50 Shades of Abuse

This post is not suitable for minors.

To recap: on Facebook I shared an article suggesting that the novel 50 Shades of Grey had the potential to mislead young people into thinking that abusive relationships were erotic.

Here's the article:

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2015-02-talk-kids-50-shades-grey/

And here's the gist of it:

The book and movie perpetuate the idea that the abuse and sexual control of women is sexy.

Not for the first time, the topic of BDSM arose in the conversation. I personally think that's a red herring, and I'll explain why in a bit.

First, if we're going to talk about this, then we have to look at what consent is.

The dictionary says it is permission given to do something. Tacitly, I believe, this implies permission given freely with all available information. So, if I give you permission to walk on my lawn, I do so without any pressure or coercion on your part, and with an understanding that "walk on" does not mean drive on it, or dig it up, or pour salt on it. Plus, that permission was only given to you, not 200 others, that it applies only for the time we have agreed upon, and that I can withdraw that permission at whim.

One of the things that is so wonderful about humans is that out of politeness, respect, and good upbringing, most of us cope just fine with this sort of thing. We tend not to overstep the mark. When invited into somebody's home we don't rummage through their cupboards or jump on the beds, despite not being told how to behave. We know what's acceptable and what isn't.

But before any of that, we have a few other understandings. Normally, you don't just walk into somebody's home without invitation, even if the door is wide open. And you don't invite yourself to dinner, you wait to be asked.

My dog Sirius has no boundaries like that. If your door was open, he'd wander in, help himself to any food that wasn't being watched over, tip out your garbage, and try to have sex with your cat.

So, when humans have no boundaries we tend to call them animals, and this distinction comes from the rules we have come up with in human society to get along peacefully.

Boundaries and consent are particularly important in matters of sexual activity, and even in the simplest concepts of personal space. You may have heard of the girl who shamed a man who touched her on an airplane by putting his photo on the internet. He said it was a mistake. It sure was. But it wasn't an accident.

He overstepped boundaries, and he did not have her consent. 

The boundaries are not marked. They are not mapped. This is something we have to learn as we grow up. It's part of our culture, and it does vary a bit, but generally speaking in modern society people know when and where they can touch another person. Without consent to go beyond that, there will be objection, and it's a totally justified objection.

Now, I'm famous among those who know me well for saying that in my opinion sexual acts of any kind between any two consenting parties are entirely their business, and you won't hear a word of objection from me. This statement is considered quite shocking by some people, and I have even been called immoral for it. But think about it for a moment. Unless there is betrayal of a third party, which is a whole other matter, this mutual consent harms nobody. It doesn't matter what this couple do, it's between them and it's nobody else's business.

My husband and I (OH GOD I SOUND LIKE THE QUEEN!) have a running joke about ear sex. We don't actually DO IT, because neither of us actually gets anything out of it. We are just very silly people, and quite often very inappropriate, and probably not the best people to invite to dinner when your church lady aunt comes over. But the reason we joke about ear sex is that some people have tried it. And while I don't have any data here (maybe you do?) I guarantee that some of them liked it. Because humans vary enormously in what turns them on.

I use this example simply because on a scale of 0-100 in erotic appeal, ear sex scores a zero, as far as I'm concerned. I imagine that's a fairly common score. Probably ranking around the same as sex with the Eiffel tower (oh yes, somebody did).

On the other hand foot fetishes are quite common, and China even had a long-standing fetish over deformed feet. Still a zero for me, but in this example there are many people who'd rate it higher, some much higher.

Now I'm going to say something that will cause a wide variety of reactions. What is 100% for me? Bet you've often wondered! Well, I'll be honest, it's how my husband smells, and I'm not talking about his cologne (although some of those rank quite high). I am, in this respect, a bit of an animal. He's a clean man, showers a lot, but he has a warm musky smell that goes straight to my hormones.

For some people THAT would be a zero. I can see their "ewwwwww" faces from here. But that's the thing you see, we're all different, and it's all OK.

Moreover, he is not offended by being sniffed. Well, not by me anyway. If the sheep do it he's not so keen.

So that's the first part of this, the turn on. It's different for everyone and it's absolutely nobody else's business, and it can't be helped anyway. Even if you have some sort of disorder where you are turned on by watching a beheading, so long as you don't act it out, it doesn't matter. (I would recommend therapy though, seriously). What goes on in our heads is private and harmless. It is a fantasy.

Where do these fantasies come from? They have to come from somewhere. Hold that thought.

So, what if you have a fantasy that you want to act out? Well, you find somebody willing to join in. This is where the problems start. These days it's probably easier, I daresay there's a website where you fill out a questionnaire, checking off your own list of kinks, and the system matches you with someone with the same kinks. Perfect. You arrange a meet. Etc etc. But otherwise you have to find a partner who is attracted to you, and THEN drop the bombshell that you want to do X. It could be the end of the relationship right there and then. The horrified look on their face, the slamming door, the refusal to return calls. The restraining order. Well, let's hope it doesn't go that far.

As I mentioned earlier, one popular bit of sex play, to the point of becoming a lifestyle in some couples, is BDSM. It's so popular in fact that I don't need to explain it to you. I've spoken to many people who engage in this, and I think I get the picture. I do understand that it's quite safe, and totally consensual. Which makes it perfectly OK. It doesn't appeal to me, but I don't disapprove, because I don't see the harm in it. Simple as that.

If you two enjoy it, my friends, anything goes.

Let's go back to consent. The law of the land says that there are limits to consent, and one of these is age. The age of consent differs quite dramatically around the world, but here are the ages in the countries my main blog readers live:

Canada - 16
USA - 16 to 18, depending on state
UK - 16
France - 15
India - 18
Australia - 16 (17 in Tasmania)
Ireland -17

There are provisos with this age around the world, for example, in Italy it's 14, but 16 if the older person is in a position of trust, such as a teacher or priest. Other provisos depend on the age of the older party, and the type of sex. For example in countries where homosexual acts are permitted by law they often require a higher age of consent.

While we're here I may as well give the extremes:

Angola - 12
Bahrain - 21

Why do we have a legal age of consent? Well, because it is considered that under that age the consent cannot be freely given. In fact while the high ages in some countries looks like it's protecting young people, and this is the reason given, if you look closely the real reason behind it is different. These are countries where homosexuality is forbidden (so these are only ages of consent for WOMEN), and in some cases so is any sex outside marriage. So, in fact, this is more to do with control over women's choices than protection.

Nevertheless there has to be protection of the young and vulnerable, the question is what is the appropriate age for consent? The variation suggests there's no real consensus here. Clearly it is going to vary from individual to individual, and the law cannot possibly deal with that in advance, so most countries err on the side of caution. While many 14 or 15 year old women are ready to make an informed choice, having 16 as the line in the sand covers those who are not. (Some are not ready at 35, but that's another matter.)

Can young people be persuaded to perform sexual acts against their will? Certainly. In fact this is not restricted to the young. "Grooming", which is normally a speciality of pedophiles, can be achieved with any person who is naive enough not to see what's happening.

