whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy

In school, they completely whitewashed history.

Check out these caricatures through 1827 by Thomas Rowlandson...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson

In listening to Sister Wendy at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a4GbfVBEjs&t=1m32s
she complains of Puritanism AND feminism. Why is that?

Disgust about shame regarding sex from the right AND the left. I think that's what makes Sister Wendy upset.

From the 1524 book I Modi (The Ways):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/EneeDidon.jpg

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

...found one copy for $50:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=12297590527&searchurl=kn%3DI%2BModi%253A%2BThe%2BSixteen%2BPleasures%26amp%3Bsts%3Dt%26amp%3Bx%3D0%26amp%3By%3D0

We recently watched the documentary at
https://indieflix.com/indie-films/beyond-naked-35063/
(log onto your local library website first to view it free).
...Beyond Naked - about nude biking during an art festival in Seattle.

One key thing that struck me about the film was when one very fat woman, who's nude with her husband at home 99% of the time, offered fearful & crass advise regarding penile erections to the participants.

A very unattractive fat woman with rolls and rolls of fat is going to offer advise to men about the state of their penises when they're nude?

Ironic. Strange. A leftist hippie form of sexual shaming. And key denialism from the "nudist" camp regarding what nudity is always partly about, that is when adults are present and can see each other - you know, the S word that they fear so much. 

Related links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/06/explorations-activities-after-leaving.html
http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/nudistsnaturists-are-not-special/
and http://drglennsmith.co.uk/RES-000-22-0569-5k.pdf
..."Mainstream  naturism  relies  on  discriminatory  and  dishonest  practices  to  manage
sexuality that limits the diversity of the  naturist population and presents  an  image and
culture that lacks integrity and transparency..." Damn right.

Am I for 100% nudism all the time? No. Why? Because there's crazies in the world who will do worse things than what they're already doing if everyone were nude. You know, the homeless nutjob who goes pee in front of your local Walmart, and worse nutjobs lurking. There's always a certain percent.

But, on the other hand, viewing films like The Good Old Naughty Days (available at many public libraries), and learning of the art in Pompeii, and the above more contemporary links, and books like the Kama Sutra are enlightening and eye opening & incredibly important as well - as are the works that Sister Wendy has shown us.

Life is a balancing act. How to balance between the Puritans on the right and the anti-porn anti-freedom hysterical feminazi hippies on the left? How to reject shame from the right and the left, while still remaining healthy, and free, and happy? It's hard work. But I think we need to be honest.

Humans very thinly hide their sexuality for some very good reasons. But on the other hand, if we hide it too much we can also become fucked up...

When naked adult humans can see each other, and one or both are not 100% ugly, there is a sexual component present, even if the participants are fundamentally dishonest about their status & state (eg: your average nudist in America & Europe).

Sex is hard wired into us. Hysterical leftist hippie nudists cannot rip that wiring out, any more than rightist Bishops & Priests can. It's there. There's no denying it. It does need some management I agree. But we can go too far either way. It's refreshing to know that our ancestors were obsessed - and for good reason. We would not be here otherwise, probably.

The importance of having "kid friendly" events as a rule rather than an exception in atheist & exmormon groups

Content:

1. Original open letter.

2. Original video (below).

3. Addendum added after I received a response from one of the groups involved.

4. Addendum video (also below)
5. Previous blog post (separate page).
6. Remaining concerns of note:

          A. The following Exmormon Foundation policy statement:

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

B. Working to ensure that kids are welcome within the relevant groups I may be a part of, and perhaps starting groups or events of my own as needed.

C. Unitarian Universalism churches i.) requiring that children go away during their main meetings, ii.) being apologists for Mohamed & Islam, and iii.) having taboos against being critical of wacky New Age / Pagan type ideas (the freedom to believe - in bullshit). Believing bullshit is a time waster, whether you believe in Jesus, Thor, Zeus, or in homeopathy, the wacky woo woo of Depak Chopra, crystals, or in The Secret.

-------------------

(2.) First video:

(4.) Second video:

(1.) Original open letter:

An open letter to atheist & ex-Mormon groups, on the issue of whether children are welcome at your events or not: [I did receive a further response from a relevant atheist group - click here to read my reply.]

Speaking frankly, I have no use for events which aren't "kid friendly." Family isn't a dirty word. Funny how people can embrace "Pride" and then jump straight on to having "kids around" as an "exception" rather than a rule. Where's the pride parade for straight people with kids? Maybe we deserve one too.

I never really thought about this issue until I had a kid myself. Pretty much the only "events" I *might* consider attending without my kid are these:

1. A gay bar I have been to before, with my gay nephew - if he happens to come to town and decides to pay a visit to my house & asks me to go there for a short visit to the bar & I decide to say yes.

2. The very occasional (officially rated as, & not merely "unrated") NC-17 film that is economically viable enough to actually be shown, and that's worth watching - a perhaps once every 20 year occurrence.

