Blood is thicker than water?

There’s nothing like Christmas for getting us thinking about our duties to our families. You know the ones I mean, even if you are fortunate enough that none of your own family falls in this category – the ones you force yourself to spend time with and be civil to, while never ever enjoying it. But do we have to do it?

A lot of people, especially at this time of year, spend time with relatives who make them feel miserable, angry, worthless, guilty, ashamed, frustrated…you can continue this list yourself well enough if you’re one of them. You know how it feels for you. There’s a sense that you have a duty to be there, and yet, if you weren't, all parties concerned would be having a much better time. Add in the dreading in advance and the recovering afterwards, and this takes a serious chunk out of time you could otherwise be spending not feeling like crap. Time is precious, so it’s worth evaluating why we think this torment is a worthwhile way to spend it.

They say that blood is thicker than water, that you should always stick by your family, but is that right? Why do people think we should do this? The “blood is thicker than water” line seems to just be about family for its own sake. You owe them something just because you are related. But how on earth does that work? I share more DNA with a fruit fly than with a honey bee (apparently), but does that mean I should spend more time around fruit flies, or show them more respect or affection? It just doesn't seem relevant.

Much more plausible is the argument that you owe them something for what they have done for you in the past. Of course, not all family members have done anything good for you at all, so this argument won’t even get off the ground regarding them. Of the ones that have, there are at least two questions: First, have you already done as much for them as they have for you? Second, have they done you enough harm to outweigh the good they have done you? This stuff isn't measurable, so unfortunately there’s really no way of answering these questions, but if being around these family members makes you miserable, the chances are there’s a reason for that, and that reason may well be harm that they've done you. It needn't be big stuff you can point to, but constant sniping, undermining, guilt-tripping, or whatever is real psychological harm. Ok, it probably won’t kill you, but it’s certainly not nice.

Another powerful reason that people probably do this is self-flagellation and martyrdom. Other people believe that sticking by your family no matter what is some kind of great virtue, so if you’re seen to be doing that, check out what a good person you are! And the fact you don’t enjoy it only enhances the effect. The more time you spend feeling hounded and miserable and yet fighting on out of a sense of duty, the more admirable you seem to become.

But why do these other people think you’re so admirable? Presumably for one of the same reasons you might have – either because family is important just because it’s family, or because you owe them for past good stuff they've done for you. But we've just seen that neither of those is a great argument. So these people are admiring you for all the wrong reasons. If you want their admiration, go out and help an old lady across the road or something.

And in fact that brings me to my final point: what do you do with the spare time and emotional energy if you choose to say “no” to the horrific family reunion? Well you could devote it to friends. Friendships are important, and they need nurturing to survive. You and your friends chose each other for a reason (remember you can’t choose your family, as the saying goes) so don’t lose sight of that. The same goes for partners (the best of friends).

Alternatively you could spend the time and energy on strangers. Since there are only so many old ladies in the world who need helping across roads, volunteer for a charity. Or donate some money, or food, or blankets. Your family might be anything from pains in the arse to nasty pieces of work, but some people’s families are genuinely abusive, and those people often end up on the street. A helping hand for them is probably a better use of your time than listening to great aunty Sue telling you why you’ll never amount to anything for the umpteenth time.

Or finally, you might spend that time and energy on yourself. Looking after yourself is no sin; it’s your life to live the best you can, and you can’t do that very well if you’re stressed and tired all the time. Sometimes the best way of taking care of yourself is taking yourself away from family. You might genuinely be better off without each other, and no mystical sense that blood with similar DNA floating around in it is magically sacred should get in the way of that.

You Give Me Road Rage

This is a rant about the evils of cars and driving.

There are multiple reasons that driving is an immoral way to travel, and at least two of them would each be sufficient reason on their own to never get behind the wheel. The first is the environmental cost, and the second is the risk to life. The environmental cost is pretty well documented; everybody knows it, but no-one appears to care, so I’ll focus on the risk to life.

By risk to life, I mean the chances of killing or seriously injuring someone when you are on the road. The risk of this may be tiny as long as you are not a particularly reckless driver, but killing someone is such a huge cost, that even a tiny risk is well worth avoiding if you reasonably can. And most people reasonably can. In most locations, public transport, walking and cycling are all realistic options for most journeys. It is not about having no other option, but about what is more convenient.

Doesn't that sit awkwardly with anyone? More convenience, versus the risk of someone being killed. And the chances are highest that that someone would be one of the people you drive around most regularly, and so one of the people you care about most. I would think that, however small the chances are, provided they are not infinitesimal (and they are not), there is no way it’s ok to choose convenience over safety.

But you’re a good driver, you think. Even if you’re right (and almost everyone vastly overestimates themselves), so what? Let’s try an analogy:

Say you are a really good typist, and you know it. You’re known for miles around for your fast and accurate typing. Then one day, someone kidnaps your family, and sends you a ransom demand. Actually, more of a ransom challenge, if that’s a thing. They offer a chauffeur-driven car direct to their secret lair, where they will challenge you to a typing test. If you pass the test, your family are released unharmed, and you are all driven straight home.

Fantastic, you think! The thing I'm best at is all I have to do. But then you start to think about having to test your skill under this immense pressure, with your family’s lives depending on your abilities, nerve and concentration. You’re not superhuman; you could always make a mistake. You've made mistakes occasionally before, although fortunately they've never really had any consequences. You are a really really good typist, but it’s a complex skill. If anything went wrong, you would feel that you had killed your own family, and would have to live with that for the rest of your life.

But what’s this? There’s a P.S. to the ransom note. There’s an alternative.

You could get the bus to the secret lair, then your family will be released unharmed, and you can all get the bus home. Buses are only once an hour, so you’re a bit restricted in when you can travel, and it takes about ten minutes longer to get there, and the bus stop is a five minute walk from your house. A chauffeur-driven car does seem more convenient. Is it worth it, if that convenience carries with it the requirement that you wager the lives of the people you care most about on your skill at typing?

Surely, even if you’re an amazing typist, you just get on the bus? If you don’t, how dare you?! How dare you be arrogant enough to wager the lives of others on just how great you think you are at some practical skill at which everyone is necessarily fallible?! But that is just what drivers do every day: wager the lives of others on just how great they think they are at a practical skill at which everyone is necessarily fallible.