Grooming is only a malicious extension of customary behaviour, and this is why these things are so difficult to deal with. A harmless version of grooming is called social norms. Think about it. In a culture where the age of consent is 12, those involved see this as normal. There may be physical problems associated with it (a 12-year-old body is really NOT equipped to deal with pregnancy) but culturally there would be no shame, and no repercussions.

But in a culture where 12 is considered OK, 11 is not. They still have limits. There is always a limit, even when we think the limit is way off.

As I mentioned earlier, some countries have limits regarding the type of sex. If you live in a culture where homosexual activity is forbidden by law, as it was once in most of the world, it changes the attitudes of the masses. In the 1950s if you asked the average person what they thought about gay sex, they would say they disapproved. If you asked why, they'd simply tell you it was wrong. They probably hadn't given it a lot of thought. It was just not the done thing. The broader minded would have giggled about it. They may disapprove less, but still "feel" it was wrong, it was "naughty", hence the humour. Only those who took part would approve, and even many of those felt very ashamed of it, not just because it was illegal, but because it felt wrong.

And these average people who just dismissed it as wrong, were not bigots. This was not hate. This was normal, cultural attitudes, based on very little information and lots of peer pressure to disapprove. They can be forgiven for not knowing any better.

These days it's a bit different. In the liberal parts of the western world, where homosexuality is legal, in some cases gay marriage is legal, and where we are all used to having openly gay friends, it becomes an informed choice to disapprove. It's now a controversial issue, and you can be looked down upon if you say it's wrong. Older people who remember how it used to be, have a much harder time adjusting to this new cultural norm, and some never will. Young people with no memory of the days of illegality and disapproval tend to be far more tolerant, because they just see it as normal. That's how cultural norms work.

Essentially, if you want to change how society feels about something, it takes a generation or two.

I want you to think about our attitudes towards how we dress. I've talked about this many time before, but I always think it's a good example about our attitudes and how they can be manipulated. Everyone wears clothes, so we can all relate to it.

If you grow up in a culture where the majority of people think you should cover as much of your body as possible, you will likely think that too. There will be rebels, there are always freethinkers, but they are the minority. To make change you need secondary rebels. These are the people who are influenced by the freethinkers, they are effectively imitators. If you are trying to bring about social change you need to influence others, you need support. And your first supporters will come to you willingly. They are very keen, they just aren't quite as innovative. They needed that catalyst.

So, in our example, the rebels refuse to wear the all-over covering. They may show an ankle here or there, and chances are they'll be ridiculed, or in certain places, punished by law. They will be frowned upon by the majority, regardless. When there are enough secondary rebels supporting the cause, it becomes easier for more to join, until there's a critical mass effect. This is done by a very subtle persuasion, not force, but peer pressure. Fashion.

What happens at some point is that even those who aren't too sure about covering themselves less, get swept along by the tide. If you've ever been on a topless beach you'll have seen the phenomenon. First day out some girls are shy, but eventually wearing a top feels awkward, and off it comes.

In the 1880s in the western world it was daring to show an ankle. In the 1960s mini skirts caused a stir. Now the limit of controversy in most circles is whether nipples should show through a top. Nudity itself is acceptable in some situations, and we have gone to an extreme. I guarantee that the pendulum will slowly swing back the other way at some point, hopefully not too far.

It has already swung to the other extreme in other parts of the world. In some cultures women even cover their eyes and hands. This is linked to Islam, but it's not actually a religious requirement. It is a political and cultural phenomenon.

Strangely enough, in the 1960s in some of these places, women were wearing mini skirts. How did they get from that to the burqa? It wasn't rebellion within their own ranks. It wasn't their choice. It came from male authority. BUT, once that was established and some time passed a strange thing happened. Young women started wearing this garment in places where it wasn't compulsory. In fact, even in places where it is disapproved of or actually banned, some fight for the right to wear it. There are several reasons for this, in some cases it's an identity statement, a feminist statement, or a political statement. In some cases it is ideological brainwashing, and it can come from other women.

(On that topic, read this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/05/384058724/all-female-jihadi-group-delivers-guide-to-life-under-islamic-state)

But the vast majority of women who wear the burqa where it is not new, do so simply because they are accustomed to it. It feels normal and comfortable. They would no more feel themselves if forced to walk down the street in jeans and a t-shirt, than most western women would fel if forced to walk down the street naked. So, do they want to wear a burqa? Yes, they do. But not by free, informed choice. It's consent and yet........it's not. This is fashion in extremis.

Now, we have a similar phenomenon that occurs here in the west with make-up. Yes, really. Most men do not wear make-up (more's the pity, I love a man in eyeliner). They used to, long ago, but currently, outside of TV/stage/movies men don't. Women frequently do wear make-up, especially for work or formal occasions, and some just put it on when they get up in the morning even if they are not going out. And this is considered normal. A single gender habit. What's more, most of the women who do so, will tell you they do it not just willingly, but with relish. If you took away their right to wear make-up they'd feel naked or cheated. They'd fight for it. As a result of understanding this, some women refuse to wear make-up. They go to the other extreme. Some won't even wear it on TV, and look quite sick under those lights, but it's a statement. Some women have fun with make-up and wear it "wrong". On purpose. Because there are unwritten fashion rules here.

My view to make-up is that if you enjoy it, ENJOY IT! If you don't, then don't wear it. But if you don't enjoy it, and wear it because you feel a pressure to do so, even if it's only female peer pressure, or you feel naked or ugly without it, then you know why women wear burqas.

Basically ladies, you've been tricked.

Female peer pressure, fashion, and the pressure to look "right" (attractive or following the rules) are powerful in all sorts of other ways. How we present ourselves to the rest of society takes up our time, our money, and our energy. There is a lot of stress involved. Some employers insist on women wearing make-up, or heels, or skirts, or whatever, even if they don't meet the public, and despite this being an infringement of personal rights, they find ways to justify it. It is an expectation, part of the dress code (which is usually already ridiculous) with dire consequences for rebellion. It's bollocks, but it's a reality.

And frankly, most people think about it very little. Men hardly at all. We are so used to these sort of norms that unless a stirrer like me mentions them, we forget we even have choices.

I'll never forget the occasion when I said much of this to a girl on a forum, and she told me sharply "you make it sound as if it's wrong to want to look pretty". I told her to define pretty, and she couldn't. Which upset her, confused her, bothered her. I couldn't see her face obviously, but I think I can guess how it looked. I challenged her to actually give this some thought, and when she was ready to discuss it (took a while) she said she had had some sort of personal epiphany which dragged up all sorts of baggage about criticism by her sister and so on. I think...maybe...I changed her life a little. I am that primary rebel, and I do influence people, but I don't pressure them. I just make them think.

Now I want you to think about propaganda, and how it works. It's very similar.

Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to convince people (plural) that something is good or bad, true or false, just or unjust, in order to reach your own aims. It is not just a lie, but a whole system of lying. It works in the same way fashion works, but with a real agenda. Governments do it to their own people, and also to the people in "enemy" nations. Employers do it to the workforce. The wealthy and powerful do it to increase their wealth and power, via politicians or media. Advertising is part of the arsenal, but nowadays propaganda can spread though social media faster, and for free, if you get the right starting point. It's powerful stuff. You can win wars with the right propaganda.

