monkey’s, porn and consent

Yesterday a(nother) liberal dood I know wanted to share how science totally rocks.  his evidence is that a study was done that shows monkey’s like porn and he read about it on the internet. now I don’t know if he read about it at ABC, but I figured if I was going to rant about it, I should look up an article about it.

Then he got really upset that i thought it was horrible. Later he even sent me an email along the lines of, “but I’m a nice guy why do you think I’m a horrible person?” Which makes the issue, not about my reaction to porn, not about rape culture, not about animal captivity, but about poor him and his feelings. Because my feelings hurt his feelings and that is so mean.

This means that I now I have to spend my time letting him know I don’t think he is a horrible person. Well I have to do this if i want to keep the peace. And I do want to keep the peace since I work with him, and we rely on each other to help each other out when studying, and things like that. GRRRR.

But on to the monkeys. First, the article is about how “The study is the first to show that monkeys appraise visual information for its social value and can then use this data to spontaneously discriminate between images of their fellow monkeys.”

but just like with humans the scientists understood “monkeys” to mean MALE BODIED monkeys.

Twelve adult male rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) participated in the study

so already there was bias. that female bodied monkey’s don’t count and we don’t need to see how they think since they are the “other sex” anyway.

The monkey’s were given headshots of both males and females, and hindquarters of females to look at. The article does not discuss how the monkeys responded to headshots of the females. but high social ranking males and female hindquarters were “paid for” more often.

Did they pay for headshots of the women too? would they pay for hindquarter shots of the socially high ranking males? how do we know that “sexiness” of the picture had anything to do with it? Maybe social desirability of the subject was important regardless of the position of the monkey in the camera frame. (not to mention that heteronormative assumptions are made about all subjects in the test).  So again, bias about how humans (i.e. heterosexual male humans) view naked pictures comes into how the experiment was organised, and how the data is interpreted:

Camerer says it is “no surprise” that male monkeys “really like looking at female posteriors”. But he is puzzled that males would pay with juice to see high-status males, but would not look at them for very long.

so already we can see this is a problematic study, immersed in patriarchal structure. feminsiting has a post today about science being used to objectify (human) women.

But what about the monkeys? they were “housed in captivity”.  And someone tells me about this study and expects me to be thrilled because no monkey’s were “physically harmed”(quote from self proclaimed nice guy)? Um… vegan here, I’m for autonomy of creatures. that means I’m against captive animals as a slave class for experimentation, regardless of the nature of the experiment.

And onto the issue of consent. This is the biggest issue involved. I don’t know about you, but If I was hanging around and people took pictures of my genitals and butt, and then sold it as porn to someone else, I’d feel angry and violated. But we can do that to monkeys, and its no big deal. More specifically, we can do that to FEMALE BODIED monkeys and it is  SCIENCE.

But you know what? People do this to FEMALE BODIED PEOPLE too. and there is no recourse. If I’m at a nude beach, and someone takes a picture to use as porn, that’s sick right? but shit like this happens, and it is legal, since I’m in a public place. CREEPY. Even if it were illegal, I can’t go to the cops. That could close down the beach, and everyone would “know” its my own fault, and really I wanted it anyway because otherwise I wouldn’t have been naked and teasing men with my nudity.

so this whole taking pornographic pictures without consent issue is both personal and political.

Just more evidence that female bodies are the bodies of the sex class. To be used by men, for sex and porn whenever they want to.  Whether it is male scientists using female monkey bodies to observe monkey objectification, or male monkeys paying to view female bodies as a commodity. Or if it is male humans jerking off in public at a female body who is minding her business and just wants to enjoy the beach. Female bodies are only good for sexual gratification of men and to hell with what women think about it.  Guess what that looks like to me: rape culture.

but you know, getting upset about this hurts the feelings of all those liberal nice guys who really do respect women “both as a group and as individuals”, but who still find this study awesome. /snark.

Clothing Optional status of San Onofre is threatened

I got the following in an email today.  If you are willing to be known, please write to CA state park director.  Thank you so much for your help and support.

**********************************************************************
                     NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE
                           ACTION ALERT
**********************************************************************
                   http://www.naturistaction.org
**********************************************************************
Copyright 2008 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE: May 21, 2008
SUBJECT: California: San Onofre State Beach
TO: Naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an Action Alert from the Naturist Action Committee. NAC is asking for your immediate help in responding to a serious threat in the state of California.

NAC has learned that Ruth Coleman, Director of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation, has abruptly revoked the application of the Department’s Cahill Policy, as it applies to clothing-optional portions of San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County. Rangers have been told to begin “educating” beachgoers, starting June 1. The issuing of citations for nudity in the traditional clothing-optional area is to follow after 30 days.