You’ll say this is a false analogy, and you’re right. For one thing, most people are not great at driving; they are merely ok, and many are worse than that. For another thing, this analogy doesn't even begin to capture all the innocent passers-by whose lives you potentially endanger when you drive. It’s your loved-ones you are most likely to harm, but it could be practically anyone. All of them with lives and loves and friends and families and plans.

The thing about death (and certain types of injury) is that there’s no going back and making it right, no healing, no recovery. One tiny slip of concentration (and we all have hundreds of those every day) and the worst could happen. You might die yourself of course. Or you might have to live with the consequences of your actions for many decades to come. But it was worth it. Because of convenience. Tell that to the bereaved.

#YesMeansYes

In a previous post, I made a vague promise to write a post on sexual consent, so here, in my second hashtag-titled blog post (look at me blending seamlessly into the modern world) is that post.

Now seems to be the time, given a recent flurry about consent in the media (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29503973 and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-being-coerced-into-having-anal-sex-researchers-say-with-persuasion-normalised-9671395.html), in particular the notion of affirmative consent (saying “yes” rather than just not saying “no” to put it in simple terms), e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/yes-means-yes-california-sexual-consent.

I'm certainly interested in all the various problems posed by affirmative consent (What exactly counts as establishing it? Isn't it still one person’s word against another’s in many cases of assault? Is this level of intervention in people’s private lives too much, given that this seems to regulate how people consent, not only to insist that they do? And so on, doubtless indefinitely). But what I want to write about here is one major reason that the idea behind it is a step in the right direction.

The naïve view of consent says that if you want to do something, you consent, and if you don’t want to do it, you don’t. But even putting aside the problem of what counts as consenting or as refusing, I don’t think it’s that simple. And the main reason it’s not that simple is power.

Sex is often about power. Some people love that and deliberately play on it, others don’t but find it hard to avoid. It’s often the case that at any given time, one partner has some power over the other. I'm not saying that that’s inevitable, or that it’s good or bad in itself, just that it’s very often the case.

When someone with power suggests sex, or a particular sex act, to someone without power, it may be very difficult for the relatively powerless party to say “no”, or otherwise express refusal.

The idea behind affirmative consent, as I understand it, is that if someone cannot bring themselves to say “no”, their partner can’t just carry on anyway. Of course it is still possible to feel pressured into saying “yes”, but keeping silent (withholding consent) is much easier than speaking out (refusing consent) for a relatively powerless partner.

There are lots of reasons that someone might not be able to bring themselves to explicitly refuse consent, including not wanting to be a disappointment to their partner, feeling like they ought to want this because it’s what someone normal would want, fearing that if they say “no” their partner will suggest something else that they are even less keen to do, feeling that they owe their partner this in return for something, fearing that the partner will leave them if they don’t do what they want.

In some situations, the power imbalance may not be temporary, but a permanent feature of that relationship, where one partner always dominates. In that case, there may be worse reasons for the powerless partner not being able to bring themselves to refuse consent, including feeling that their desires are not important, that they have no right to a say, or fearing that if they say “no” their partner might carry on anyway and there is nothing they could do to stop them. In that last case, allowing it to happen might make you miserable, but refusing and having it happen anyway would make you a rape victim – I know which I’d rather be.

There is a particular problem here with sexual habits that play on the imbalance of power. As I said above, there’s nothing inherently wrong with these things, but it is important to realise that they can trap people. If someone agrees to try being submissive just to see what it’s like, they make themselves the powerless party, and once that has happened it can be difficult to backtrack. All the safewords in the world won’t save you if you can’t bring yourself to say them because you don’t believe you deserve the right. Powerlessness can get under your skin faster than anything.

That last part might sound like a specific criticism of the BDSM community, but it’s not. People who know what they like are totally entitled to enjoy it with willing others. The point is more about trying out something new, whether that’s a new sexual practice or a new partner. That is the time when consent is required, and the time when power imbalances are most likely to make it difficult to withhold.

Affirmative consent is a blunt instrument. It may be so blunt that it doesn't do the job, as we currently conceive of it. However, its heart is in the right place. As an idea, it exists to protect those who want to say “no”, but can’t bring themselves to speak. They aren't weak people, or stupid people, or in any way strange or abnormal. They are just people who currently don’t have the balance of power in a sexual relationship with them, and that is something that could happen to anyone, so this should matter to us all.

Even from the other side – the side of the person with the power – this is important. You want to know whether someone actually wants to do what you are offering, not just for them to say that they do. (If not, you are a sex offender in all but name). So establishing real and genuine consent is essential for both parties. Any initiative that tries to help with that is to be applauded. So if you have concerns about the notion of affirmative consent as it’s currently being employed, voice those concerns in a way that could help make it better, or offer an alternative. Don’t dismiss and deride the whole idea, because this is something that should matter to every decent person. Let’s at least start a conversation.

If you had been through what I've been through...

This is a post about privilege, suffering, and inverse snobbery.

Our society despises privilege (although we are all privileged to some extent), praises those who have suffered (although any sane person would avoid suffering at all costs), and because of these two things engages in inverse snobbery.

The term “inverse snobbery” is normally applied to those who criticise those of a higher social class or income bracket just for their membership of that class. No-one likes posh people after all. Unfair as I think this is, I'm thinking of a different kind of inverse snobbery here: the attitude of those who have suffered hardship (or who think they have) toward those who (they think) have led an easier life. And this is just as unfair, and even crazier than the more usual kind of inverse snobbery.

There’s a sensible origin to some of this madness. People who have suffered something (racism, sexism, starvation, violence, homelessness, anything really) may rightly believe that they have a perspective on that suffering that those who haven’t undergone it don’t have. Don’t tell someone who has suffered one of these things what it is like, or how they should feel about it, if you haven’t suffered it yourself. That is fair enough. But the sentiment needn't extend as far as having no right to an opinion about that kind of suffering, or to not being entitled to act to stop it.

For example, I have never been punched in the face. But I think that being punched in the face is bad, and I think I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. I also think I am entitled to step in and stop someone else getting punched in the face without being told that it’s none of my business because I just don’t understand what it’s like. Worse, I don’t expect to be treated like there’s something essential missing from my character until I have suffered this widespread ill.