Goes without saying, it's sometimes also a false accusation. The whole vaccination thing comes to mind. Apparently vaccinations are the government trying to kill us all, and the diseases don't really exist, it's just propaganda. And variations on that. This is conspiracy theory stuff, and really quite "out there". But lots of people believe it. Because people are easy to trick, easy to convince, easy to manipulate.

At that level, be it advertising, or viral propaganda, or a religious cult, or whatever, we have help. We are not alone. We have wise people around us to point out the flaws, and pull us back from the brink. Even if we are hopelessly credulous ourselves, we can usually be saved from falling for this stuff by people who care about us. I spend a lot of time pointing out the ridiculousness of the latest woo-woo on the net. Whether I bother or not often depends on the age of the credulous person, and I worry most about the young. They just don't have the life experience to recognize bullshit.

My kids have been raised to be very questioning, very suspicious really. I'm huge on critical thinking, largely because I was never taught it and had to figure it out by myself, so I've given them every weapon I could. And yet occasionally, they get caught. All my efforts, and all their subsequent efforts with one another, sometimes fail. Tom is especially vulnerable and we all work even harder on him, but he got screwed over online once from being too naive (just once mind, nobody tricks a Boxall twice). They are young. They are innocent. It takes time and a few mistakes, and none of us are ever con-proof, but gradually we learn to smell when something isn't right.

When I was young I made a lot of mistakes from being young. Things nobody told me. Warnings I never had. Thankfully none of them did any lasting damage, but that was sheer luck. I wasn't stupid either, I was considered one of the brightest in my grade at school, so that helped, but I made young person mistakes because I was a young person.

What didn't happen, also thankfully, was that I didn't get led into anything by others. I devised all my trouble by myself. I was a leader, not a follower. I saw it happen enough though. Bright kids from good homes would go off the rails to try to fit in. They sought acceptance, they wanted to be "in". It led them to very bad mistakes, some of which had permanent results. So, inevitably, there were some girls who had babies at 14.

It's easy to look down on those girls. Call them names. Assume they are "bad" girls. Some of them really don't know any better, their mother was also very young when they were born. But most are just normal girls whose brains and bodies are growing fast. She's a good girl really. He's not a bad boy either. Her parents probably TOLD her not to get pregnant at that age, but they weren't present at the time, when the boy she was crazy about suggested sex. Her support system weren't around to remind her it was risky. There was nobody there to say "it's a bad idea". No, she had to make that decision all by herself, and she was probably every bit as keen as he was at that moment. As much as we like to pretend teenage girls don't have raging hormones too, they do.

This is why there were, and often still are, chaperones. Never give them the chance to make that mistake, right? The idea is sound, but as with so many of these arrangements, it is used, again, to control the lives of women. Chaperoning always goes right along with interfering in many other choices.

Until such time as we perfect the art of educating young people in the ways of the world without controlling them, mistakes will happen, and such is life. As in all other ways we can never give up all freedom for a false sense of security, because that way lies madness (see burqa, above).

But that education is important. All education is important. This type of education is every bit as important as the three Rs.

So let's go right back to the beginning, to that book. No, not the first or last book of its kind, but an excellent example. Twilight was another example. The difference being that in Twilight the damage was purely emotional control. Edward never hurt Bella physically. Nevertheless, many mothers shared with me their concern that girls reading this could be carried away by the romance, and completely miss the dysfunctional relationship, yes, even in a supernatural setting. There are plenty of young men who behave like Edward without being vampires.

This book is different because the control is both mental and physical. It extends to rape and other physical abuse. And this is promoted as romance.

If you are 40 years old, and that floats your boat it's none of my business. I think you need counselling, frankly, but that's your problem and not mine.

No, there are several problems here.

1. Young people are reading this. We don't know how young. Imagine if that is the FIRST book they read on the subject of relationships, or the subject of sex. Think about the damage that could do.

2. Men who behave in this way have just been vindicated. They'll point to the success of this book as proof that women really like it rough, really want to be controlled. They'll tell women who object to their preferences that they are misguided/frigid/faulty/unfair, you name it. They will see Christian Grey as a hero, they will admire him, quote him, and copy him. Some young ones who've not thought of it before will be inspired by him.

3. People will associate this abuse with BDSM. That may demonize BDSM in some critical eyes, but that's not my concern. My concern is that this abuse will masquerade as BDSM. That women will be tricked into thinking they are getting classic safe BDSM, and get abuse instead. As has been stated by many people, this isn't BDSM, this is abuse, pure and simple.

I oppose censorship. There are far, far worse things being written, but there are also many others which are just as enjoyable without the abuse angle. Plenty of other things to read. Leave this one for those who are experienced enough in life to understand what it is. Think of it in the same category as a psychological thriller, or a horror story. Because that's what it is. If you enjoy it, hey, none of my business. But for pity's sake, try to get a clue on why some of us are concerned about it.

OK, at this point you may well be saying "But Melanie, you haven't read it how, so do you know?" Thankfully others have done that for me. I don't want to read it because once you've read something disturbing you can't unread it. I am willing to do that for historical or sociological purposes. I'll pass on this one.

And you don't have to go through that either. This spells it out just fine. 50 examples of abuse from the book.

http://theramblingcurl.blogspot.ca/2014/02/fifty-abusive-moments-in-fifty-shades.html

This book is not an introduction to BDSM, it is a glorification of abusive relationships dressed up as erotica. I would not want this getting into the hands of an impressionable teenage girl. This was the reason for my original post - essentially, mothers, teach your daughters this is not a normal relationship. This is not romance. Use it as an opportunity to explain about manipulation, coercion, and so on. Go through the list of abuses I just posted. Explain, explain, explain.

Oh, and finally.

Sin

If you're going to get anything out of this blog post, and the almost inevitable argument on Facebook, then you really need to watch this. Probably more than once.

I take a position either between or beyond that of these two gentlemen (both of whom I have the utmost respect for), depending on how you see it. To me, it's quite obvious that suffering is caused by competition, but that's far too dull to get excited about. These men, in their own way were very passionate about their feelings, and I like that. If I were to do this post "live" I'd be more animated than Stephen, and not quite so animated as Russell, but in text it all looks very calm, which I hope doesn't give the impression that I'm not passionate about what I say, because I am. 

Stephen used the T word. If you're not familiar with it, here it is:

1. Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.

It's discussed often enough, without knowing the word, even by those whose theology is at Sunday School level. Any believer, in any religion will at some point scream at their God in anger when something terrible happens to someone they love. In fact, I'm told this is one of the commonest reasons for people "losing their faith". 

And of course it was always so. So, the priests had to come up with an answer. People wanted an answer. One of the answers was the concept of an adversary, an evil being thwarting Gold's plans and leading people astray. It's very simplistic, basic, naive even, but for people needing an answer it was someone to pin it all on.

