly the blood, the pain, and the oozing cleft in the back of my skull where the ax had been buried (I said not to ask for a reason) were all gone, and I was able to stand up and... um, the dream got much better after that.
The more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes to me, especially since I'm aware that reality is NOT what it seems to be; when something makes us instinctively uneasy, it makes me wonder if our senses are picking up more about the true nature of reality than they usually do. In any case, I'll certainly never look at the classic plot of the Coyote painting a fake tunnel onto a rock wall, the Roadrunner running through it, a train coming out of it and flattening the Coyote, and then him inevitably trying to pass through it and getting flattened, the same way again... this thing is so much a part of us that even little kids "get it," or the cartoon wouldn't make sense to them.
Here's my final thought; some of the primates have been proven able to recognize 2-dimensional images... do they have the same innate uneasiness about them that we do?
Thursday, September 08, 2005
So, I ate some parsnips
There's a line I never thought I'd say in all of my supertasting, veggie-hating life, lol. As I posted on 8-7-05, I've discovered to my dismay that fructose consumption has been shown to lead to an astounding amount of weight gain even withOUT an increase in calorie consumption (at least in mice); since fruit is the only healthy thing I like that isn't also high in fat, I've been making it the bulk of my one small meal a day... and wondering why it was still such a struggle to keep my weight down. I declared my intention to start substituting rice and couscous (which I semi-like) for fruit, and I've been doing that; although I don't like the idea of wasting calories on foods that I can barely tolerate, I've also decided to start trying to eat root vegetables (and sadly, French fries do NOT count), as unlike grain, which was NOT a significant part of the diet of our early ancestors and thus should NOT be a big part of our modern diet no matter what the so-called experts say, roots were nearly the only thing early humans ate year-round, so they've gotta be one of the best things to eat, healthwise... and that's how I ended up peering mistrustfully at the anemic-looking parsnips on my plate this evening. As always with new foods, I had my husband try it 1st, and, since he showed no signs of dropping dead from parsnipitis, I gave it a shot; it wasn't bad, sort of carrotish but milder... and a little fibrous, but not as bad as celery, so it was ok.
I'd heard that carrots are "high sugar" veggies, and wondered if parsnips, which taste similar, are too; I did some research, and discovered that parsnips and carrots have about as much sugar as the berries that've made up the majority of my fruit consumption... I was eating a far larger portion of berries than I would of parsnips or carrots, though, so I'll stick with the roots, and eat far smaller amounts of berries from now on as well. Other fruits that I've also been eating have a great deal more sugar than berries, although since I was eating less huge portions of them it wasn't too much worse overall; I clearly need to cut back on ALL my fruit portions, and I may have to have a little rice when I have fruit, to give me enough food without too much fructose.
Now here's the scary thing; in the past few months, I've been having a little tummy discomfort and borderline nausea from eating fruit, which I'd attributed to its acidity and my being so thoroughly tired of eating it... but I got the exact same thing from the parsnips, and it was even stronger-I actually had to eat some pretzels to settle everything down. All I can deduce from this is that produce in general doesn't agree with me, although I've never heard of such a thing; this is going to make my attempts to keep my weight down and eat more healthily even more of a struggle than they already are, and may leave me in the ridiculous position of having to have pretzels for "dessert" in order to keep my dinner down, and not end every meal with digestive distress.
Along with my reduced tolerance for many plant foods, I've been an having ever-increasing inability to eat protein foods without eating carbs along with them (I get very nauseous), and some fatty foods, such as cheese and fast food, make me feel steadily more like I've eaten lead if I don't "cut" them with dry salties... in 10 years, what am I still going to be able to eat, just pretzels and nutritional supplements?
There are some days when I watch my husband eating 20 times a day, with a nearly infinite choice of foods, all of which he enjoys, and none of which cause any sort of problematic after-effects (except to the air quality of whatever room he's in), and it's hard to believe we're the same species; is it too much to ask for me to at least be able to eat 3 meals a day, with a quantity and variety of foods comparable to what a normal, healthy adult eats, with all of them tasting good to me, and none of them making me sorry for having eaten them?
Apparently so, sigh...
