And you know what? I am not feeling like I am going to apologize for it.
Abroad - Oslo Exhibition Wonders, `Whatever Happened to Sex in Scandinavia?' - NYTimes.com
Marta Kuzma, who organized the exhibition, kindly rounded up a few local experts the other day to mull over an answer at lunch. Berge Ragnar Furre, a Norwegian historian, theologian and a politician in the Socialist Left Party, now on the Nobel Committee, offered this thought: "You have to remember that here in Norway we have also had a strong tradition of liberal democracy that is against sexuality, so we are historically divided as a liberal society." In other words, Norwegians have long split between being sexually liberated and puritanical, while remaining politically liberal in both cases. Havard Nilsen, a fellow historian specializing in Wilhelm Reich, the psychiatrist and sexologist, nodded. "There has always been a moral high-mindedness here about sexuality, connected, like the labor movement and teetotaling, with issues of reform and salvation," he said. "It used to be that even prominent actors in Scandinavia acted in pornographic movies because it was socially acceptable here, being linked to liberal politics." But already by the late 1970s, as Wencke Mühleisen, who teaches women's studies at the University of Oslo, pointed out, "feminism in Norway turned against sexuality and toward the family, the winning political line cooperating with the state in looking for equality laws that meant a gradual cleansing of sexual promiscuity." Culture generally became more globalized in the following years, along with patterns of social behavior, meaning that "while it was normal to see women here in the '70s on the beach without a bikini top, now it is very seldom," Ms. Mühleisen added. "The commercial ideal body has replaced the desexualized healthy body."
Marta Kuzma, who organized the exhibition, kindly rounded up a few local experts the other day to mull over an answer at lunch. Berge Ragnar Furre, a Norwegian historian, theologian and a politician in the Socialist Left Party, now on the Nobel Committee, offered this thought: "You have to remember that here in Norway we have also had a strong tradition of liberal democracy that is against sexuality, so we are historically divided as a liberal society." In other words, Norwegians have long split between being sexually liberated and puritanical, while remaining politically liberal in both cases.
Havard Nilsen, a fellow historian specializing in Wilhelm Reich, the psychiatrist and sexologist, nodded. "There has always been a moral high-mindedness here about sexuality, connected, like the labor movement and teetotaling, with issues of reform and salvation," he said. "It used to be that even prominent actors in Scandinavia acted in pornographic movies because it was socially acceptable here, being linked to liberal politics."
But already by the late 1970s, as Wencke Mühleisen, who teaches women's studies at the University of Oslo, pointed out, "feminism in Norway turned against sexuality and toward the family, the winning political line cooperating with the state in looking for equality laws that meant a gradual cleansing of sexual promiscuity." Culture generally became more globalized in the following years, along with patterns of social behavior, meaning that "while it was normal to see women here in the '70s on the beach without a bikini top, now it is very seldom," Ms. Mühleisen added. "The commercial ideal body has replaced the desexualized healthy body."
It's true that there's less topless sunbathing on Danish beaches than on - say - French ones, and less than there used to be thirty years ago, according to my parents. A fact that I attribute to a combination of American cultural influence (which has been strong in Denmark since WWII) and the fact that most of the year it's too damn cold to run around nude.
And of course these things run to some degree in step with the political cycles. When a right-wing government is in power, society moves towards conformity. When the right wing is out of power, the push towards conformity lessens notably.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Those two countries also have the best equality laws in the world, so if it's been a tradeoff, as Mühleisen implies it was, it's certainly been historically justified. The freedom women have in those models compared to the, say, Dutch model, is worth some cultural restrictions, certainly as those haven't been that big.
I was told, by a Dane, something like: "In Norway all is illegal, in Sweden all is immoral, and in Denmark all is permitted()". Is there any truth to it? () "permitted" might have not been the word, but I think it captures the idea he was trying to transmit.
(
Prejudice has it that Norway is more moralistic and Sweden is more regulated while Denmark is more licentious. But both Norway and Sweden are big places - something that's often forgotten because they only have between five and ten million citizens. Sweden is comparable in area to Poland, Germany, Spain or France, with accompanying cultural variation. In fact, the cultural variation may be even greater, because it spans a wider range of latitudes (and the farther towards the polar regions you get, the greater the difference in climate per degree of latitude).
Norway isn't quite as big, but it's just as long as Sweden, and the terrain is a lot less accessible when you get into the fjords north of around Bergen. So really, I think it's a bit like asking what the culture of Spain is...
Denmark is a lot smaller, a lot more homogeneus and a lot closer to the Central European traditions in a lot of ways.
But in general I think the differences are overemphasised - I have the distinct impression that we notice the differences all the more because most of the culture is so similar. When you come to Paris, you expect everything to be different, so it's surprising how similar it is to what you're used to. When you come to Stockholm, you expect things to be just about the same, so it's surprising when you have to go to Systembolaget for your beer.
But going back to the original issue: If you believe in some sort of less-unequal society (and by the way, one that respects some individual freedom) one would probably be more happy in, say .NL than in .UK or .PT.
By the way, "social controle" (in a generalized way) is something that I did not see in .NL. I really do think that most (urban) Dutch that I contacted with, where liberal of some sort.
MY PLACE!! I've got the booze. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Some - particularly women, but not only - find this kind of comment offensive.
And at the very least, TWANK, ET doesn't need the men's locker-room atmosphere to be lively and interesting.
Moderate thyself in consequence?
[ET Moderation Technology™]
Next time I may take action on such comments. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I do find Twank's comments rather useless and sometimes distasteful. BUT...
Commenting more generally, I wonder if we are not putting ourselves in some kind of politically correct straight jacket. I sometimes think that these sort of rules condition our minds to automatically discard some paths, which, sometimes, take us to interesting conclusions. It is not the restraints that you are putting on him, but on yourself.