It just doesn't work in their own theology though. If a deity is omnipotent - 100% powerful - then there could be no adversary. So, either their God is not 100% powerful (hmm) or simply permitted this adversary, and in fact there are all sorts of versions of both of these in various sacred mythologies. 

The other idea was to blame humans. Hey, you guys did this to yourselves. Not necessarily YOU, but your ancestors. The whole sins of the father thing. Versions of this show up in all religions, from karma to the Hindu castes, and of course the original sin of the Abrahamic religions. The "out" for this in Christianity is Jesus, of course, and that story is just baffling. It goes like this, the all-powerful God was tricked by the first two people he created, and because of what they did the rest of humanity was tainted. So to make up for that God became a human, and sacrificed himself. This simply doesn't work for me, and is one of the reasons I'm not Christian.

The problem with the concept of sin is that it's used in more than one way. There is the theological meaning, which is quite complex, and the everyday meaning which is simply "bad things you do". 

Some religious leaders, who should know better, like to throw around the second meaning, with daft ideas like "the earthquake was caused by the sins of the people in that town". That is pure superstition and not even worthy of consideration. 

As a result of this people have got hold of the idea that sin does indeed simply mean misbehaviour, especially if it's sexual. People who talk about sin a lot tend to have very dirty minds. 

The problem is, they don't always have anything to back it up with. They pick and choose bits from their holy books as it suits them to justify their treatment of sinners. So, for example, they'll tell you that homosexuality is a sin, based on Old Testament teachings. But if you tell them that eating shellfish is a sin based on the same set of laws, ah well, that's different. In fact, if you just mention the shellfish, and the mixing of fabrics, or anything you like (Leviticus is full of this stuff) they'll dismiss that, it's all OK you see, Jesus has it covered. The OT was for ancient people in a time with customs different to us, you don't need to worry about that.

Oh, so homosexuality IS OK now then? Oh, well, no......that's different. Jesus didn't cover that? No, that one's still a sin. 

And so on. 

Then there's the concept of free will. This was apparently a gift from God. But when Adam and Eve exercised it, well, you know the rest. So you have free will, BUT......it's a trick. A test. Don't go using it. 

Of course, this is all the literalist stuff. Russell mentioned, and he had a point, that Stephen's interpretation of "God" was this literal, holy book version. Not what Russell sees God as at all, so when Russell says he believes in God, he's really not referring to the same concept. Russell's idea of God is pantheistic and mystical, without any of that smiting and divine retribution. Works for me just fine. 

Unfortunately the reality is that those who abuse religion to cause harm to others are the literalists. They don't give a shit about oneness, about mysticism, about metaphors. They just fling the word sin around, based on their anachronistic and twisted interpretation. Based on cherry picking their books to suit. They've been doing it a long time, and they've caused a lot of harm and I don't have a good word to say about their version of God either. Thankfully, I don't believe he exists. 

These days, the ancient religions are enjoying a comeback. I think it's related to a rejection of this literalism. 

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Viking-Age/107958439225502?source=whfrt&position=3&trqid=6111619200833362741

These people agree with Russell, that religion when used as a way of dealing with the mysteries of life, have their place, especially if it's alongside science. Religion as an adversary to science doesn't work for me.

This is not the first time I've written about this, and it won't be the last. Having discussed it with people of all beliefs and none, on many occasions, I am familiar with all the objections. So let's get one out of the way right now. It's that whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" bollocks.

If there's one thing I think is cool about liberal, non-literalist Christians, it's their idea of unconditional love. I can get behind that. It's quite simple really, if God is superior to humans (not much of a God otherwise) and perfect (ought to be) and omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then you'd think he'd be better than us at stuff like jealousy, forgiveness, patience, and so on. I remember being taught in Sunday School that God can forgive everything, but then they were Methodists and they're pretty warm and fuzzy.

To me, the greatest thing a human can attain is unconditional love. And some do. They forgive their torturers even. But specifically, good humans are good at forgiving their kids. They love them whoever they are. There is no "but". When a good parent finds out their kid is gay, they carry on loving them the way they always did.

Any God worth his stripes would do the same, especially since apparently God made the kid gay in the first place (remember?). Either His creation is perfect, or it isn't.

And if the kid does something totally unspeakable, like murder, does that kid go to hell? NO, Jesus has got it covered. God's grace, yada yada, it's all forgiven. Quite how God manages THAT, I don't know, but then I'm NOT God. That is some amazing forgiveness right there.

I suppose then, I'm not shocked when those who still call homosexuality a sin are often those who do think some people (their selection, I assume) actually ARE going to hell. Again, more than one type of Christian, more than one type of interpretation, more than one type of belief.

And if you think about it, if God made you, and you turn out to be a murderer, then he's only got himself to blame. Free will? Not if the guy is a raging psychopath.

Me? I find the concept of sin totally useless. If we are "all" sinners, as some say, then what's the point of even talking about it? If sinners go to hell, then we're all going, and nothing we can do about it. If Jesus has that covered, then a) none of us are going to hell, so it doesn't matter, b) we can all sin some more, and c) what fucked up creation are we anyway?

Whether or not there is a God, I have an idea. Why not behave well anyway? Why not be loving to one another regardless? Here's a quote from a man who lived back in the olden days when apparently humans were still too stupid to think outside the box, but this Pagan managed to do it:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

(Attributed to Marcus Aurelius Antonius, 121-180CE)

What is sin then? I'll tell you. It is what other humans have decided you shouldn't do, based on their own interpretation of whatever holy book they use as moral guidance, because they can't figure it out for themselves. It can include what you eat, what you wear, and who you love. And, according to them, if you do these things, a divine entity so powerful that he created the entire universe, will punish you. Despite making you that way in the first place.

I want none of this.

Your Freedom Ends Where It Impacts Mine, Mate

Yesterday I rambled on about lines and limitations with regard to personal eccentricities and taste and how it all affects others. It isn't a big deal until there is power and authority involved. And then it's a very big deal.

Here in the west we have a lot of laws and social norms that focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual. This is how we have reached the point where most people really are free to "be themselves", so long as they don't harm others. Much of the time this limitation, the one I base my own ethical system around, concurs with the law of the land. We say things like "it's a free country". We resist anything that infringes on that.

Outside of the west that isn't always the case. How it plays out ranges from social taboos to severe authoritarian rule of law, but in many countries "being yourself" can get you into a lot of trouble. We're not just talking about hats either. Being homosexual is still punishable by death in a number of countries.

I mentioned yesterday the honour/shame system. You may or may not have come across this before, but it's high time you learn about it if you haven't, because it's a huge and powerful part of our world. It's not bad or wrong, neither is it right or good. It's just a different type of society. Just like our system, it works when it works, and when it doesn't it causes great suffering.

Our system is based on the idea of guilt, which in religious terms has often been framed as sin, even though the concept of sin is theologically far more complex than that. What happens in our society is that this guilt forms the basis of our legal system, so there are obvious consequences, but even if we are not "caught" we are still guilty.