Think this sort of thing doesn't happen? It does; keep a look out and you’ll find it. The most extreme example I have seen is someone defending their use of an abusive comment of a sexual nature. I won’t quote it. It was nasty. Someone else rightly criticised this, only to be told that they could stay out of it until they had been sexually abused themselves, like the speaker of the offensive comment. Not only is that ridiculous, it’s dangerous. It basically says “I am allowed to be abusive because I have been abused, and you haven’t the right to stop me because you haven’t been”. Now obviously not everyone who has suffered in any way goes on to inflict suffering on others, but there is some danger in letting only those people have a say in how suffering is dished out in the future.

Where does this crazy attitude come from? It seems like those who have suffered take a pride in it, and want to look down on those who haven’t. Perhaps, as with the class or money-driven inverse snobbery, envy has something to do with it. But there seems to be more to it. It’s like we have this social idea that the strongest swords are forged in fire. If you have been though something terrible, you really will be a better person in all sorts of ways than someone who has had a relatively easy life. I don’t buy it. You might be more capable in some ways because of it, and less capable in others, but people vary hugely in these respects anyway. Everything that happens to a person, good and bad, shapes their character. Emphasizing the positive transformative effects of suffering ignores both the negative transformative effects of suffering, and the transformative effects (positive and negative) of good experiences.

By requiring others to have suffered in order to have an opinion or a right to intervene in an issue where that suffering is concerned, you are basically wishing suffering on others. Nice of you. The danger in this being so pervasive is that those who feel their lives have been really easy in all respects become almost envious of those who have some tale of suffering to tell. They start to feel that they are worthless because they haven’t been through at least some kind of hell. And anything that can make people feel something that insane is obviously something that has gone far too far.

So stop it.

Someone who has lived a relatively easy life still has every right to their opinions about suffering, as long as they are not trying to dictate how you should feel about it. They are also not in any way less of a person. Your suffering may have made you stronger, without them being weak for the lack of it. That’s totally consistent. So start wishing for less suffering in the world, not more.

#icebucketchallenge

An unusually topical post this one, but it raises some bigger issues beyond the momentary craze. I’ll begin with a personal confession, which is also a relatively unusual thing for this blog: I haven’t watched a single ice bucket challenge. And I don’t live under a rock or anything. I'm on the internet all the time, and I've seen dozens of different links every day for the last forever (or however long this thing has been going on now). So why? Well read on.

I can’t take away from the whole idea in terms of what it has achieved. A lot of money has been raised for a worthy cause and that is a good thing. But is this how we do it? Is this how human kindness to other humans works now? I think there’s something a bit disturbing about the ice bucket challenge and the extent to which it’s taken off.  In order to alleviate suffering, apparently someone else has to suffer, because other people find that amusing. That being the most successful basis for charity says something about us. And it’s not something good.

I've never liked watching people put themselves through challenges, ordeals etc. and although a bit of cold water is pretty minor as ordeals go, it is still someone doing something unpleasant to themselves as a public spectacle. I think most people would get the feeling I'm talking about if you made it something that was much more of an ordeal, like people whipping themselves on camera. It’s not the extent of the suffering and discomfort, it’s the choice to needlessly go through it, and it’s the fact that people are enjoying watching others do so.

Let’s look at the choice to go through it first (I’ll come to the audience’s response in a bit). I imagine that people going into the ice bucket challenge fall somewhere on a spectrum from dreading it but doing it under peer pressure, to looking forward to it because it’s an opportunity to show off. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, the reason to do it (and the reason I expect some people will say they actually end up enjoying it) seems to be overcoming the challenge. So it’s the fact that it’s unpleasant but that you go through it anyway that makes you feel braver, like you've achieved something, and like you've made a sacrifice for a greater good.

These are all admirable things to feel, and they are completely necessary in some experiences of suffering. If you jump into a lake to save someone from drowning, you will get all of these things from the suffering it costs you. But that is totally different because the suffering is directly necessary. In the case of the ice bucket challenge, it is utterly needless. In a world already packed full of needless suffering, adding to it even a jot seems like madness. If you really want to suffer to help someone else, volunteer with a charity to do actual work on the ground somewhere. (I realise that won’t work for ALS research unless you happen to be a highly specialised scientist, but there are plenty of other charities, e.g. homeless charities, where practically anyone can make a difference).

Why don’t people put their suffering/minor discomfort to better use in these ways? Because their mates wouldn't gather round to laugh at them. It wouldn't be a spectacle. I'm not going to condemn the arrogance there; I think most people like being centre of attention in a positive way sometimes, and that doesn't seem inherently bad. It’s what they become centre of attention for that I'm arguing against. So let’s come to why people choose to watch and enjoy someone – often someone they know and care about – chucking freezing cold water over their head.

The most common reaction I have heard from audiences is laughter. I don’t get it. That doesn't make it bad; there are lots of jokes I don’t think are funny that aren't thereby some kind of travesty. No-one made me the humour police. But the reason I don’t find it funny makes me find it a bit disturbing that others do. No-one laughed (quite rightly) when this puppy got dunked: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sick-ice-bucket-challenge-thugs-4095774 I realise it’s crucially different that the puppy has no choice and doesn't understand why it’s happening, but I'm not sure why those things should make it funnier when it’s a person. Go back to the analogy with whipping: Is someone whipping themselves funnier than someone whipping a puppy? No; they’re just nasty in different ways. This is way down on the scale of suffering, but I don’t see why it isn't in principle the same.

At first I was only mildly uncomfortable with this. I would rather not watch the videos than watch them, and others disagree. But as the campaign has snowballed, it has become progressively more disturbing. The public apparently has an insatiable thirst for this kind of stuff. I don’t think that paints a very good picture of us as a society. It’s a relatively minor thing in itself. So minor that the huge amount of money raised probably makes it worth it. But if we are the kind of people who like this so much, what else would we enjoy? Who are we that this is our idea of entertainment, and our most effective route to encouraging charity?