I'd heard that carrots are "high sugar" veggies, and wondered if parsnips, which taste similar, are too; I did some research, and discovered that parsnips and carrots have about as much sugar as the berries that've made up the majority of my fruit consumption... I was eating a far larger portion of berries than I would of parsnips or carrots, though, so I'll stick with the roots, and eat far smaller amounts of berries from now on as well. Other fruits that I've also been eating have a great deal more sugar than berries, although since I was eating less huge portions of them it wasn't too much worse overall; I clearly need to cut back on ALL my fruit portions, and I may have to have a little rice when I have fruit, to give me enough food without too much fructose.
Now here's the scary thing; in the past few months, I've been having a little tummy discomfort and borderline nausea from eating fruit, which I'd attributed to its acidity and my being so thoroughly tired of eating it... but I got the exact same thing from the parsnips, and it was even stronger-I actually had to eat some pretzels to settle everything down. All I can deduce from this is that produce in general doesn't agree with me, although I've never heard of such a thing; this is going to make my attempts to keep my weight down and eat more healthily even more of a struggle than they already are, and may leave me in the ridiculous position of having to have pretzels for "dessert" in order to keep my dinner down, and not end every meal with digestive distress.
Along with my reduced tolerance for many plant foods, I've been an having ever-increasing inability to eat protein foods without eating carbs along with them (I get very nauseous), and some fatty foods, such as cheese and fast food, make me feel steadily more like I've eaten lead if I don't "cut" them with dry salties... in 10 years, what am I still going to be able to eat, just pretzels and nutritional supplements?
There are some days when I watch my husband eating 20 times a day, with a nearly infinite choice of foods, all of which he enjoys, and none of which cause any sort of problematic after-effects (except to the air quality of whatever room he's in), and it's hard to believe we're the same species; is it too much to ask for me to at least be able to eat 3 meals a day, with a quantity and variety of foods comparable to what a normal, healthy adult eats, with all of them tasting good to me, and none of them making me sorry for having eaten them?
Apparently so, sigh...
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Digging out from under
My husband is a packrat; the only thing that keeps our home from being like that of the infamous sort of packrat with ceiling-high towers of newspapers is that he dumps everything in boxes and stacks THEM. It's not just newspapers, but magazines, catalogs for things he'll never buy, statements of various financial types (unopened, scarily enough) from his entire adult life, clothes his ever-expanding waistline will never let him fit into again (which is just as well for most of them), every piece of technical equipment he's ever owned over a quarter-century of geekhood, and mountains of other bits and pieces of little or no value that he can't bear to part with. He had some shred of restraint before we got married, since he was living in just one room in someone else's home, but once we moved into this house, with its many empty rooms (neither of us owned more than a piece or 2 of pre-marital furniture, so we had nothing to fix the rooms up with at first), attic and shed, his stuff began to increase exponentially, filling every room, every closet, every nook and cranny, such that we literally still haven't furnished most of our house after all our years of marriage because there's nowhere to PUT furniture (when I said we were geeks, I wasn't kidding). I've naturally tried many times over the years to get him to clear his junk out of all the rooms but the one assigned for just his use (plus the shed and attic), and either re-do the attic to hold it all or get a storage unit, and he always yeah-yeah-yeahed me without doing anything... and we were always so wildly busy, with so many emergencies and near-emergencies to deal with, that there was never any time to arm-twist him into such a huge project.
A couple of days ago, it hit me; middle age is looming ever nearer, and I'm living in what's essentially a warehouse with a handful of furnishings, 95% of my stuff is still at my mother's because there's nowhere to put it in my own frigging home, there are 2 of us here but he's using 99.99% of the floor area and storage space for HIS worthless old junk, I've never been able to invite a friend to stay here because there's literally nowhere for them to sleep unless they want to lay down in the middle of the hallway (we don't even have a COUCH), which I've long since run out of excuses to explain why he refuses to make any effort to fix (although people don't get the hint, and unfortunately keep asking what year they might be able to come for a visit, sigh), when we have company over we have to pile things into the narrow walking paths in the bedrooms, and onto the bed, and close all the doors, to be able to clear floorspace, counters, and table for people to be able to use (and to hide the fact that we live in what's essentially a giant trash heap), and, with our lives not quite half over, it's already become nearly impossible to get anything new because there isn't anywhere to store it... what are we supposed to do when the point of 100% saturation comes, as it will very soon?