IMPORTANT: NAC ASKS YOU TO CONTACT THE CA PARKS DIRECTOR

NAC urgently requests that you contact the Director of CA Parks to express your vigorous opposition to this disastrous change in policy. Detailed contact information is included below. However, so that your contact with the Director’s office will have the greatest impact, please first take a couple of moments to learn about this situation.

THE CAHILL POLICY

Since 1979, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has operated under a policy put in place by then-DPR Director Russ Cahill. The policy came in the form of a memo issued to senior staff, explaining Cahill’s decision not to designate clothing-optional areas in state parks. It also directed that citations for nudity in state parks would only be issued following a complaint and a failure to comply after a subsequent warning.

The policy has been in continuous effect since it was issued. It figured prominently in an important court case (California v. Bost) and was reaffirmed by CA Parks Deputy Director Jack Harrison in 1988.

Details of the Cahill memo, the Bost case and the Harrison letter are included on the NAC Web site, along with the text of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4322, which is the authority under which the Director proposes citing those who are nude at San Onofre.

WHY THE CHANGE NOW?

Naturists are always alert to the negative effect that illicit sexual activity can have on clothing-optional beaches. The regulars at many clothing-optional areas are quite effective at educating and discouraging those who would endanger the beach through sexual activities. At San Onofre, the problem has been diminished greatly in recent years, due in large part to those who really care about continued clothing-optional use of the beach.

The traditional clothing-optional beach at San Onofre is adjacent to Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps training base. Although those who wander onto the military base are subject to arrest for trespass, the area is lightly patrolled. For those who seek sex in the open, the military beach has become the site of choice, and the razor wire field fencing at the property line has proved to be no obstacle. Naturists have shown reluctance to pursue the scofflaws onto the military base, and State Park Rangers have no authority there.

Recent retirements among those in the CA Parks management team responsible for San Onofre have brought replacements who are intolerant of clothing-optional recreation. Instead of encouraging and allowing the cooperation of naturists in policing illicit activity, Rich Haydon, the new manager who took over at the beginning of this month, has featured the nearby sexual activity in his reports, using it as an excuse to request permission to put an end to recreational nudity at the beach. Haydon has reportedly represented to his superiors that a majority of those who come to enjoy the clothing-optional beach are participants in illicit sex there.

The response from CA Parks headquarters in Sacramento was the revocation of the Cahill Policy as it applies to San Onofre. The Department is reportedly seeking to insulate itself from sexual harassment claims by park employees who have complained recently of a “sexually-charged atmosphere.” That sort of complaint is customarily reserved for employer-employee or co-employee interaction, and it inappropriately ignores the fact that State Park rangers are peace officers with a duty to arrest those who engage in illicit activities.

IS IT ONLY SAN ONOFRE?

At the present time, only San Onofre State Beach is affected by this change in policy. The real possibility that the same thing may happen at other California state parks is, of course, an ominous specter.

WHAT IS NAC DOING?

The Naturist Action Committee recognizes the severity of this situation and has taken quick action.

  1) NAC has submitted to CA Parks a formal request for an administrative stay on implementation of this abrupt change in policy.

  2) NAC has made Public Records requests for documents pertaining to this situation and the administrative action surrounding it.

  3) NAC is retaining a lobbyist to assist and advise it in the often-difficult area of regulatory procedure.

  4) NAC has retained legal representation and has begun the process that may ultimately result in civil action against the State of California and the Department of Parks and Recreation.

  5) From the onset of this situation, NAC has been working closely with Friends of San Onofre Beach, the local user group. NAC and FOSOB will be meeting with CA Parks officials this week on this matter.

WHAT IS NAC ASKING YOU TO DO?

The Naturist Action Committee is asking you to contact the Director of CA Parks to express your concern and outrage over this turn of events. NAC is also asking you to attend a rally at San Onofre this coming Saturday.

1. CONTACT THE DIRECTOR

NAC is requesting ALL NATURISTS and other concerned individuals to contact the Director of Parks and Recreation, regardless of your place of residence. California understands the importance of out-of-state visitors who come to enjoy the state’s beaches, lakes and streams. The change in policy applies to those visitors, as well as to California residents. While all are encouraged to make their voices heard, the participation of Californians is, of course, particularly important.

Send a letter, a fax or an e-mail, or make a phone call.

     Director Ruth Coleman
     Dept. of Parks and Recreation
     1416 Ninth Street,
     Sacramento, CA 95816

     E-MAIL: director@parks.ca.gov
     DIRECTOR’S OFFICE TELEPHONE: (916) 653-8380
     DIRECTOR’S OFFICE FAX: (916) 657-3903

NAC encourages you to send copies of your faxes and paper mail to:
      NAC, P.O. Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903.
Send copies of your e-mails to:
      sanonofre@naturistaction.org

When you write or call:

   a) Be polite. You have a right to be outraged, but you will achieve nothing positive by name-calling or rudeness.

   b) Be known. Give your name and address. If you are a California resident or a frequent visitor to California, point that out.

   c) Be focused. Keep your call or your correspondence brief and on target.

   d) Be clear. Say that you OPPOSE the revocation of the Cahill Policy at San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County.