So if you have an urge to take on a bracing challenge and feel the warm glow of helping others, then good for you. Go out and challenge yourself by actually helping people, not by doing something trivial and needless. And if you want to make your mates laugh, also good for you. Tell them a funny joke. And if you want to watch something funny on YouTube, find a cat video or something. Stop watching ice bucket challenges. You’re getting hooked on the suffering of others, and however minor that suffering, that just isn't healthy.

Fighting fit

It’s not that controversial to say you should keep your body in good shape because you owe it to yourself. But the problem with that is that you get to decide what you owe to yourself. So if you don’t want to keep fit, that’s entirely your choice. Sounds ok? I'm not so sure.

It’s part of the modern liberal attitude to say that you have completely free choice as an individual, and, while I often agree with that line, it conveniently ignores any obligations you might have to others. Most of us don’t live in total isolation, and that is a very good thing. But it brings with it, among the many advantages, certain responsibilities.

Consider yourself as a person who likes to eat unhealthy food and not exercise (whether or not you actually are like that). If you want to continue to live in that way, it seems right to say you should be able to. But then consider yourself as the friend, relative or partner of such a person. See what I mean? There are two things that are particularly hard about being in this situation, so let’s have a look at those.

The first is that it’s hard to watch someone you care about engaging in self-destructive behaviour. Watching them chip away at their health and their future little by little, all the while making excuses to themselves that it’s not that bad, they deserve this little treat, they’ll do better from tomorrow, or from next week…It’s a hard thing to see.

The second is that, if someone is living like they don’t want to live for very long, it feels like they don’t want to live for very long with you. This is especially true if the person in question is your partner or parent, but it is true to some extent for anyone you are close to. Now this is of course a very selfish way of looking at another’s suffering. I wouldn't dream of saying, for example, that someone suicidal should have a bit more concern for their friends and family. But neither would I condemn those friends and family for feeling angry with them; it is a natural response. The same is true here, albeit to a lesser extent. It isn't as though someone living unhealthily is deliberately disregarding their loved ones’ feelings, but that does not mean that those feelings don’t exist.

So, as someone who is close to someone who is living unhealthily, you feel depressed and angry, helpless that you can’t change that, and scared of the future with a loved one who might become increasingly ill, then no longer be there for you at all. Now go back to thinking from the point of view of the person living unhealthily. Now you know how those around you feel. Does it still seem like it’s completely fine to choose to live this way?

As I said, I would not dream of condemning a suicidal person for not thinking about their friends and family. They usually do think about them a great deal, but it is part of the nature of most of the situations and medical conditions that lead to suicidal thoughts that you can’t rationally take note of how much others need and care about you, and choose to change accordingly. In some cases, I believe that the same may be true about an unhealthy lifestyle. I am no expert, but there are health problems and drug regimes that increase appetite, or make exercise difficult or impossible, or both. There may well also be psychiatric conditions such as food addiction. People in the grip of these tragedies are not the people I am talking about.

I am talking about people who have made a choice to live an unhealthy lifestyle in the belief that it is exactly that – their choice – and that as such, no-one else has a say. My argument is that these people are failing to take into account the extent to which others depend on them and/or care about them.

This still feels a bit uncomfortable. It seems to give other people a say in what you do with your body. Do they get to choose what you wear, who you have sex with, whether you get a tattoo? Don’t worry; I absolutely don’t think that your friends and relatives get to choose those things for you! So what’s the difference?

Well, none of those things will result in increasing disability, followed by premature death, while an unhealthy lifestyle may well do. Your responsibilities to others do not include being a different person than you are. You can be there for them, both emotionally and in more practical ways, regardless of how you dress, etc. If your choices in those respects make them unhappy, then so be it. Those things are a part of your identity; they don’t have the right to ask you to change.

Can’t an unhealthy lifestyle be a part of your identity in much the same way? Well yes, but not all things that are a part of your identity are ok. Being a serial killer could be a part of who you are too, but other people definitely have a right to want you to be different in that case! Things that have a destructive effect on others are not traits that you have exclusive ownership of, and your health is one of those things. The people you form close relationships with have a say in how those relationships play out, and that is profoundly affected by your physical condition. So, to the extent that you are able to control it, you should keep yourself as well as you can for your loved ones, as well as for yourself.

I started out by saying that you owe it to yourself to stay in good shape, and I still think that is of primary importance. Your relationship with yourself is one of the most (if not the most) important relationships you will ever have, after all! However, for the vast majority of people, you also have important relationships to others. You not only owe it to yourself to stay reasonably fit, but you owe it to them too.

Divided, we stand united

Just be yourself. Natural is in right now. How often have we heard the pleas not to change your body or your personality to fit others’ expectations? Yet there are still definite trends in our expectations of these things, and definite pressures to conform to those trends. What are we missing?

First, I want to talk about body shape. Women certainly suffer from the pressure to look a certain way (only a lunatic would deny that). But what’s particularly crazy is the changing fashions in what we are pressured to look like. Not just in terms of clothing, hairstyle, having or not having a tan, etc., but in terms of much less transitory things. Relatively recently, we've undergone the shift from skinny straight-up-and-down, to curvy hour-glass. This is insane. Your weight might be under voluntary control to some extent, but your body shape – short of surgery – is not. For this reason among many others it is just not the sort of thing that should be subject to fashions.

Men haven’t got away scot free on this one either. There has been a shift in ideal from lean muscular to more beefy bulked-up muscular, and that is just as damaging and ridiculous as the corresponding shift for women.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with having ideals. It’s just that any person’s body ideal should only ever be the healthiest version of themselves, not a picture of someone else entirely unlike them.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is that personality suffers from the same fashion trends. In the modern Western world, it is said that a slight hint of mania does you some favours (see e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/business/19entre.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), and that many successful people score a little higher than average on the scales used to test for psychopathy (see e.g. http://fortune.com/2012/10/26/do-psychopaths-make-good-ceos/). There has also been a little flurry recently over how under-rated introverts have become (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts), and this seems in danger of descending into a competition over whether introversion or extraversion is “better”.

As with body type, the traits at issue here are often not really under an individual’s control. One argument is that it is useful to know that extraverts are more successful in a particular situation, so introverts could to better by “faking” extraversion. That might be useful advice in the short term, but really, why should anybody have to fake anything? We can all benefit from a little pretence at times, for example feigning sympathy rather than admitting we don’t really care about an acquaintance’s misfortunes. But pretending to be someone else is taking this to a whole new, and worrying, level.