Other than that, from ex-Mormon meetings to atheist ones to church meetings, if my kid isn't welcome to sit beside me while I'm present, then neither am I. My family is more important than your little meetings - speaking frankly...

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

...as quoted from an exmormon conference website. But more recently I've encountered a similar de facto prohibition on admitting that I have a child in connection with an atheist semi-annual party at which elections were to be voted on. Well, I guess I won't be running in that election, right? I've got a kid after all, and the crazy meeting where they'll be doing the voting doesn't seem to be kid friendly. What's up with that?

Let me say here as a side note that the organizers of these various groups do work very hard, and deserve a lot of credit for helping a lot of people. But, on the other hand, my son takes precedence over even these otherwise hard working people. It's just that they don't (yet) realize what it means to be fully inclusive.

If you wish to be inclusive of "gay issues" then you also need to be inclusive of "straight ones," and of people who, yes, have children. And, from what I've been told, gay and bi people sometimes have kids also.

Does the right wing get to hijack and use-solely the word "family?" I don't think so. But the "left" doesn't either.

I'm not really into the self-hatred of the left or the right. Yes, family is a good thing and it should be supported and promoted. And social groups which are supporting people recovering from religion & people who're finding new ways to live after leaving religion should take into account that humans actually engage in sexual reproduction...

I don't leave home without my genitals attached - as Mormons would have preferred. And, I should not be required to leave home without my new son - or to keep him hidden away just for the privilege of socializing with fellows who are supposedly on a similar life path.

Children sometimes make a bit of noise. Yes, I'm willing to take them out temporarily if they're screaming. But the occasional child-originated outburst should be well tolerated in any group which is supposedly trying to be "welcoming" and "inclusive."

Also, I agree that there is a need for singles events & singles type dances in atheist & ex-mormon groups. That's fine. But, as for alcohol, remember that alcohol is also served at pubs, and pubs do not exclude children.

So anyway unless your event is somehow exactly the same as the singular gay bar my nephew may or may not ever invite me to visit again, or is similar to a loud dive-bar (a largely unhealthy atmosphere for anyone which I suggest you not try to emulate regardless), don't expect me to hide my children away...  Occasional "singles" events may be ok, which are designed for single people to meet each other. But sometimes single people have kids also.

Jonathan

-------

Related post:
Regarding the group Atheists of Utah, suggestions posted June 12, 2013

postscript: After leaving Mormonism I searched for new groups to associate with. The groups mentioned above represent at least three I've tried so far. Nothing is absolutely cut & dry and I realize that anyone can start a group. But this is just something I've noticed after a.) leaving Mormonism, and now b.) having a kid.

In the old days the exmo conferences were more laid back. But I was shocked to see the more recent restrictions on kids - strange. The Unitarians can only tolerate kids at their meetings for the first few minutes. Why? What if I don't want my kid to be shuffled away to some other room, and what if I think all the kids should stay with their parents?

Also separately UUism is I've found not really friendly to Enlightenment values, since they embrace the "freedom to believe - in bullshit" via embracing paganism/fluff-a-muff-crazy-unfounded-views and they have a taboo against being critical of views which are otherwise crazy.

Well, anyway, I do have suspicions on exactly why things are the way they are. Discrimination against people who have kids - yes, it exists, apparently. And apparently those of us with kids have to fight for our rights to "come out" as straight people with kids as well...

 ===============================

(4.) June 13, 2013 10:45PM addendum:

I received a more cogent response from the president of Atheists of Utah regarding my concerns in this & the previous blog post. Here is what I have posted in reply:

---quote begins

Greetings,

<clip>

>I couldn't find any such post on any of our
>online presence locations. I saw you post this at
>several locations, but no "copy" of your blog post.

There was an original copy which I then deleted once it was copied in total to my blog, and then a link to the post was posted for convenience & consolidation.

The original queries which caused the original first concerns were posted in the announcement for the party itself. Regarding the discouragement of the attendance of children, as far as I could tell at least one board member and another attendee recommended (in rather strong terms) that children not attend - in the specific announcement area for the meeting. Then I heard nothing from anyone else, and no further feedback until now.

<clip>

The wheelbarrow is perhaps indicative of the target audience for the meeting in question. I had forgotten about Joel starting the wheelbarrow thing - perhaps once the meetings were moved to Richard T.’s house. Back when they were still at Joel’s house I don’t think such a thing was occurring.  Clearly there’s a need to attract college age fratsters to atheist meetings (seriously & not in jest). They have a lot of dynamic energy worth tapping into.

Regarding music we never heard back whether there would be music at this particular party. But for us it’s a moot point at this point.

<clip>

>Most of the members in the group have children of various ages.
>There are only a few of the more than 150 of our gatherings where the exclusion
>of children is explicitly stated.