I pointed all that out to my husband at full volume (imagine the ceiling cracking) while we were having our 10 billionth screaming battle about what he's going to do with his stuff... and suddenly, so undramatically that I didn't absorb it at 1st, he said that I was right, that we were almost out of room but not slowing down on acquiring new things, so he was going to get a big storage unit and start the lengthy process of moving all non-essential boxes of his stuff (which means nearly all of them) out of the house, and that the end goal would be FINALLY being able to bring all my stuff into my home, furnish and decorate all the rooms (except his study, where he'll still surround himself with boxes), and have guests come to stay like any nearly middle aged couple should have been able to do for 15 years or so.
I'm not holding my breath for the end goal to happen anytime soon, as clearing the house out will take quite a while, especially since it's not like my husband is going to take a bunch of vacation time to do it and so will have to do it gradually, but I can't over-state the importance of the process having begun, of my many years of living in a way that no one can believe 2 adults with our financial resources have lived all this time finally reaching an end. I was already past 30 when I married, and expected to be able to dive right in and create an established, comfortable home like my friends had right away, since we had a nice house and the $ to do it with; it didn't work out that way, but maybe, just maybe, by the time the big 4-0 rolls around, we'll have finally caught up with our peers and stopped living like college kids in their 1st apartment when we're almost old enough to be the PARENTS of those kids.
I hope they don't kick us out of the Geek Association for this...
A couple of days ago, it hit me; middle age is looming ever nearer, and I'm living in what's essentially a warehouse with a handful of furnishings, 95% of my stuff is still at my mother's because there's nowhere to put it in my own frigging home, there are 2 of us here but he's using 99.99% of the floor area and storage space for HIS worthless old junk, I've never been able to invite a friend to stay here because there's literally nowhere for them to sleep unless they want to lay down in the middle of the hallway (we don't even have a COUCH), which I've long since run out of excuses to explain why he refuses to make any effort to fix (although people don't get the hint, and unfortunately keep asking what year they might be able to come for a visit, sigh), when we have company over we have to pile things into the narrow walking paths in the bedrooms, and onto the bed, and close all the doors, to be able to clear floorspace, counters, and table for people to be able to use (and to hide the fact that we live in what's essentially a giant trash heap), and, with our lives not quite half over, it's already become nearly impossible to get anything new because there isn't anywhere to store it... what are we supposed to do when the point of 100% saturation comes, as it will very soon?
I pointed all that out to my husband at full volume (imagine the ceiling cracking) while we were having our 10 billionth screaming battle about what he's going to do with his stuff... and suddenly, so undramatically that I didn't absorb it at 1st, he said that I was right, that we were almost out of room but not slowing down on acquiring new things, so he was going to get a big storage unit and start the lengthy process of moving all non-essential boxes of his stuff (which means nearly all of them) out of the house, and that the end goal would be FINALLY being able to bring all my stuff into my home, furnish and decorate all the rooms (except his study, where he'll still surround himself with boxes), and have guests come to stay like any nearly middle aged couple should have been able to do for 15 years or so.
I'm not holding my breath for the end goal to happen anytime soon, as clearing the house out will take quite a while, especially since it's not like my husband is going to take a bunch of vacation time to do it and so will have to do it gradually, but I can't over-state the importance of the process having begun, of my many years of living in a way that no one can believe 2 adults with our financial resources have lived all this time finally reaching an end. I was already past 30 when I married, and expected to be able to dive right in and create an established, comfortable home like my friends had right away, since we had a nice house and the $ to do it with; it didn't work out that way, but maybe, just maybe, by the time the big 4-0 rolls around, we'll have finally caught up with our peers and stopped living like college kids in their 1st apartment when we're almost old enough to be the PARENTS of those kids.
I hope they don't kick us out of the Geek Association for this...
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
When is a pet not a pet?
Granted that any critter you own and feel affectionate towards can technically be seen as a pet, but what's the POINT of paying for food, supplies (cat litter, fish tank, bird cage) and medical bills for, cleaning up after the excretory functions (including vomit, drool and hairballs) of, dealing with the hair all over, and damage to, your possessions from, and the noise and other forms of disturbance of, a creature with which you don't have the affectionate interaction that's supposed to be the entire REASON for having a pet in the 1st place? There are several kinds of animal ownership in this gray area:
First, there's the so-called outdoor pet; isn't that a contradiction in terms? How can a creature whose apparent sole purpose is for you to see them out in the yard (wouldn't a statue do just as well, and cost less over time?), and that's rarely anywhere near you except of course when you've got food to give them, earn your love, much less be giving BACK enough love to make them worth the time, trouble and $ of owning them? Even if the outdoor pet is better than most, and can be called over to interact with you when you're outside, most people are too busy to stand around outdoors much anymore, so what's the benefit of an outdoor pet over, say, the neighbor's pet that will come to you to be petted when you're in the mood for animal contact, and that you don't have to scoop the poop of and pay to maintain? Why bother to obtain an animal just to have something running around your property, much less call it a pet?