What happens to you if you’re not a curvy extravert, or a mildly psychopathic beefcake? You can either fake it (with the help of surgery or drugs if necessary), you can bemoan your own inferiority and spiral into depression and self-loathing, or…you could try a little self-acceptance. This is really hard, given the social pressure to take one of the first two routes, but it is surely obviously better. And the main thing that makes self-acceptance easier is if we all practice a bit of other-acceptance too. People are different. Get over it.

We have been led to expect people to behave in certain ways, and to deride them for not doing so. We want everyone to be confident (by which people usually mean loud), brim full of energy, and at least making an effort to look how you’re supposed to look (control pants, chicken fillets, fake tan, etc.) But why do we think these ways of being are better than others? They might be better on average in certain types of situations, but they are definitely worse in others.

The really tragic thing here is our total inability to celebrate and respect diversity. Our diversity is our great strength as a society. In evolutionary terms, groups that are too uniform don’t last long. This is because organisms that all have the same weakness are vulnerable to entire populations being wiped out at a stroke. There are plenty of evolutionary facts that don’t translate up to the social level, but I think this one does. Any group that has variety of skills, interests, etc. is much more robust than one where everyone is the same. And it’s so much less boring.

When it comes to physical attractiveness, not only is it ok to be attracted to a look that isn't currently the fashionable one, it’s ok (in fact I think the healthiest thing) to not have a “type” at all.

What is interesting about a new person when you meet them is what makes them unique. That can be both physically and in terms of personality (depending on the context of meeting). So take the time to find out who people are, and don’t do this with a check-list of fashionable attributes that you think they ought to have.

There are many ways of dealing with a problem. There are many ways of being attractive. There are many ways of being good company. There are many ways of showing you care. There are many ways of being in charge. There are many ways of being a useful member of a team. Next time someone does one of these things in a non-standard way, look at whether it actually works, not at whether you have always been told that this is the way to do that thing. Practice other-acceptance. And next time you do one of those things in a non-standard way, think similarly. Practice self-acceptance. By accepting and even accentuating our diversity, we can stand together as a more robust, better functioning, and happier society.

I'm just, like, a really spiritual person?

We've all heard people talk like this, weird question-like inflection included. About how spiritual/enlightened they are, how in line with the universe, or deeply connected to nature or whatever. And we've all heard them slammed by the uber-rationalist types who think it’s all hocus pocus, and damaging hocus pocus at that. Who is right? Is there a middle way?

Well I think certain sorts of “spiritual” talk are dangerous but seductive nonsense (which is the worst kind of nonsense). However, I also think that there is a really important role for the language of spirituality to play, and that losing that would be almost as dangerous. I’ll try to explain this a bit more, but first I’ll quickly give some arguments on both sides that I think are both popular and strong.

First the spiritual person: This person sometimes argues that we are too “scientific” these days. Well that doesn't entirely make sense, but the point seems to be something like our having lost touch with nature, with our emotional selves, and with others as emotional beings too. This, I have a lot of time for. It can be phrased in ways that are patronising, weird, or just plain dumb, but the basic idea is that the 21^st century doesn't have time for people (and indeed plants and animals) other than as means to an end in a bullet-pointed life plan. And this rings totally true.

Blaming science isn't fair, but it’s understandable because they are faced with the caricature voice of modern science in the person of the uber-rationalist. More on them later. But this blaming of science is where it can get dangerous. There’s a certain type of spiritual person who thinks modern medicine shouldn't be trusted, and we’d be better off praying, or eating special herbs while muttering magic words, or drinking water (homeopathy). People die from this. They refuse their meds when they’re really ill, and they die. Then there are the anti-vaxxers – people who refuse vaccinations. This is a risk to all of us because, without high immunity in the population, infectious diseases can run riot and kill many, including those who were medically unsuitable for vaccination for whatever reason. The most vulnerable in society die first, and the rest of us follow. How spiritual. Well, there’s lots of praying, anyway.

Another danger is when spirituality comes in almost cult-like guises that appeal to the psychologically and emotionally vulnerable. This can be positive, when it’s a case of a community taking in someone lonely and giving them friendship and new purpose. However, it can result in brainwashing. People encouraged to cut off other support networks, to engage in potentially dangerous practices like fasting and drug taking. These are the kind of spiritual people we should fear. Their spirituality is a mask for control of others.

So, unsurprisingly, there is good-spiritual and bad-spiritual.

Now on to the uber-rationalist: This person tends to argue that science has everything almost all figured out. We should listen to what science tells us, and that’s that. When this is a counter-argument to the homeopath or the anti-vaxxer, I applaud it. And I love science. It’s amazingly good at what it does. But it was never supposed to do everything. It doesn't tell us how to be kind to others, and how and when and whether to be kind to yourself at others’ expense. It doesn't tell you how to feel part of a relationship, or of a community, and how to love your role within that unit. Only being with people can teach you these things.

And this uber-rationalism is dangerous too. People feel that it leaves something out. They are told that science can tell them everything, and when it can’t tell them how to live a good life that makes them happy (the main thing everyone really wants to know) they are disillusioned and turn away from it. As people turn away, they become mistrustful of science, and they look for answers to all their problems elsewhere. Then they become the kind of people who turn down their medication in favour of special water, and who refuse to vaccinate their children.

So, of course, there’s good and bad rationalist/pro-science too.

We need a balance where science is viewed for what it is, and praised for what it can do, without being held up as something that can solve all problems. But then does spiritualism fill the gaps left by science? I don’t think it does, really. Most of the things I mentioned above are the realm of philosophy, politics, and the humanities disciplines. Spiritual answers to the big questions – “Why am I here?”, “How can I face death without fear?”, “What is wrong with me that makes me feel this way?” etc. – all tend to be false. But that doesn't mean they aren't important, because we don’t have any true answers.

And this is the key place I think spiritual language is essential; it allows us to talk about the big questions. And we need to talk. We are natural story-tellers; our lives are narrative. We need to be able to talk out and make sense of everything that happens to us, and how we feel about it, even if it’s only talking to ourselves. Nameless, wordless struggles are the hardest. They can’t be resolved until we have words to rationalise them, and some struggles are too big to do this with conventional language. What we say might be strictly false, and we might be well aware of that, but if it can give us that sense of resolution, it can allow us to move on with our lives.