And I do agree with him in one thing: things are taken a bit too seriously and I wonder if that is not a sign of intolerance?
We all have topics that offend us. Even worse than offense they can cause personal distress. In my case (I am obsessive compulsive, and I obsess with cancer) discussing cancer might have stern personal consequences in my daily happiness.
While I am afraid Twank's signal to noise ratio is quite poor I wonder if his comments don't give some interesting touch to what is otherwise a "too serious" site.
They seem like little things and unimportant but when it is never challenged it can often develop into the foundation for bigger things and a more pervasive culture that excludes people. We aren't slamming any rules down or deleting anything but just asking to be a little more considerate about whether something else would suffice without causing offence. It isn't intolerance and there isn't a need for this particular comment to become the focus of a great debate, but it is part of a wider thing that just needs a nudge about.
rg's comments invariably add an 'interesting' touch and can sometimes be fairly controversial but I can't think of any times when that has slipped into becoming offensive.
btw I can think of a blog that Helen pointed me at recently and in their intro they state that they moderate all comments and will not accept anything that is x,y,z. And they get to decide whether a comment breaches their rules and they appear to lay these rules down arbitrarily depending on how they feel. We make no attempt to do anything like that. Ad astra per aspera
For the case a user misbehaves consistently and grossly, including persistent grossly abusive, racist, sexist, etc. comments or diaries, but especially if s/he keeps getting troll-rated, frontpagers have an announced banning policy.
We also reserve he right kill content likely to be deemed criminal or damaging. And spam.
A site that seeks to offend no one--is itself offensive to some--heh!
I'd say a general rule might be that if you are offended, you can by all means say so--and the offender can (hopefully) take note. I'd be very wary, though, of being offended on behalf of others. ("Well, I'm not offended--but others might be!")
Now you have reminded me of a true story:
A house party has been organised, the guests are arriving, people milling around, maybe the ice is waiting to be broken. A woman comes in and says, "I've just heard the most amazing story, I have to tell you all, though it's not for the easily offended."
A man sitting on the sofa says,
"Well, I'm easily offended!" Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
things are taken a bit too seriously and I wonder if that is not a sign of intolerance?
So we let such things go, and then get complaints about an unfriendly atmosphere to women. That's fact, not conjecture.
Just as there are complaints that (recently, re the Open Threads) there's too much messing about and triviality, and not enough serious discussion.
<sigh>
I'm trying to "hook-up" here in California with women in Scandinavia. How does that actually work?
What's that old saying? Chill out, people. Stop taking it all soooo seriously. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
...which may also explain this:
Why are men reporting more partners
Among men aged 18-49 years, the highest mean numbers of partners were from The Netherlands (20) and Finland (15) (Table 1). Then came France, Norway, Great Britain and Switzerland (12), and the lowest number was found in Spain (10). Women in The Netherlands, Finland and Norway were reporting 10 partners, Spanish and Swiss women 5 partners, and the lowest numbers, 4, stemmed from France and Great Britain.
On the other hand, I see no real contradiction in restricting the presence of skin in the public sphere (through campaigns against the objectification of women and for the elimination of gender stereotypes from advertising), criminalising the purchase prostitution and ill-advised campaigns against alcohol use among youth on the one side and having a basically liberal climate on what people do in their bedrooms on the other side.
Fuck for forest, or FFF, is an environmental organisation founded in Norway by Leona Johansson and Tommy Hol Ellingsen, which raises money for rescuing the world's rainforests by producing pornographic material or having sex in public. In their first six months of existence the group received seed funding from the government of Norway. The group gained notoriety when two of its members had intercourse on stage during a Quart Festival concert featuring Norwegian singer Kristopher Schau and his band, The Cumshots, after delivering a brief talk on the impact humans have on natural forests. Fleeing from the legal troubles that stemmed from the act (including a fine imposed on the group after its male member dropped his pants in a Kristiansand, Norway courtroom) the organisation moved its headquarters to Berlin, Germany.
The group gained notoriety when two of its members had intercourse on stage during a Quart Festival concert featuring Norwegian singer Kristopher Schau and his band, The Cumshots, after delivering a brief talk on the impact humans have on natural forests. Fleeing from the legal troubles that stemmed from the act (including a fine imposed on the group after its male member dropped his pants in a Kristiansand, Norway courtroom) the organisation moved its headquarters to Berlin, Germany.
Fortunately, it's so far just about what goes on in the public sphere. There's reasonably general acceptance of the principle that what goes on privately between consenting adults isn't anybody else's business.
On the other hand, I see no real contradiction in restricting the presence of skin in the public sphere (through campaigns against the objectification of women and for the elimination of gender stereotypes from advertising)
The legislation here is focused on the use of others skin for commercial gain. An illuminating point is that in the 90'ies a computer company focused on laptops had ads with a woman with lots of cleavage and a laptop. The ads where reported to the ethical marketing board, but where freed on the basis of the woman actually being the owner of the company.
At the same time as tougher rules on gender stereotypes in ads is proposed - and as a part of the same general feminist movement - we also have stuff like this:
Topfreedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A protest movement called "Bara Bröst" appeared in Sweden in September 2007 to promote women's right to be topless in places where men could also be topless. Several events were staged in public swimbaths in September and October.[8] While toplessness is not illegal, several private or public establishments in Sweden have a dress code which demand that everyone wear tops: topless individuals can be denied access or thrown out.
I think they won the discrimination suits they filed after being denied access to some of the public swimbaths.
Public nudity for personal purposes is more accepted then for commercial purposes, though I agree with Jake that on that note society has moved in a more puritanical direction since the 60ies. But since nudity in summer for sauna and bath is traditional it is the cities that are more prude, and the countryside that is more nude. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