In the wake of my previous chats with people about these issues I came away with the impression that it was only the “ice cream socials” which were really welcoming for children.

<clip>

>It is always stated explicitly in the event description
>if it is recommended that children do not attend. For all other events,
>children are implicitly welcome.

Regarding group and committee suggestions, I’ll consider which options would be most fruitful. There’s certainly room to grow in either direction.

Well, in this case I don’t wish to impede anyone’s ability to have a raging good time with fellow youngsters without the perceived impediments or impositions the presence of a child may pose, since it was rather strongly previously made clear to me by others in the related forums that for the event in question that children not attend.

I realize the main announcement didn’t explicitly exclude kids, but like I say later conversations, which weren't merely completely unofficial (to my perception) made it clear to me that it would be unusual and not advisable to bring kids to this particular event.

Like I say there is a need for such events which are young-person-party-animal-wild-man-and-woman focused, so by all means have fun at the party - all those people who want to hook up with some hot atheist chick or dude. Just remember what may happen if you do:

http://goo.gl/pr2mi

I’ll see about amending my text & video blogs appropriately in response, now that I’ve finally received a more official response. I’m glad that you were finally able to get back. In this case I still believe the party in question is really more of one intended for young people to get more than a bit tipsy so that they can more effectively meet each other. And I shall take the advice of others and keep our son home. He’s too young for a baby sitter.

At the very least we’ll work on announcing events which may be of value to those with youngsters... Here’s some related ideas I found:
http://www.meetup.com/cfi-sfn/

So by all means attend & have fun. We'll just stay home with our young kid - that's all...

Our kid is too young for a baby sitter. But to tell you the truth I wasn't just concerned about this group. There's another group which does have a more explicit "no kids" policy which is quite a bummer. So the conversation here was kind of a tipping point, for what it's worth.

J

---end of quote of addendum to Atheists of Utah.

Regarding the group Atheists of Utah, suggestions posted June 12, 2013

Copy of a post made in an Atheists of Utah forum today. Posted here in part to keep track of my own thoughts & writings... Note that I did receive further feedback. See this newer post with key addendum notes and videos.

---------------- quote begins

Group suggestions:

Regarding the summer solstice party, it sounds as if it's really primarily a members-only singles event where children are not welcome (and by default, people who have infant children are not welcome either). I agree there's a need for there to be atheist singles groups. The Unitarians certainly aren't stepping up (& their church really isn't atheist, Enlightenment-values, and science & skepticism friendly). And in past years there was pretty much no options other than bar hopping & random chance. Now there's the Internet though & more opportunities to start groups.

As for this group, for the future may I suggest:

1. Having meetings/parties that don't have a membership requirement - but allow for donations via a donation box at the party.
2. Having parties that are pot lock, and simple.
3. Having parties that allow for alcohol to be brought, but not to raffle off a "wheelbarrow of booze" at such parties. We could also raffle off a "wheelbarrow of cigarettes," or a "wheelbarrow of hydrogenated oil" - with similar outcomes & value.
4. Having parties which do not have amplified music.
5. Having parties which do not explicitly or implicitly exclude people who happen to have engaged in sexual reproduction (eg: they have children).

I'm aware that anyone can host a party or start a group. "Official parties & events" should be more inclusive though, if your goal is to be inclusive. And I know that running an atheist group or any group requires a lot of work, and a partially-unfair personal investment of funds.

So without question there's a need for events focused on the need for single people to meet, and for dances which serve to meet that need, and so on, outside of the context of religious groups. I would just suggest being rather explicit about how events are labeled, so as to avoid confusion.

"This party is for single people who don't have young children, or for married people who don't have children or who only have older children - children who can be kept at home away from our party or event." Please add that label up front to events if it turns out that a given event deserves such a label.

I suggest opening up this facebook group so as to allow "trolls" to once again be educated. If a given troll becomes a rather large problem, they can then be banned. But until then, they should at the very least be allowed to be educated. By comparison, if comparisons are valid, the Atheist Community of Austin manages to have an open group on this website.

There are inherent problems with an increased organizational structure being created. But I'd like to thank Zac, Joel, and Richard for their past work with creating groups and organizing things at various venues, restaurants, cafes, and houses. And Harald and Qian Qian. Our new son probably would not be here if it weren't for all these factors being present, and people who worked to organize atheist meetings in the past.

As for group dynamics & politics: I've seen the evolution of various groups, related to atheism and not. I know where I personally stand within the "movement" - pretty much with the left leaning anti-authoritarians, with occasional alliances with right leaning anti-authoritarians where necessary and fruitful... There is definitely an evolution that takes place with groups, depending on personality type and who happens to show up. Perhaps it's time for more such evolution now (making a note to myself also)...

-----

Related post:
The importance of having "kid friendly" events as a rule rather than an exception in atheist & exmormon groups