(A couple of special points for "outside cat" owners, that you won't like but need to know; it's been shown that outdoor cats only live HALF as long on the average as indoor cats (with indoor/outdoor types falling in between), and many organizations that try to protect endangered birds plead with people to not let their cats roam outside, for the obvious reasons... so why not keep kitty inside where it'll live twice as long, and can only harm your stuff rather than irreplaceable wild creatures?)
Then, there's the "phantom pet," which is where the owner says something like: "She hasn't come out from under the couch in the 3 years since we got her, but her food gets eaten and she's using the litter box, so I know she's ok," or "He's very shy, and doesn't really like to be petted-I did touch him once for 2 seconds in 1999, though" or "She hates me, hates my family, hates all people, and hides in the closet when we're home, but loves to shred the couch and the curtains when we're at work"... any circumstance where there's allegedly an animal in the house but you can't be sure because no one ever sees, much less interacts with, it. This seems like an even worse deal for the owners than the outdoor pet, as the animal's hair and smell are in the house, as are their excretory functions, which will NOT always be in the litter box or on the papers, in addition to the potential damage they might cause; why not just get a stuffie and stick it in the closet or under the couch, which will look pretty much like the animal that's hiding there, and not cost you any time or $? Why bother with a creature that doesn't LIKE you, and is utterly uninterested in interacting with you, when there are so many sweet, loving animals getting put to sleep every single day that need good homes? If you don't care about having all the aggravations of pet ownership but none of the joys, think of the poor animal; why should it live its entire life with people it can't bear to be around? Give up the endless battle to win it over, give it to someone else or to a shelter (one where they DON'T put the animals down, of course) that can place it where it'll be happy, and rescue an animal from the Humane Society that'll be thrilled to live in your home with you.
Last but not least is the pet that's untouchable and/or incapable of loving you; fish, amphibians, reptiles (including poisonous ones, how's that for insanity?), tarantulas and sometimes birds fall into this category. Some of these creatures are attractive or interesting to look at, but pictures would be cheaper and less trouble... and realistically, few people that own this sort of pet spend much time looking at them, at least not that I've seen. Fish are calming to watch swim around, and some birds make nice tweeting sounds, but is that really enough reason to keep animals trapped in tiny enclosures for their entire lives, much less for you to have to care for them? While birds ARE capable of seeking and giving affection, some do not, and of course all the other, lower sorts of creatures in this category aren't capable of love, no matter how much their eagerly approaching their food-providers in the hopes of food, or happily laying on their warm owners to heat their little bodies up, may appear otherwise to owners inexplicably eager to believe that creatures so far down the evolutionary ladder care about them. Even assuming there's some thrill to, say, having a tank with a lizard in it that sits motionless on a branch for 23 hours and 55 minutes a day, one which makes it worth the expense, the tank-cleaning, and often the handling of live bugs to feed it, why call such a thing a pet?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine for people to have whatever critters they want, as long as there's no cruelty, law-breaking, or endangerment of people, animals or the property of others involved, and they can feel any way they want about those creatures, and see them as pets, as children, or whatever makes them happy... I just want to point out that to those of us looking in from the outside, it plain doesn't make sense how much people are willing to expend or endure for animals that don't give anything back, and why they feel the need to call every living thing on their property other than plants "pets."
What do *I* think qualifies a creature to be a pet for my own life? When I say that someday my husband and I would like to have pets, I mean animals that will live in our home with us, hang out with us just for the pleasure of being with us (as opposed to in the hope of being fed), demonstrate love for us, and seek our love and attention in return. I want animals that will sit on my lap or at my heel, follow me around the house, and be waiting eagerly at the door when I get home. An animal who gives its loyalty and its heart is worthy of a great deal of time and expense to give it what it needs, because such a creature possesses as pure of a kind of goodness as exists in the world, the sort of unswerving, unselfish devotion that we humans can't match. An animal like that DESERVES the most special label we can give it; pet.