The difference between shame and guilt may seem subtle, but it is significantly different in that the person who is shamed is told that his transgression affects the whole of society. To us this is hard to understand. How can it? They may not even know of his actions, let alone be harmed by them. An example we read about in the media, which baffles us, is when a woman in a shame society is raped, and then then shamed for it. This angers us. We see her rapist as the guilty party. We are horrified by her treatment.

Here we place the guilt on one person, and even then we give him certain rights. Such is our fierce protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, he may get off. He may get a short sentence. He may get therapy. His victim may go through the wringer to get a prosecution, and then society forgets about her. This angers us too, for reasons I don't need to explain. There is always an "out" with guilt, if you are lucky enough to get it.

In both versions, free thinkers see a problem, see a great injustice, but what we fail to do extra in the west is see how the actions of the guilty party affect the whole of society, even when they literally do. This aspect of it is constantly overlooked.

If you think this means I favour the shame system, then you're doing it again. I've caught you doing this before. Stop it. Think outside the box. This is not an either/or situation. There is a better way.

The problem in the shame society is that an individual is held responsible for the damage to his entire society over things that actually don't harm it.

The problem in our society is that we forget about the damage individuals do to our society.

What's needed is a third way, a middle way perhaps, or a blend, but certainly both systems as they are, are failing, and the misunderstandings of each other are a large part of why east and west are frequently at odds.

When this is mentioned there are usually those who say that the western way is more popular, and that those in the east are eager to get it. Not necessarily. Even democracy, which in theory should appeal to those whose interest is the whole of society and not just an elite few, is not always welcome. One reason is that it isn't understood. But a bigger reason these days is that the flaws in it are seen. The cracks, if you like. In many ways modern western democracy has been the breeding ground for the runaway capitalism that has led to the current dramatic inequality in distribution of wealth in general, and the oligarchy that the United States has become in particular.

Does this mean I oppose democracy? No, you're doing it again. Get a grip. Democracy is the best system we've ever come up with, but it's every bit as open to corruption as any other system, and it is corruption that causes the problems, not the choice of system. Any system ultimately works without corruption.

In fact if you remove the corruption, democracy is a damn fine system. It is based, after all on the concept of equality. The rule of law within a democracy is as close to fair as any rule of law can get. And fair is good. I think we all agree with that.

The question is, how does the idea of the rights and freedom of the individual square with the democratic principles of equality? What happens (at least in theory) is innocence until proven guilty. If you are the accused you'd be very glad of this too. You get your "day in court". We are used to this system, very protective of it, and we fear and oppose anything to the contrary.

Unfortunately what happens all too often is that the rights and freedoms of the accused, in the name of equality, actually become excessive. Unequal. All too often if he is wealthy he can buy his freedom. All too often there is victim blaming. All too often dangerous offenders are set free. All too often the poor and powerless are targeted as criminals and are incarcerated needlessly. All too often there is no justice, the financial crooks, polluters, and serial offenders cause great harm, and the rights and freedoms of many people are negatively affected by the actions of one. That is not democracy at all.

And these people have no shame. They were lucky enough (in my opinion) to have been raised without that shame being put upon them, but they are sociopathic enough to have no natural feelings of remorse, and instead of recognizing that, and dealing with them appropriately, our society allows them to have all the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. Or more.

I think it's crazy to be flogged for shaming your society by being raped.

I also think it's crazy not to recognize the harm that one individual can inflict on a whole society, and allow him to continue doing it, either because he's wealthy enough to get away with it, or because we are too afraid of being excessive in our treatment of a known offender.

You cannot have failed to notice, especially when I mentioned sin, and the "out" of guilt that there is an obvious religious connection here. But it's complicated. Culture still impacts the system, even when the exact same religion exists in two types of societies.

Religion has more impact in how an individual's actions are seen morally. If the law that is broken is "God's Law" and nobody else is harmed, this becomes an ethical issue that makes no sense outside the religious context. I think I'll save that theme for another day.

Lines

I write on a lot of different topics, but here is where several of them meet head on. It's a combination of politics, etiquette, art, psychology, surrealism, and choice. And a few others. Right, I think I have your attention.

So.

I am not a conservative. Or a Conservative. I dabbled in the latter when I was young due to a dear friend running for election, but in hindsight his motivation was.......well, let's leave that alone. As I've explained many times, my politics are my own. I lean to the left - occasionally so far that I fall over - and really, in my heart of hearts, I'm an anarchist. But what I'm definitely not is small c conservative, or any of the characteristics thereof that usually end up making a person big C Conservative.

Last night my husband asked me if I remembered something or other from the days of yore, and indeed I did, but then, remembering he often asks me about "old stuff" I said, "you aren't going to become one of those people who goes on about the old days all the time are you?" And he confessed he just might. I reminded him that I'm not like that. He knows. It's not an issue between us, but it's definitely a difference.

I'm not nostalgic. I occasionally get a bit "mono no aware" (look it up) but I don't believe in "The Good Old Days" AT ALL. It's all bollocks.

Actually, hold on a minute. I want to say something here that's a bit controversial or possibly offensive. I'm choosing this moment to say it because it was my husband who reminded me, and he'll not only forgive me for saying it, but agree with me. It's usually other people who do it though.

Have you noticed that those who show the most tendency to be nostalgic, to remember "The Good Old Days" are actually those for whom that time wasn't actually that good? Are they compensating for something? These people are the ones most likely to say "I love the smell of Christmas, it reminds me of childhood..." or similar. And in every case, these people had shitty childhoods for one reason or another. They aren't actually reminiscing about how it was, but about how they wish it was. You must have noticed this. Maybe you're one of them.

Well, there it is, that's people for you. I had an amazing childhood. I knew nothing but kindness and fun, and I have absolutely zero desire to go back there. This shocks the nostalgics, I guess. But that was then and this is now - move FORWARD people!

OK, back on track.

The trouble with the olden days is that they were filled with problems we have been trying to fix ever since. Racism, gender inequality, disease, poverty, and so on. These were realities. These things are bad things. We are still working on them (!) so the last thing we want to do is go backwards. And I hated black and white TV, and the stupid ideas surrounding fashion. So let's start there.

Old = you must wear THIS. Why? Because we do, that's why.
New = wear what you like.

Personally I prefer the latter. It's just an example, but it's a good example of traditional (conservative), i.e. repetition and sameness for no good reason, and modern (liberal) innovation and freedom of choice. Is it frivolous, or serious? It's only fashion, right?

No, in some instances what you wear can get you killed. 

Is that logical? Is that good? Is that helpful? Does that make any sense at all?

To the ultra conservative mind, it does. Which is a damn good reason to reject conservative thinking. In my not-so-humble opinion. So, I'd like you to see that as one extreme. I can't think of anything more extreme, frankly, so keep that one in mind. Please.

Then there's the other extreme.

Now, before I begin, I want to stress that I don't think this gentleman should be harmed for wearing that. In fact I would uphold his right to walk down the street in that hat free of any sort of negative reaction. Not only that, I would uphold his right to wear it to school, a board meeting, Buckingham Palace, and the Vatican. 

Do I like it? No. That's neither here nor there. It is no more or less silly than anything else we consider to be normal attire.