Additional talking / writing points:

   a) The precipitous change to public policy was done without public input. That’s not an acceptable way to administer public resources.

   b) The so-called “solution” does not address the real problem.

   c) A recent public opinion poll (the 2006 NEF/Roper Poll, commissioned by the Naturist Education Foundation and conducted by the Roper polling organization) shows that a majority of Americans favor the setting aside of public lands for clothing-optional recreation.

   d) In that same poll, an impressive 74 percent of Americans believe that people who enjoy nude sunbathing should be able to do so without  interference from local officials as long as they do so at a beach that is accepted for that purpose.

   e) Rangers and park managers must NOT confuse simple nudity with lewd behavior. Rangers presently have the authority to stop lewd activity, and that authority does not require the abrupt discontinuation of a long-standing policy that has worked well for years and years.

2. ATTEND A RALLY AT SAN ONOFRE BEACH ON SATURDAY, MAY 24

In close cooperation with Friends of San Onofre, NAC urges you to attend a rally at the beach on Saturday, May 24, 2008. Bring your own handmade signs to carry, if you wish. NAC will be providing a number of “Nude Beaches YES!” signs for participants.

This is an important event for those who are outraged at the Director’s action and who believe San Onofre Beach is worth saving! If you’re close enough to make it, please show up around 10 AM. Parking is limited.

MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

   www.naturistaction.org

Select “Alerts” and find this NAC Action Alert under Current Alerts.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee is the volunteer nonprofit political adjunct to The Naturist Society. NAC exists to advance and protect the rights and interests of naturists throughout North America. Fighting for the clothing-optional recreational use of public land is expensive. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you.

After you’ve contacted the Director of CA Parks, please take a moment to send a donation to:

   NAC
   PO Box 132
   Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: www.naturistaction.org/donate/

Thank you for choosing to make a difference.

Naturally,

Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————
Naturist Action Committee (NAC) – PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903
Executive Dir. Bob Morton       – execdir@naturistaction.org
Board Member Allen Baylis      – rab@baylislaw.com
Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  – naturist@sunclad.com
—————————————————————

don’t blame the beach, blame the person at the beach!

This article pisses me off. For lots of reasons.

Firstly no one should be forced, or feel pressure, (especially at work) to join a culture that makes them uncomfortable. that’s bad. that’s some sort of harrassment. But I hate to see nude beaches and sexual in the same sentence unless it is to condem a pervert. Now I think her boss was harrassing her sexually:

“Not using your looks is like not using your intelligence,” he replied flatly.
….
“Now, there’s a party going on across the street,” he continued. “Get over there for your drunkard story and get some photos. Do what you have to to get in, you know? Flirt, offer dates, anything. Use what you’ve got.”

I don’t dispute that at all. But he is not the only harrasser and she blames her boss for the sexual harrasment that some other man did to her.

“Now, some women really don’t need to shave that much,” he opined, “take yourself, for instance.” His eyes dropped to my bare nether regions. I blushed all the way to my ears, but said nothing. Instead, I forced my eyes onto my notepad and began scribbling incoherently.

Then there was an odor. I tried not to believe it, but it was impossible to ignore the fact that he had brought himself to orgasm.

now this happened in California. So I can say for a fact this man broke the law.  While ultimately creepy isn’t illegal, masturbating in public will land you on the sex offenders list.

This man is at fault for his actions, not her boss, not her.   now the treatment of her story when she returned to work was inconsiderate, and uncompoasionate and reprehensible, but that is not where the major incident occured.

Now, Although it is implied that the editor asked her to go nude to the beach for his own perverse reasons, I can say if a clothed person with a camera was walking down the beach they would have a difficult time getting people to respond to them. My reaction to clothed people with cameras is: get dressed and tell them to fuck off and make sure they are well away with their camera not focused anywhere near me, before I take my clothes off again.  My default reaction is defensive, because the sad fact is: creepy isn’t illegal.  There are creeps sometimes, but my encounters with them are far fewer that my good days.  (of course I always go with a male friend to ward off the worst of it.)

She was probably asking if it was ok to take pictures, so ok, but it makes people uneasy. ( read it makes me and some of the people I know uneasy)  Lots of beach-goers and resort-attendees are in the closet to their family and friends or at least their boss. So nude pics floating around aren’t looked upon happily by all.

 I just think this article is anti-nudism.  That the harrasment was related to a nudist place, I concur, but that does not mean the nudist place is to blame.  pervs are pervs in any context.