There’s a positive side to this too of course. Positive experiences can be just as ineffable, from the beauty of a sunset, to an intense shared orgasm, to a lucky coincidence that averts the disaster you've been dreading, to a piece of music that just fits with everything for you. We can still have these joys without words, but sometimes words can help us to enrich our experience of them, or to share them with others.

It might be that one day we will have words for all of the big things that don’t have a hint of the spiritual about them, and maybe then the spiritual will have had its day. But that day won’t be coming any time soon, if ever. In the meantime, we need the language of the spiritual to help us describe the indescribable; to fit the really big things into our relatively small minds so that we can cope. That can enrich our lives in ways that I don’t have words for, other than to say that it’s somehow…spiritual.

Go on, give us a smile!

Ever been told to cheer up or to smile by a random stranger? If you have, chances are you know how horrible this is. If you haven’t, you may not know that it even happens. It does. It happens a lot. And it’s horrible.

There are other variants too. I and people I know have also been told not to look so worried, miserable or scared. These things have been said by acquaintances, people we have just been introduced to, and by strangers passing by in the street. I have even had a man serving me at a supermarket checkout attempt to not hand me my shopping until I “gave him a smile”. As a grown woman. I wanted to make a formal complaint, but didn't in case the complaint was dealt with by the sort of person who says this kind of thing, and would therefore meet with the response that I was being a miserable cow and should lighten up. (Although probably not phrased like that unless their customer complaints department is really bad).

It seems pretty obvious to me that telling a random stranger to rearrange their face to suit you is really rude. I would not stop a guy on the street and tell him to get plastic surgery because he’s no oil painting, and this is the same thing; it’s telling someone that their face isn't currently good enough, and it should look more like you want it to look. This is obviously going to make the person feel pretty inadequate. Being told you are insulting people by having a face that looks that bad can really ruin your day. And you think it must be really bad for a total stranger to have gone out of their way to point it out. I'm so sorry. Should I wear a paper bag so you don’t have to look at this?

It’s particularly deflating when you are actually in a really good mood. Not everyone who is in a good mood wears a big smile all the time. Especially not while walking down a street or sitting in a park or a café or whatever on their own. In fact, grinning in these situations is liable to really freak people out. Ever done it by accident because you remember something really funny? You get stares. It’s not normal (although of course there’s nothing wrong with doing it – just weird to make it compulsory). If you can summon a particularly freaky-looking grin, that can be a good response to these requests for cheer. It’s hard to do on the spot though, and you can never be sure what reaction you will get.

Being told to cheer up when you’re already feeling good is like being told your happy isn't good enough. It’s worthless happy. Your joy is inadequate. Your good day is insufficient. For a stranger, of whose business it is none.

And don’t even get me started on how it feels to hear this when you really are upset or depressed. I strongly suspect that there are people who have been pushed to extreme acts by just this kind of thoughtless on-street bullying disguised as cheeriness. In fact, next time this happens to you, try telling the person that a friend or relative just died. (If you aren't comfortable with that, a dog or cat would do). This should make them feel really bad. It should. It might stop them putting anyone else through this. If it doesn't make them feel really bad, they’re a psychopath.

If it’s so obviously bad, why do people do it? I've heard “women look so much more attractive when they smile” before. Presumably the thought there is that women’s primary purpose is to look attractive for men, and we will be grateful to be informed that we aren't up to scratch so we can put it right at once. Nice.

But men get this kind of crap too. Not as often perhaps, but definitely sometimes, so that can’t be the whole story. The main other defence of it I've heard is that people are happier when they smile. That’s right; it’s for your own good! Someone is being rude to you in order to brighten your day! Of course! Makes sense now….No; actually, still confused.

I really don’t understand why people go around saying this to others. Believing that you have the right to control the facial expressions of others is egotism to the point of madness. If you really want someone to smile, don’t instruct them to do it. Be nice to them. Make the world better. But remember that sometimes the best way to make someone happy, particularly a random stranger on the street, is just to leave them alone to get on with their lives!

You’re a creep. And you’re a weirdo.

What’s the difference between a creep, and a friendly guy with poor social skills?

This is a question that women face on a regular basis. For every misguided approach, you have to decide whether the appropriate response is kindness and pity, or to protect yourself at all costs. And then afterwards, you either have to wonder about whether you did the right thing, or deal with the fall-out when it’s obvious that you didn't.

One side of this argument says that most men are decent but many of them are inept. Some of them have more serious problems: autism, learning difficulties, or other issues that might make the usual social rules very difficult for them to understand or act on. The best approach is to be friendly, assume the best of people, and not be too paranoid that people’s intentions are bad.

The other side of the argument says that you should never take the risk. Most men will interpret any friendliness (hell, even basic politeness) as an indication that you want to sleep with them, and they will act accordingly. Acting accordingly could be anything from groping, to stalking, to full-on assault. Forget being polite. Forget worrying about his feelings. Just get him away from you.

Most people would probably say that a position somewhere between these two is the appropriate one. I wouldn't. I think that the latter position is the only one we can take. It’s horrible, and society needs to change so that it is no longer the appropriate response, but as things stand, it is a reasonable way to think.

Firstly, isn't this really paranoid? Well yes maybe. The vast majority of these types of encounters will mercifully lead to nothing more than an awkward conversation. That in itself shouldn't be underestimated. It might well leave you feeling horrible for a few days, and questioning what you did wrong in the longer term. But admittedly it’s not that bad. But it is also undeniable that occasionally something much worse happens. And if something worse does happen to you or one of your friends, then what? Then you are to blame. You are to blame for encouraging the helpless man, and you are to blame for not listening to your instincts in the first place and getting away. Or so says our victim-blaming society. And therefore so says everyone you know, and so says the voice in your head. So really, if you are wondering whether someone is a creep, I think it’s better to get yourself and your friends out of the situation by whatever means you can. Don’t wait to see which of you he follows home, and exactly what he does when he gets there, so that you can make an informed decision about how he really deserves to be dealt with. Just don’t take the risk.