First, there's the so-called outdoor pet; isn't that a contradiction in terms? How can a creature whose apparent sole purpose is for you to see them out in the yard (wouldn't a statue do just as well, and cost less over time?), and that's rarely anywhere near you except of course when you've got food to give them, earn your love, much less be giving BACK enough love to make them worth the time, trouble and $ of owning them? Even if the outdoor pet is better than most, and can be called over to interact with you when you're outside, most people are too busy to stand around outdoors much anymore, so what's the benefit of an outdoor pet over, say, the neighbor's pet that will come to you to be petted when you're in the mood for animal contact, and that you don't have to scoop the poop of and pay to maintain? Why bother to obtain an animal just to have something running around your property, much less call it a pet?
(A couple of special points for "outside cat" owners, that you won't like but need to know; it's been shown that outdoor cats only live HALF as long on the average as indoor cats (with indoor/outdoor types falling in between), and many organizations that try to protect endangered birds plead with people to not let their cats roam outside, for the obvious reasons... so why not keep kitty inside where it'll live twice as long, and can only harm your stuff rather than irreplaceable wild creatures?)
Then, there's the "phantom pet," which is where the owner says something like: "She hasn't come out from under the couch in the 3 years since we got her, but her food gets eaten and she's using the litter box, so I know she's ok," or "He's very shy, and doesn't really like to be petted-I did touch him once for 2 seconds in 1999, though" or "She hates me, hates my family, hates all people, and hides in the closet when we're home, but loves to shred the couch and the curtains when we're at work"... any circumstance where there's allegedly an animal in the house but you can't be sure because no one ever sees, much less interacts with, it. This seems like an even worse deal for the owners than the outdoor pet, as the animal's hair and smell are in the house, as are their excretory functions, which will NOT always be in the litter box or on the papers, in addition to the potential damage they might cause; why not just get a stuffie and stick it in the closet or under the couch, which will look pretty much like the animal that's hiding there, and not cost you any time or $? Why bother with a creature that doesn't LIKE you, and is utterly uninterested in interacting with you, when there are so many sweet, loving animals getting put to sleep every single day that need good homes? If you don't care about having all the aggravations of pet ownership but none of the joys, think of the poor animal; why should it live its entire life with people it can't bear to be around? Give up the endless battle to win it over, give it to someone else or to a shelter (one where they DON'T put the animals down, of course) that can place it where it'll be happy, and rescue an animal from the Humane Society that'll be thrilled to live in your home with you.
Last but not least is the pet that's untouchable and/or incapable of loving you; fish, amphibians, reptiles (including poisonous ones, how's that for insanity?), tarantulas and sometimes birds fall into this category. Some of these creatures are attractive or interesting to look at, but pictures would be cheaper and less trouble... and realistically, few people that own this sort of pet spend much time looking at them, at least not that I've seen. Fish are calming to watch swim around, and some birds make nice tweeting sounds, but is that really enough reason to keep animals trapped in tiny enclosures for their entire lives, much less for you to have to care for them? While birds ARE capable of seeking and giving affection, some do not, and of course all the other, lower sorts of creatures in this category aren't capable of love, no matter how much their eagerly approaching their food-providers in the hopes of food, or happily laying on their warm owners to heat their little bodies up, may appear otherwise to owners inexplicably eager to believe that creatures so far down the evolutionary ladder care about them. Even assuming there's some thrill to, say, having a tank with a lizard in it that sits motionless on a branch for 23 hours and 55 minutes a day, one which makes it worth the expense, the tank-cleaning, and often the handling of live bugs to feed it, why call such a thing a pet?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine for people to have whatever critters they want, as long as there's no cruelty, law-breaking, or endangerment of people, animals or the property of others involved, and they can feel any way they want about those creatures, and see them as pets, as children, or whatever makes them happy... I just want to point out that to those of us looking in from the outside, it plain doesn't make sense how much people are willing to expend or endure for animals that don't give anything back, and why they feel the need to call every living thing on their property other than plants "pets."