THIS is considered normal, and treated with great respect:

Tell me why this is treated differently, I dare you.

If you even mention tradition at this point, I'll slap a big "CONSERVATIVE!" sticker on your forehead. 

You cannot rationalize this stuff. It's all about "we've always done it that way" and related bollocks. 

Well, do you know what else we used to do?

Or possibly not. But you get the idea.

Fashion, that's all any of it ever is. It's silly, it's all about time and place and preference. Don't ever take it seriously.

If you don't like what a person is wearing, it's OK. You don't have to.

I really, REALLY don't like this:

But I don't like this either:

And that would be considered "normal". It's not clear why. But it's wrong on so many levels, for me. FOR ME. I'm sure some of you think it's OK, some of you may even like it. I hate it.

Have you ever watched a panel show on TV during the evening? Not always serious topics. Both male and female guests wear coats. OK, it may be a light coat, not an arctic parka, but the definition of a coat is an outer layer. They have other clothes on underneath. The temperature in a TV studio is that of a hot summer's day. Why are they wearing coats? 

I ask questions like this all the time, and I never get any sensible answers. "It looks professional" "It's expected" and all that nonsense. 

It's all bollocks, is what it is. It's almost a uniform. There's no real penalty for not wearing it, and some celebrities fight back, but then they get labelled. There are consequences to sartorial rebellion.

There are consequences to everything, of course, but some of these (public reaction) are also a matter of choice. You don't have to make fun of the man in the funny clothes. You could, if you choose, say "hey, whatever floats your boat" and praise him for his innovation or courage or whatever.

My attention was recently drawn to this:

I think this is very silly. I'm not impressed either, because they are just trying too hard, but you know, whatever floats your boat. 

What it did make me think was, where do we draw the line. At which point does silly become not funny any more? At which point do we say "ENOUGH". At which point is it wrong? At which point can we reject it or deride it without fear of the daring telling us we are boring old farts?

Now remember, I only used fashion as an example. This applies to everything. But I suppose fashion influences it, much of the time.

A large part of where the limitation of weirdness is, is personal, individual. I tested my family out a few weeks ago by asking them how they felt about dying underarm hair:

Reactions were not positive. Personally, I wouldn't do it, for purely practical reasons. You'd have to bleach it first, and my underarm skin is far too sensitive, that would burn like a mofo. (Yes, I just said mofo, I'm that hip......). But the more I think about this, the less issues I have with it. I just don't have that personality quirk that makes a person go ewwwww to everything new and different (except some salads, before I'm called out). But I was actually quite surprised that my kids (raised by me, very open minded) rejected the idea out of hand. Maybe they'll change their minds if it becomes widely popular. People are like that.

Still, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I thought this was going a bit too far:

Not that I would make any efforts to stop her. I just feel she crossed a line.

It's MY line. I recognize that. I don't think most people do. I think that they assume these lines are really there. That there really is a scale somewhere of good taste and acceptability that is written in stone, and that it's obvious. Well it's not and there isn't. 

Still there is a line, I think, and that's the one where these choices harm others. The harm line is my general line for all difficult questions, i.e. ethics. If your behaviour, your weirdness harms another person, then ENOUGH. Stop. You've gone too far.

That limit is going to vary.

In some cases with fashion, the limit may be nudity. If I were to show up naked at a funeral, with a few exceptions (I have some truly weird friends) that would cause real embarrasment and therefore genuine suffering for the bereaved, and I wouldn't do it. In fact if I showed up to ANY formal event the same might well apply. There is a fine line between discomfort and harm (which is why my ethical system is not perfect) but in general because nudity is taboo in our society it is best avoided in public unless you WANT to make some sort of statement.

I also happen to think that unless it has been explicitly agreed upon beforehand as OK, that showing up at any formal event in scruffy clothes is rude. Now, what's that about then? 

This is all about etiquette. Do you know what etiquette is for? It's done out of kindness to make others feel wanted, comfortable, and at ease. If it has the opposite effect, it's not etiquette. It may be "expected" but it's not etiquette. I stress this because all too often this happens. 

Now then, if you DID show up at a formal occasion in scruffy clothes because that's all you have, then true etiquette would be everyone else pretending they hadn't noticed. THAT is how it works. 

So, while your sartorial choices could sometimes be inappropriate, so also can the reactions to them be inappropriate. It's all about give and take, which is etiquette, which is kindness, which is tolerance, and so on. 

In some traditional societies it is expected that guests be spoiled to the point of causing real hardship to the hosts. It is frowned upon to do anything else. These are usually honour/shame societies, and due to familiarity with the system, and obviously being affected by it, people don't rush to rebel. This is an example of etiquette being harmful, and therefore that's where I draw the line. That's a line I won't cross. No matter how "polite" something is, on the one hand, if it causes harm on the other hand, then it's not OK. I don't give a shit how traditional it is. And it varies. People have different expectations. This is why you can't say "FUCK" at some dinner parties, but you can at others. But it's never OK to tell racist jokes, even if all the other guests laugh. Some things are just wrong. The line is harm.

OK, briefly returning to funny hats. Do they cause any harm? No. So there's no problem there. The problem is the people who make fun of the funny hats. If the funny hat actually causes harm (scares children, breaks the lights, gives the wearer a headache) then these would be good reasons to advise against it. 

When it comes to weirdness (and hats) I have a great teacher. As many of you know, my second youngest son, Thomas, has Asperger's syndrome, a high functioning form of autism, which has both advantages and disadvantages. In Tom's case (because all Aspies are different) it came with a delightful eccentricity which leads him to have very few inhibitions when it comes to how he looks. When jester hats were all the rage for children a few years ago he was already in High School, but wanted one anyway, and his sister had to be his bodyguard because of the bullies on the bus and that hat. But bless her heart, she did it anyway.

Tom has always loved hats. He has quite a collection, and the more comments he gets, the more he enjoys them.

Again, it's just an example. With Tom there is plenty of other weirdness, and I adore him for it. 

When he was young, and his social skills were really challenging, I often had to explain to him why it was important to follow SOME social norms when it comes to communication. The first thing we had to do, as is often the case with the autism spectrum, is to teach him to make eye contact. Some people on the spectrum never master that. Tom, being Tom, took it to the extreme and he can bore into your soul with those eyes now. It helps that they are the darkest of dark brown, almost black.

The next step was greetings. We were out shopping one day and he ran into another child he knew from school, who saw him and said a very friendly "Hello Tom!". Very nicely brought up child, I thought. Tom's response was a noise something like you may expect if you tried to strangle a turkey. 

We had a long conversation about that. He thought his squalks and other random noises were funny. But I tried to impress upon him that getting such a "greeting" could hurt the other boy's feelings, because it seems like you were making fun of him, or that his presence or greeting was unwanted. Tom knew about being made fun of, and being unwanted around peers, as it's always been part of his life. 

In fact most of the conversations we've had about social skills over the years have been in this pattern. I explain that the things we do, or the things we say to others affect them. So etiquette comes into play. Sometimes weirdness just isn't the right thing, even if you enjoy it very much. Even if you have to work hard to overcome natural weirdness. In return, I hope people forgive Tom his eccentricities. It has to work both ways, and then we can all get along. 