What about the men? If a man really is unable to follow social rules in this respect, for whatever reason, he is going to face some pretty cruel treatment from women on a regular basis, and that will have a serious impact on his life. If he doesn't mean it, isn't it really unfair? I think this is a disservice to men. It’s a disservice to men who genuinely do have problems understanding social rules, but nonetheless work really hard to act in accordance with them. It’s also a disservice to the image of men within society, as puppets controlled entirely by their sexual urges and unable to engage in any social interactions not mediated by that. Nonetheless, with the best will in the world, nice guys trying hard will come across as creeps sometimes, and I am recommending hurting them. I don’t do so lightly, but I don’t think there’s much choice as things stand. You are risking worse than hurt feelings if you don’t.

Is there a way of making things better so that all this mess doesn't have to happen at all? Unsurprisingly, the solution is straightforward, but the execution of it is incredibly complex. We need widespread social change such that our public spaces are not seen by both genders as meat markets in which men hunt women. Change such that the social rules are not so complicated and contradictory, with one side telling you that you should respect women and treat them as people, and the other saying it’s expected of you to prey on them and see them as fair game who it’s a bit of a laugh to abuse. You should be a feminist. You should be a player. No wonder a lot of guys struggle to sort out how they should behave.

There will always be social interactions that don’t run smoothly. Many of these will result in bruised feelings. Some may result in unintended intimidation. But currently these things are institutionalised as standard incidents, like the ones you learned about in foreign language classes at school. The creepy chat-up is like asking the way to the train station, or booking a hotel room. It’s something you expect to deal with as standard. That’s what needs to change. Until then, protect yourselves, protect your friends, and don’t be ashamed of that. It’s not cowardice, it’s not cruelty, it’s not paranoia. It’s just the only sensible reaction to a bad situation in a world where change is long overdue.

Our survey says: Anyone but those guys!

Just a short post this time, and maybe a bit of a UK-centric one (sorry). This is about voting, given that we are going to vote in the European (and in some places local) elections in a few days time. Should you vote? Yes Why? See below.

It’s often thrown out there (particularly at younger women, or people from any other group that used to be denied the vote) that you should vote because someone fought for your right to do so. Suffragettes suffered so that you could put a cross on a bit of paper, and you can’t even be bothered to do that. My teenage response was always “well I didn't ask them to”. It’s horribly selfish, but there’s something to it. I think the someone-fought-for-your-vote argument is a bit of a red herring. But it’s close to something important.

What really is important is why anyone ever thought it was worth fighting for. What made them think it mattered so much? Quite simply because a vote is power. Individually, it’s not much, but collectively it is. That’s democracy.

Think about a world in which women (or any other group) didn't have the vote. How would that change politics? Well, with no fear of losing votes, government can implement policies that are unfavourable to women. Issues that women care about specifically just don’t even make it onto the table for discussion.

So what happens now, in a time when young people are particularly bored and/or disillusioned (understandably) with politics, and express that by not voting? They lose their voice. Issues that affect young people more than others are not even debated; policies that disadvantage young people can be implemented without fear. Your vote may not feel like much, but it’s the nearest thing you have to a gun to the head of the government. “Do/don’t do this, otherwise you’re finished.”

What about the argument that a single vote is too small to make a difference? Well that’s easily countered; other people vote as well! It only works if enough people vote, but all you can do is get out and vote yourself and trust that others will do the same. The more people that do it, the more others will follow; that’s how collective stuff works.

What about the argument that there’s no-one worth voting for? I sympathise with that one, I really do. I think everyone does. But look at it this way: some parties are more worth voting against than others. So vote for the least bad option, and see it as a vote against all the others. It sort of is. It’s a completely fair answer to “who do you want to win?” to say “anyone but those guys!”

There’s a real danger at the moment that certain smaller, more extremist parties (who shall remain nameless) could have a real shot, given people’s disillusionment. Other people will be voting for them. You can’t stop that. All you can do is vote for someone else; that’s the power you have to neutralise their effect. Even if your vote is only damage limitation in that case, there’s nothing wrong or insignificant about that.

So get to the polls. You are very unlikely to regret it if you do, but you might well seriously regret it if you don’t.

Hideous kinky?

Talking about sex, in particular the eye-openingly wide variety of different things people enjoy, has never been so widely accepted. These days we are freer to express ourselves and indulge what we really want, largely free of prejudice and sanctimonious tutting. From Ann Summers parties, to the culturally ubiquitous Fifty Shades of Grey, we have never had so much freedom. Or so they tell us. But the real picture seems much more complicated than that. My particular concern is that society is now creating a pressure towards particular kinks that is just as pernicious as their earlier condemnation, if not more so. An unwillingness to discuss the topic seems at least partly to blame. I’ll get to that via a couple of other interesting things that seem to be happening at the moment.

The first interesting thing is the conversation in the media and elsewhere about pornography. In particular, there is a concern that young people feel under pressure to behave in the way that porn stars do, because this is their only (or at any rate most graphic) representation of what sex should be like. This is of particular concern in relation to pornography involving violence and humiliation. Feminists have stressed that a generation of young boys is reaching maturity with the belief that women like to be hurt and humiliated, and the conditioned response to be aroused by that happening because that’s the kind of porn they have been using, and it’s habit-forming. [See e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10441027/How-porn-is-rewiring-our-brains.html]

Another interesting thing is a parallel conversation about consent. This is a topic worthy of a whole other blog post (which I may write at some point) but from rape re-enactment porn [see e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22643862] to Robin Thicke singing “I know you want it”, there’s definitely some confusion around the idea.

The final thing to mention before I get to the main point is sex toys. By that I mean not just dildos and vibrators, but the full range of paraphernalia on sale, including various BDSM equipment. Apparently we are buying more of all this than we used to, suggesting perhaps that sex has got a whole lot more…creative…for want of a better word. It seems very likely that this is linked to the more widespread use of harder and more diverse kinds of porn, although I doubt it is as simple as the one causing the other.