What do *I* think qualifies a creature to be a pet for my own life? When I say that someday my husband and I would like to have pets, I mean animals that will live in our home with us, hang out with us just for the pleasure of being with us (as opposed to in the hope of being fed), demonstrate love for us, and seek our love and attention in return. I want animals that will sit on my lap or at my heel, follow me around the house, and be waiting eagerly at the door when I get home. An animal who gives its loyalty and its heart is worthy of a great deal of time and expense to give it what it needs, because such a creature possesses as pure of a kind of goodness as exists in the world, the sort of unswerving, unselfish devotion that we humans can't match. An animal like that DESERVES the most special label we can give it; pet.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Joel Osteen got laid tonight
Osteen begins his sermons with a joke, which is a clever way to set an upbeat tone and start everyone off with a positive mindset. Tonight's joke really demonstrated his sly humor: A Hindu priest, a rabbi and a televangelist were traveling together, and when night came they asked a farmer if they could stay with him. The farmer was willing, but pointed out that he only had room for 2 of them to sleep in the house, so the 3rd would have to sleep in the barn; the men agreed, and the Hindu priest announced that he'd be the one to sleep in the barn. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door, and it was him, saying that there was a cow in the barn, which was a sacred animal to him, so he couldn't sleep there; the rabbi said that he'd go out there instead. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door, and it was him, saying that there was a pig in the barn, so he couldn't sleep there, as it wouldn't be kosher; the televangelist said that he'd go sleep in the barn, and off he went. A few minutes later, there was a knock on the door... and it was the cow and the pig. lol
The central theme of tonight's sermon was the idea of choosing to be happy, no matter what your situation is. For example, you might hate your job, but instead of feeling that way, you could choose to be grateful that you're not standing in the unemployment line, and if you're cranky about having to do the dishes, you could instead choose to be grateful that you have a place to live and something to eat. He asserts that you can retrain yourself to enjoy rather than endure, by finding the positive aspects of every situation and focusing on them rather than on the negatives, even when the negatives are substantial; he's right for the most part, although I'D assert that when things are really bad, few people are able to still see them in a positive light... in general, though, we cry far too much about far too little, even when we have far more than 99% of the people on this planet could ever dream of having, and we'll be healthier and happier if we think of it that way.
Osteen tells us that it's not enough to enjoy SOME of what we do each day; don't dread part of your life and enjoy the other, but find a way to make EVERY part of the day feel good. He warns against getting caught up with little negatives too, because they can bog you down and make your whole day seem bad, and aren't remotely worth it; a negative day is a wasted day, so the smart thing to do is to try to make every day a good day. Considering the power of our thoughts and feelings, that's excellent advice, but I suspect that those of us who can't assure ourselves that a loving God is going to fix everything if we use force of will to be positive even when our lives objectively aren't will have a harder time managing it.
Perhaps the most important point of the sermon was that if you take on a false sense of responsibility for creating the right choices of others, you'll almost surely fail, and will make yourself unhappy; he wasn't referring to small children, who need adult guidance, but to other adults, each of whom bears 100% responsibility for their own choices and their outcomes, and whom psychologists keep telling us are impossible to force to change... which isn't totally true, as any wife who's made her husband start putting the toilet seat back down can attest, but is generally true, and so we have to just shrug and let go of most of our attempts to improve those around us.
In summary, almost every day we can find an excuse to not be happy, but we don't have to use it; don't wait for everything to get better before you start enjoying life, choose to start enjoying it right now, and things will start to FEEL better, and eventually you'll perceive them to BE better. We're such a complaining, whiny culture that most people won't even want to try this... but imagine if any significant # of us succeeded.
What does any of that have to do with Joel Osteen getting laid? No disrespect is intended towards him by my saying that, in fact I admire how he worked the following into his sermon; while he was talking about how we should feel about our marital partners, he described how terrific his own marriage and wife were, which could easily be glib and thus not mean much... but then he said that if he had the choice between spending time with a bunch guys or with her, he'd choose her (even though that meant he'd have to go to the mall, lol), and that comment about the woman he's been married to for 18 years, so contrary to how most women at least think their own men would react to that choice, was guaranteed to get Osteen some appreciation that night.
Atta boy, Joel!! :-)
The central theme of tonight's sermon was the idea of choosing to be happy, no matter what your situation is. For example, you might hate your job, but instead of feeling that way, you could choose to be grateful that you're not standing in the unemployment line, and if you're cranky about having to do the dishes, you could instead choose to be grateful that you have a place to live and something to eat. He asserts that you can retrain yourself to enjoy rather than endure, by finding the positive aspects of every situation and focusing on them rather than on the negatives, even when the negatives are substantial; he's right for the most part, although I'D assert that when things are really bad, few people are able to still see them in a positive light... in general, though, we cry far too much about far too little, even when we have far more than 99% of the people on this planet could ever dream of having, and we'll be healthier and happier if we think of it that way.