This is a very long winded way of saying that there IS a limitation to weirdness, a line in the sand, and it is the same limitation as there is to all choices we make. It's all fine until it causes harm, and then it isn't. Defining harm is harder, but I hope we continue, as we go forward, to be more tolerant of weirdness, rather than less, because however extreme it gets, the other extreme is worse. 

A Little Honesty?

You may prefer this one as it's a bit more "downhome", or, on the other hand you may not like it because it hits a bit too close to home. Either way, best ask yourself why.

Right. So I waffled on about making assumptions about people, and about getting offended.

You know what pisses me right off? People who, when taking offence, come back with "You don't know me." It often goes along with a whiny tone, and can be followed by some long list of tragic things in their life that have caused them to take offence easily.

I have met far too many people whose lives really are a story of a series of unfortunate events, with no hope of it improving either, and yet are cheerful and positive and kind and funny, for this "poor me" and "I'm misunderstood" rubbish to have any effect on me whatsoever.

If somebody starts with the "You don't know what it's like to be me..." or similar I am turned off. I can be very sympathetic to people in all sorts of sutuations, even if their bad luck is their own damn fault, but I can't be done with the "nobody understands me" thing. So there's that.

We all get misunderstood, this is normal. No, nobody understands you. They are not you. This applies to absolutely everyone. What's more, no matter how hard we try, we will never really understand one another, because we can't get inside each other's heads. So live with it.

What we can do is care. That's all that really matters. You don't have to understand to care.

I'm sure you've heard "I don't understand his lifestyle." Well, it's not your lifestyle so it's none of your business anyway.

Anyway, I confess to being mischievous. I'm not even asahmed of it, how about that, tsk. People often misunderstand me and I love it. I suppose it's a bit perverse, but there it is. I love it when I meet people and they totally get me wrong.

I turn 53 soon (gawd, how did that happen) and depending on which way the wind is blowing and other variables, sometimes I come across as a regular 53-year-old woman, (whatever that is) and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I comes across as gentle and harmless, and sometimes I come across as feisty and edgy. Sometimes people think I'm very dull, and sometimes they think I'm dangerous. Sometimes they think I'm wise and sometimes they think I'm an idiot. And none of them are wrong.

It's not that I'm complex, far from it. That's another one I can't stand "I'm very complex". Oh, get you, trying to make yourself sound fascinating. I am incredibly, boringly, not complex, and that's a fact. I've been called inscrutable, which is bollocks. People are just looking for something more, something deeper, that isn't there. This is it. This is all there is.

And nobody understands me. You won't hear any "BOOHOO" added to that because it's funny being misunderstood.

There's a running joke around here, which I use while batting my eyelids and feigning innocence, that I'm a sweet little old knitting granny. And it's the truth, so it is.

The problem is stereotypes, that's what fucks the whole thing up. So I play with them.

There are women my age who desperately try to pretend they are younger, or even try to look younger, and they usually end up quite miserable in the attempt. I think it's sad. There are also women my age who have decided that they are OLD, so they do nothing, learn nothing, seek nothing, and ultimately have nothing. They are waiting for the reaper.

It really isn't necessary to dress like a teenager and go dancing in clubs to prove you're not aging. Nor is it wrong to do if you want to. There are no rules.

Everyone seems to think it's all about appearance, and it's not. It's all in the mind. And you know, it takes longer to figure that out, so there's some major laziness involved here (another pet peeve of mine is people who are proud of being lazy).

So people make the excuse that they have to create an image, I suppose it's to warn people.

"I dress like this to feel confident."

My dear, if you need special clothes to do that, then it's fake. When you can feel confident stark naked, then we'll call you confident.

"I like to give a professional impression."

You'll do that when you speak. No, really.

It's tribal, all of this. If I were an alien I'd assume men in suits and ties all belonged to a cult. Yes, I know they can look very nice, that's not the point. It's still really weird.

I think my favourite tribe are hipsters. No, I'm not going to be unkind. They are people too and if they want to be that pretentious they can be. I just think somebody should tell them they're not fooling anyone. They spend so much time trying to be different they end up all being the same. If you can recognize a hipster at a glance......well, there's your clue. Oh, and by the way, it's not attractive. (I assume it's not meant to be?)

Be yourself, and if that is really, honestly awful, then change.

BUT!

In all the discussions recently on free speech there is an unprecedented amount of use of the word "BUT".

So you have people concentrating on the idea that people should be careful what they say, then just in case they sound like they are supporting terrorism or whatever, they will quickly add "BUT, there's no justification for violence".

Then you have people concentrating on the idea that violence is totally unacceptable, but just in case you think they approve of racism they'll quickly add "BUT, people shouldn't deliberately offend".

BUT BUT BUT BUT

Relax. It is perfectly possible, and perfectly OK to believe two things at once. You don't need the disclaimers. Your problem began when you chose just one aspect to stand up for, and assumers read more into that than was there. So it's really their problem.

Assumers are very silly and very annoying. I like to mess with their heads a lot, because it's so easy. I will deliberately leave something out so that they think they see a plothole, and they jump right in. Then they look very foolish later on. That's very mischievous and naughty of me, I know. I've been called out on it, being accused of leading people on. Did no such thing. If YOU assume something, then you are committing a great intellectual faux pas. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you need help understanding what I mean, try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

This sort of thing happens all the time in debates, and the usual reaction is "I never said anything of the sort!" Tabloid journalists thrive on it. "He never denied that he was drunk". Well, that doesn't mean he was. But they'll make a front page headline out of it, just the same.

Believe it or not, I'm actually very careful with what I say. It probably doesn't look that way, but I can edit myself so fast that I can even do this in normal informal conversation. Years of practice. I wasn't born tactful. I spent most of my young years getting myself into trouble every single time I opened my mouth. It wasn't malicious, just a rather gauche honesty.

I learned that most people don't want to hear the bare truth, even when they say they do. Over time I have carefully developed a way of saying what needs to be said without hurting feelings (with the exception of those who seek offence, there's nothing you can do with them). I will sometimes say nothing, or VERY carefully phrase things to avoid verbal harm.

I don't expect you to. This is a unilateral decision. I chose it for myself, I think it's a good idea, but I don't demand it of others. You have to find your own way through life.

I balance this out well, because I'm very hard to offend. That came first actually. If you are going to be outspoken, you'd better be thick-skinned too, because people often give as good as they get. I think being offended is a waste of time and energy and on the rare occasions that it happens, I give myself a bloody quick reality check. It's all ego anyway.

The important point here is that it's all choice. I choose not to take offence, and I choose not to cause it, if I can help it. I choose to speak/write with care, AND I choose to read carefully, so that I don't make an arse of myself.

As we all know, some people take offence easily. We all also know that certain things are hot buttons, such as religion. When the pope said that freedom of speech doesn't extend to religion, he was wrong, but he is the pope so he's going to say that.

There must be equality in the deal. Either we are free to speak our minds or we're not. After that we can choose whether or not we'll say what we're thinking. We can't make that choice if that choice is not available to us.