So is any of this a problem? The standard liberal line, and one I have always supported, is that consenting adults can do whatever they like as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. However, I now think this is naïve. It is just another way of closing a door on a topic that some people just don’t want to think about. We have moved from “it’s all disgusting, let’s not talk about it” to “it’s all just a bit of fun, let’s not talk about it”. But we desperately need an honest open dialogue. For one thing, some practices can be dangerous (for example erotic asphyxiation, blood play etc.). For another thing, consent can be difficult to establish. Moral dilemmas abound here, as many people within niche groups like the BDSM community have known for a long time. If more extreme practices are becoming more mainstream, these things can’t be brushed under the carpet by the media and the general public.

But my main concern here is changing expectations, potentially resulting in people feeling coerced (not directly, but via social pressure) into trying things that really don’t interest them. Is this really happening? I think it is.

Our cultural stereotype of the ideal partner is usually described by phrases like “an absolute freak in the bedroom”, “likes it dirty”, “a real bad girl/boy” etc. Our image of what is sexy has become largely dominated (no pun intended) by kink. What does this do? Well it creates a standard to live up to, as these images always do.

What if someone (male or female) happens to really enjoy “vanilla” sex. Maybe they even favour the missionary position sometimes; then what? It seems that now we view that person as a prude, as sexually repressed, as stuck in the past, as inadequate, unerotic, in short really really boring. How will they ever attract a partner, let alone keep their interest? Do they even know how to use half the stuff on sale in the average sex shop? If not, do we view them as inadequate and worthy of ridicule? It very much feels like things are moving in that direction.

Worse, what about the kids growing up with this as their main image of what sex should be like? It would be nice to think that they could decide for themselves what they really like or want to try, and leave the rest, but I think the reality is that what you really want (certainly when you are younger, and for many people right through their lives) is to be normal. So people try to do what they think their partner will expect of them, and keep doing it until they like it, or at least get used to it.

What I would really like to know is, if we could somehow remove the influence of the media and peer pressure, what would people really want? It is likely that some would still really want to be tied up, whipped, etc etc, and, if they can find others who want to do that for/with them, that’s totally fine. But also many people would want something far simpler, and far more vanilla. And we seem to be in danger of forgetting that there’s nothing wrong with that either.

The ideal future would be one that is more genuinely accepting of different tastes, rather than one where sexual desires are dictated by fashion. Particularly given fashion’s tendency to become progressively more extreme by a process of one-upmanship. So we need a real honest conversation about sex. Not just one where people are free to admit what they would like to try, but also one where they are free to admit that they wouldn't.

Baa baa black sheep, have you any succulent flesh for me to feast on?

As you might have guessed from the title, this is a post about vegetarianism. But it is also about the way of thinking that allows most people to go from “aww cute little lambies!” to “mmm, roast lamb” without missing a beat. It’s a way of thinking I believe I've seen elsewhere and no good comes of it, so it’s worth a closer look. Vegetarianism is just one example; an important one I think.

I became a vegetarian for environmental reasons (global warming, better energy efficiency of growing arable crops versus grazing animals etc). I didn't think there was actually anything wrong with killing and eating animals in principle, and I had no particular emotional reaction to the idea of eating meat; it just seemed rationally better not to.

I had always wondered why I wasn't repulsed by the idea of eating meat; why we all aren't. There must be a moment in childhood when you find out what meat is, and it seems like that should be pretty traumatic and put you off for life. Yet I remember no such moment, and other people I have talked to mostly don’t either. I wondered whether, when I stopped eating meat, I would develop an emotional disgust-response to the idea of it. And I did. It’s why I think that happened that’s interesting, so enough of the autobiographical wittering, and let’s look at that.

When we are doing something that isn't really right, I think the subconscious reasoning goes something like “I do this, and I'm not a bad/stupid/thoughtless person, so it can’t be a bad/stupid/thoughtless thing to do”. Sometimes you hear people say things like this out loud. I've met people who think “well I've always eaten meat” is a justification of some sort, and I'm sure you have too. Once you stop doing the thing (eating meat in this case), that line of thought is cut off. Then you can think about the thing itself, without your self-image getting in the way. If there’s one thing that clouds all of our judgement, it’s self-image.

I said this applies to things other than vegetarianism, so what do I have in mind? One example is abusive relationships. There’s a tendency to think something like “I wouldn't get taken advantage of because I'm a strong and smart person, so given that I'm in this relationship, it can’t be one in which I'm being taken advantage of”. And then you don’t leave. (Of course I'm not implying that strong and smart people don’t get into abusive relationships. Learning that they do sometimes can be the way to get out without destroying your self-image).

I have seen the same reasoning applied to drunk driving. An acquaintance off her face on chardonnay was giving a group of people a lift home. Someone suggested she was in no fit state, but she told us that she doesn't drink much because of her religion. Presumably the thinking was “I don’t drink much because I'm not that sort of person, so I can’t be drunk”. Again, self-image (and admittedly booze too in this case) gets in the way of seeing what is actually going wrong.

This thought pattern is a kind of what George Orwell called doublethink. You can learn to live with the tension between believing something to be wrong (or at least having a nagging half-conscious sense that it is) and explicitly denying it. In this case, the trick is pulled off because of the way self-image gets in the way. We don’t even need an Orwellian oppressive regime to tell us what to think; we can do doublethink all by ourselves. It seems possible that learning to think in this way could leave us open to manipulation by a regime that relies on such contradictions, à la 1984, but I’ll leave that thought as a vague suggestion here. The examples of self-manipulation in the cases of abusive relationships and drink driving should be enough to show that this way of thinking can be dangerous.

Is there a way to stop ourselves thinking this way? Probably not entirely, since it seems to be something we take to so naturally. But being aware of that fact by itself arms us against it to some extent. Knowledge is power (over yourself, as much as over others).

To close, I want to bring this back to vegetarianism. What I have said would make sense of the idea of initiatives that challenge people to go veggie for a month just to try it. You don’t just learn what other options you have to eat, you erode that image of yourself as a meat-eater, making it harder to think “I eat meat, so it can’t be bad”. Why not push yourself further? Try reflecting on the fact that you are munching on dead stuff – “mmm, tasty corpses!” – and see if your emotions towards meat change. And if they are changed so easily, why should your new thoughts be any less valid than the old? If you eat meat just because it doesn't feel like a bad thing to do, or because you've always done it, I dare you to try it and see what happens.

Then you can enjoy watching those spring lambs playing in the fields without getting hungry. If you look at them in the right way, they just aren't food!