Osteen tells us that it's not enough to enjoy SOME of what we do each day; don't dread part of your life and enjoy the other, but find a way to make EVERY part of the day feel good. He warns against getting caught up with little negatives too, because they can bog you down and make your whole day seem bad, and aren't remotely worth it; a negative day is a wasted day, so the smart thing to do is to try to make every day a good day. Considering the power of our thoughts and feelings, that's excellent advice, but I suspect that those of us who can't assure ourselves that a loving God is going to fix everything if we use force of will to be positive even when our lives objectively aren't will have a harder time managing it.
Perhaps the most important point of the sermon was that if you take on a false sense of responsibility for creating the right choices of others, you'll almost surely fail, and will make yourself unhappy; he wasn't referring to small children, who need adult guidance, but to other adults, each of whom bears 100% responsibility for their own choices and their outcomes, and whom psychologists keep telling us are impossible to force to change... which isn't totally true, as any wife who's made her husband start putting the toilet seat back down can attest, but is generally true, and so we have to just shrug and let go of most of our attempts to improve those around us.
In summary, almost every day we can find an excuse to not be happy, but we don't have to use it; don't wait for everything to get better before you start enjoying life, choose to start enjoying it right now, and things will start to FEEL better, and eventually you'll perceive them to BE better. We're such a complaining, whiny culture that most people won't even want to try this... but imagine if any significant # of us succeeded.
What does any of that have to do with Joel Osteen getting laid? No disrespect is intended towards him by my saying that, in fact I admire how he worked the following into his sermon; while he was talking about how we should feel about our marital partners, he described how terrific his own marriage and wife were, which could easily be glib and thus not mean much... but then he said that if he had the choice between spending time with a bunch guys or with her, he'd choose her (even though that meant he'd have to go to the mall, lol), and that comment about the woman he's been married to for 18 years, so contrary to how most women at least think their own men would react to that choice, was guaranteed to get Osteen some appreciation that night.
Atta boy, Joel!! :-)
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Not all nudity is the same
One of the saddest aspects of American culture is our inability to deal with nudity; we legislate against it on the one hand, and then pursue it ardently on the other hand... and wonder why other cultures see us as childish.
We all know what the "dirty parts" are; breasts (but NOT the male chest, doesn't that seem odd when looked at objectively?), butt and genitals... but these parts aren't ALWAYS dirty:
A woman can legally show her bare breasts, nipples included, in public if it's part of the process of breastfeeding... but otherwise, it's indecent exposure.
Depending on where you live, a thong bathing suit, which fully reveals the buttocks, might or might not be legal at the beach... and is very likely ILlegal away from the beach.
It's legal for a baby or small child to be totally nude in public, but NOT for an adult to be nude in public (I wonder at what age it switches from legal to illegal); child nudity in photos, TV shows and movies, however, might be illegal depending on how it's handled and what city you're in (laws about photography are particularly inconsistent), while an adult can appear nude in any media they choose.
It's illegal to put photos of nude or semi-nude people in most public places, including schools and gov't buildings, but ART depicting full-frontal nudity IS ok. Most states forbid even the mildest cheesecake photos in the workplace, as they count as "sexual harassment," but, again, ART showing even complete nudity would be totally ok.
We've got lots of statues depicting females with bare breasts, and everyone thinks that's alright (except for John Ashcroft, lol), but if a woman stood next to one of those statues with her real-life breasts bared, that'd be indecent exposure.
TV channels that have advertising pretty much follow the traditional standards about nudity, but there are a couple of major exceptions:
Educational programs about tribal cultures have created the term "indigenous nudity" to refer to anything from bare butts to genitals that got captured on film... and I don't mean "Gee, what's that 50 feet away, is that a bare penis?", I mean tight body shots that are meant to show them doing something like making spears, but are also showcasing, er, other things the men take pride in, and in prime time no less. A program with a white man showing HIS genitals, on the other hand, even if he were also making spears, would be so illegal that they'd never DARE try it.