This isn't right. We can't have it all going one way. Either we criticize all or none.

I've been accused of being anti-semitic for opposing Zionism. I was told that criticism of Zionism is just anti-semitism in disguise. This isn't true. Zionism is extremism. I oppose all forms of extremism. I believe in balance.

Balance is very important. I cannot emphasize that enough, and I know not everyone agrees with me, and that's OK too. Sometimes it takes two extreme POVs to create balance. But until we end up with balance we'll continue to argue and fight.

And accuse.

And assume.

I could explain this until the cows come home, and there will be those nodding at some of my comments and not others. They may draw the line at my view that religion can be criticized like anything else. They'll say BUT. I will nevertheless continue to explain, continue to criticize, and continue to try and find the right words to use to cause as little offence as possible. I will continue to be criticized by those who seek offence, and whose limit, whose hot button is religion. Sometimes, occasionally we'll see eye to eye, and sometimes we won't.

If the BUTs stop, we'll start to understand one another.

Where Angels Fear To Tread 2

Yesterday I waffled on about extremism, and I hope I made my point. To recap, extremism is the result of all or nothing thinking. There are no ifs or buts or exceptions. If a certain governments in a certain sector of the world commits certain unethical acts towards certain people at certain times - THEN THE WEST IS EVIL.

Huh?

I'm a westerner, and I'm not evil, and neither are you. But exceptions to the rule make no odds. You are guilty and so am I. We should both be killed. Right?

No, of course not, and the same applies everywhere.

We have more in common with those strange brown foreign people than you might think.

One of these things is a belief by the common man that they're all out to get you. This is a special type of paranoia, because let's face it, sometimes they are. But it's not actually rational, it's all based on rumours and conspiracy theories.

I want to discuss this because I'm hearing it more and more, especially on the topic of false flag operations. This is the idea that a government, or several governments colluding together, create a situation designed to cause fear (terrorism) to control the people and/or get support from the people for reprisals against The Enemy.

The year I was born, 1962, was a scary year for Americans and potentially the whole world. No, not because I arrived. It was the Cuban missile crisis. Many people, even those old enough to remember, are not aware just how close things came to the third world war. If you need to familiarise yourself with these events, please do. The hero of the hour, strangely, was on the Cuban side. He averted......the mind boggles as to what he averted....but anyway, he averted it by refusing to follow out an order. This stalled things. Great story. Go on, go look it up if you don't know it. But I'm assuming here that you know roughly what it was about.

What nobody knew at the time was that the US military were planning a false flag operation. It was called Operation Northwoods and it would have involved killing US civilians and blaming Cuba, as an excuse to "start something". Not familiar with this? Then you REALLY need to look this up.

Kennedy said no. Bless him.

Below is a list of all the other false flag operations known to have been carried out by the US since then.
























I'm well aware that some of you are now shouting at the screen. Don't bother. You can't prove anything. Yes, I know how long it was before Northwoods was admitted. Yes, I know I said "known about". It is quite possible there have been others, but right now they remain possibilities and without solid evidence they remain rumours and conspiracy theories. Just like those which drive the hatred of the west (beyond what it really HAS done).

There's also the same good reason for people in the west to be as obsessed with this stuff as it is for "them". Governments do, routinely, tell lies and hide things from the people. That doesn't mean that the Illuminati are spraying you with overhead chemicals though. Just because you can't always believe your elected representatives doesn't mean you should instead believe a bunch of crackpots on the internet.

If we didn't find some of these conspiracy theories quite compelling literature and movies wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun. And let's face it, in a world where 64% of the population are religious, then people are willing to believe incredible things simply because somebody said so. So it's really no surprise at all that we have all these rumours circulating. Fact is, nobody really knows the truth about everything.

Except......somebody always does.

Many years ago on USENET (ah, those were the days) I got into a debate about just this, and the usual example was given, that I've never been to Australia but I believe it exists because I've seen so many photos and movies, and met so many Australians, and can think of no reason why anyone would bother to create such a vast hoax, that I think it's a safe belief. I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but some of those in the debate were not. I was told:

"Next thing you'll be telling me the Queen of England is real."

Blink.

I assured them that she was. I was then treated to a long rant about why she wasn't, how it was obvious, considering the evidence, which was cut & pasted into the discussion for my pleasure, and when it was all over I said:

"But I've met her."

OK, that's a slight exaggeration, but she did walk past me. Still, you get the idea.

I was told I was lying. Flat out. No wiggle room.

And this is how these debates go.

1. I offer an opinion, based on something I'm actually quite well up on. Not expecting trouble.
2. Somebody challenges me for proof.
3. I provide it.
4. The proof is dismissed as fictitious.

How the hell do you get anywhere like that?

So, for example, argumentative Andy demands data on, say, prison inmates in the US. I find an article online, and he rubbishes it as being a left-wing biased site. So I send him to the official FBI statistics page. And he ridicules that, because OBVIOUSLY they tell lies, tsk. It's the bloody government! Well, what would he like me to do? Drive around and count them? If I did he'd call me a liar, so really what would be the point?

And what does HE offer in return? A conspiracy website run by a middle-aged man who still lives in his parents' basement. You know, an international security expert.

Maybe you've heard about the conspiracy theory that HIV doesn't exist, and/or doesn't cause AIDS. It's surprisingly huge, but I only found out about it when doing an online course about HIV/AIDS run by Emory University. Emory is one of the the leaders in AIDS knowledge worldwide. Experts par none. Has been right from the beginning. Imagine how frustrating this conspiracy theory is for them. Now imagine you are up against a government that believes it. Well that was the case with the South African president who followed Mandela, Thabo Mbeki. During his presidency it is estimated that well over 300,000 people died directly as a result of his beliefs being official policy.

Consider that when you ask yourself if rumours are a problem.

And yet when I found myself in a discussion about this, I was told that you couldn't believe the experts at Emory (and decades of work done there) because they were "all paid off by the government to cover up the real cause". Which is? Sorry, I didn't hear you? Well, frhtslfhgetmkfg. Ah, yes, that's right. You have a good SOLID alternative explanation.

The other version is that AIDS was created by the government in the first place, and deliberately released.

OK, so, the government wants AIDS to wipe out people at random. Just thinning the herd perhaps?

Like all of these theories that "The Government" (or possibly "The New World Order") is trying to kill us off arbitrarily (not the stupid ones, not the "difficult" ones, not the old or the weak, or even the poor) but also SECRETLY, I'm bound to ask why? What is the benefit of a smaller population? Less trouble come the revolution? Less cost of bullets to mow us all down? Less gas required to get rid of us all quickly? Couldn't you just release a really INFECTIOUS disease, not one so bloody difficult to catch?

And this critical approach to these theories needs to be applied every time. Ask why? Why would the evil government do these things. Money is always at the bottom of everything, so look for the financial benefit, the profit. If you can't find one, the theory is bollocks.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the readiness people have to believe really far-fetched conspiracy theories is the modern version of supersitition. In the middle ages there were devils and demons behind everything, now it's secret government agents. Same deal.