The other exception is when showing childbirth, and it's that type of show that got me thinking about all this; I was watching an interesting program about the development of a baby in the womb, and upon hearing a shriek I looked up from my keyboard to see a FULL-SCREEN closeup of the mother's genitals with the baby's head starting to emerge... normally, you'd have to look at hard-core porn to see that sort of extreme pudendal image, but this show came on at 7PM on the National Geographic channel. They had a couple more shots of that type, and, much as I admire mothers and think that childbirth is miraculous and all that... I just don't think anyone needs to see genital images of that size unless they're, um, doing something private at the same time. It goes without saying that under ANY other circumstances you can NOT show that sort of thing on non-porn channels; I'm all for greater acceptance of nudity, but I think that's just as well... the human body is beautiful, but few anatomical parts look good THAT close up.
Now that we've broken down some of the taboos about nudity on TV, it'll be interesting to see what other stuff they'll be trying to show; there's already some envelope-pushing occurring with a show on the Discovery channel called "Going Tribal," in which British cutie Bruce Parry lives with various isolated tribes, adopting their ways and trying to be accepted by them... and showing his bare and quite-attractive butt in most episodes, which I assume is deemed ok because the "tribal men" are showing theirs, and there's no reasonable way to allow one but not the other. (I highly recommend the show, by the way, and NOT just because of Bruce's butt.) My best guess for what'll come next is that they're going to try to start showing nudity on some of the grittier reality shows... what do you think?
We all know what the "dirty parts" are; breasts (but NOT the male chest, doesn't that seem odd when looked at objectively?), butt and genitals... but these parts aren't ALWAYS dirty:
A woman can legally show her bare breasts, nipples included, in public if it's part of the process of breastfeeding... but otherwise, it's indecent exposure.
Depending on where you live, a thong bathing suit, which fully reveals the buttocks, might or might not be legal at the beach... and is very likely ILlegal away from the beach.
It's legal for a baby or small child to be totally nude in public, but NOT for an adult to be nude in public (I wonder at what age it switches from legal to illegal); child nudity in photos, TV shows and movies, however, might be illegal depending on how it's handled and what city you're in (laws about photography are particularly inconsistent), while an adult can appear nude in any media they choose.
It's illegal to put photos of nude or semi-nude people in most public places, including schools and gov't buildings, but ART depicting full-frontal nudity IS ok. Most states forbid even the mildest cheesecake photos in the workplace, as they count as "sexual harassment," but, again, ART showing even complete nudity would be totally ok.
We've got lots of statues depicting females with bare breasts, and everyone thinks that's alright (except for John Ashcroft, lol), but if a woman stood next to one of those statues with her real-life breasts bared, that'd be indecent exposure.
TV channels that have advertising pretty much follow the traditional standards about nudity, but there are a couple of major exceptions:
Educational programs about tribal cultures have created the term "indigenous nudity" to refer to anything from bare butts to genitals that got captured on film... and I don't mean "Gee, what's that 50 feet away, is that a bare penis?", I mean tight body shots that are meant to show them doing something like making spears, but are also showcasing, er, other things the men take pride in, and in prime time no less. A program with a white man showing HIS genitals, on the other hand, even if he were also making spears, would be so illegal that they'd never DARE try it.
The other exception is when showing childbirth, and it's that type of show that got me thinking about all this; I was watching an interesting program about the development of a baby in the womb, and upon hearing a shriek I looked up from my keyboard to see a FULL-SCREEN closeup of the mother's genitals with the baby's head starting to emerge... normally, you'd have to look at hard-core porn to see that sort of extreme pudendal image, but this show came on at 7PM on the National Geographic channel. They had a couple more shots of that type, and, much as I admire mothers and think that childbirth is miraculous and all that... I just don't think anyone needs to see genital images of that size unless they're, um, doing something private at the same time. It goes without saying that under ANY other circumstances you can NOT show that sort of thing on non-porn channels; I'm all for greater acceptance of nudity, but I think that's just as well... the human body is beautiful, but few anatomical parts look good THAT close up.
Now that we've broken down some of the taboos about nudity on TV, it'll be interesting to see what other stuff they'll be trying to show; there's already some envelope-pushing occurring with a show on the Discovery channel called "Going Tribal," in which British cutie Bruce Parry lives with various isolated tribes, adopting their ways and trying to be accepted by them... and showing his bare and quite-attractive butt in most episodes, which I assume is deemed ok because the "tribal men" are showing theirs, and there's no reasonable way to allow one but not the other. (I highly recommend the show, by the way, and NOT just because of Bruce's butt.) My best guess for what'll come next is that they're going to try to start showing nudity on some of the grittier reality shows... what do you think?
