Gender and Transgender

Before I begin this post, I should say that this post took an incredibly long time to write.  I have been trying to write this post for about 5 months now, seemingly reaching dead ends several times and shelving it for long periods.  Because this is an issue I still have trouble understanding, it has been very difficult to get my thoughts in order and to make sure it doesn’t say things I did not intend.  That said, I think I am happy with the way it finally came out and it was worth not giving up on the idea.

In the area of gay rights, generally grouped as LGBT, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered, acceptance of transgendered individuals is often considered the final frontier of widespread discrimination.  For example, there was recently a Canadian contestant in the Miss Universe pageant who was disqualified because she was not a “natural born female”, whatever that means.  I guess that is probably because being trans is not as common as being gay, so there are fewer of them.  Even in the gay community they often are marginalized.  I have to admit that, until recently, it is something that seemed so weird and abnormal to me that I didn’t really consider it as equivalent to homosexuality, in the sense of it being a fundamental part of one’s identity.  Part of the problem is that I thought of this as just feeling uncomfortable with who you are or not liking yourself.  Thus I considered this an issue that could be treated psychologically, or by not being so strictly bound to traditional gender roles.  After all, not liking sports and liking to play with dolls does not make a boy a girl and the solution to misogyny is not to become a man.  So through either therapy and/or social change, I was of the opinion that this would take care of the issue of people being “transgendered”.  Now I believe I have a better understanding of the issues involved and I will get to that shortly.

First though, I think my biggest barrier to understanding the nature of the issue is  the same barrier that much of society has to acceptance of gays and other sexual minorities.  If it is not a situation that applies to me, these differences can be very hard to understand.  I do not have the slightest concept of what it would mean to be transgendered; I have never thought of myself as anything other than male nor have I ever wanted to be any other gender, even for a moment.  I know being male  is the way I am supposed to be and I am quite happy with that.  The concept of feeling otherwise is quite alien to me and I have difficulty understanding how someone could feel they are the “wrong” gender.  Likewise, someone who is straight would have a very hard time understanding how a man could be sexually attracted to another man.  To that challenge, we answer: it is who we are and how we are made. 

But is that the same for the transgendered?  It now seems quite clear that is the case.  What really helped me to understand was several recent stories about children and gender.  Over the past few months, there have been many stories in the media regarding the experiences of children growing up in a home where gender roles are reexamined, and several in which children are convinced they are the wrong gender.  There are so many different stories out there.  One was a story in the Toronto Star last year (see what I mean about how long this took to write?) about two parents who were determined to raise their latest child gender-free.  They would not tell even their immediate extended family the sex of the new baby and were determined to provide equal access to the toys or activities typically associated with either gender.  I’m not sure I entirely agreed with their approach, but I do understand their goal, as learned behaviour and acculturation is a big part of how a child learns to be a male or a female.  For instance, their older son identifies as, and is acknowledged as, a male, has certain preferences and characteristics than many people would associate with girls, like preferring long hair and other “girly” characteristics.  While he certainly identifies as a boy, some people might look at him and think he is a girl, based on what he looks like and the activities he prefers.  Since this child had many problems resolving gender identity issues, my theory is this family wanted to avoid this with their next child and make the attempt to entirely sever the connection between sex and gender.  This way, whatever preferences the child may have, the gender expectations placed on children will not be an additional pressure on the child to ignore his/her nature and conform to whatever society considers acceptable.  I disagree somewhat with this approach.  While the goal is commendable, I believe it loses sight of reality.  The reality is that nobody lives in a bubble.  Kids will go to school, and even before that, they will be in day care and play groups where kids will learn that there are boys and girls and boys do “boy things” while girls do “girl things”.  While that is not necessarily the way things should be looked at, that is the reality that all kids are faced with.  Although I must say that part of my opposition to this approach was related to reporting that was not fully accurate.  In later interviews, the parents confirmed they were not in fact ignoring the fact the new baby is one particular sex and that the full immediate family was aware, but that they simply did not want any outside influences directing how the new child will see their gender identity.  I personally believe this is something of a Quixotic quest, tilting at windmills that cannot be taken down.  Societal conventions are all pervasive and I believe it is naive to think they can be changed by simply rejecting them.

Still, there are some children who know their biological sex does not match their internal gender and the recent media stories have shown me that for many children this is a long standing problem that has existed from a very early age, far before puberty.  One criticism of transgender identity has been that some people who claim to be transgendered are really gay and they believe they are the wrong gender because they are attracted to people of the same sex and they may think  they have more in common with the opposite gender.  Until recently, my opinion was that if these people simply were not as intransigent in their assumptions of how men and women are supposed to behave, gender dysphoria would either no longer exist, or at least become far more unusual.  But now I am hearing about stories of boys convinced they should be girls and vice versa since the age of 4 or 5.  And it is clearly not role playing or being unsure about what defines a boy or girl as these attitudes most often do not go away over time, but rather get more intense.  There was even one story about identical twin boys, one of whom identified as a girl starting at a very early age.  Now in their early teens, the transgendered twin is almost ready to start taking female hormones so she can grow up as a woman and not a man.  Interestingly, her brother (the other twin) is her strongest defender and seemed to understand the issue better than even the parents.  Even he knew his twin wasn’t really his brother but rather his sister.  And it was not any kind of judgement or loaded statement - simply a matter of fact.  He understood that in every way (except for the parts, I guess) his twin sibling is a girl and always knew that she was. 

So maybe gender identity is more than whether you like playing with guns or with dolls or if you’re attracted to boys or to girls.  Then what is it?  Damned if I know.  As I said earlier, I have a hard time understanding this since such a feeling is so foreign to my own experience.  If these dysphoria issues are appearing almost as soon as a child can communicate full thoughts, it is probably something inborn.  So is this genetics?  Well, the case I just mentioned involves two identical twins; by definition they have identical genetic structures so any differences must be the result of other factors (or perhaps other factors interacting with certain genetic predispositions).  By the way, the same is most likely true of sexual orientation, as there are known instances of identical twins where one is gay and the other is straight.  But again, it must be clarified that, just because something is not genetic in origin does not mean that it is something changeable.  We don’t really know how our mental characteristics come to be - and it seems not all is the result of conscious or even unconscious learning.

So I guess this post doesn’t really have an ending.  But since I think I was trying to answer a question or maybe solve a problem, there can’t be a real ending because I don’t really have any answers.  All I have is a bit more understanding and respect.

Justice Not Vengeance

You may have noticed I do not link to very many sites on my sidebar. When I began blogging there was a lot of concern about sites being nuked for “questionable content” or even linking to such sites. Even though I knew none of my material would stray into that problem area, I worried that linking to certain sites might attract problems. Therefore I decided that, if I was going to put a link in my sidebar I had to be 100% comfortable with that site’s content and could feel comfortable recommending it to anyone who happens to read my blog. With that in mind, I am introducing two new links today. First is something new for me. While I am affiliated with two food websites that have blog listings, I have not linked to any food blogs. Recently though, I have found one that is well-written, diverse and even has something of an intellectual side to it. If you like what I write about food, pay a visit to Down Home Foodie, I think you will like her writing too. The other site I have been familiar with for a while, and I think some of my regular readers know it too. This site has an adult content warning in front of it, but I can assure you the site is clean. You may see a nude picture once in a great while but is not at all a porn site and there is nothing I would consider at all offensive. Because this is registered as an “adult” site, and also because at one time I was unsure about some of his previous content, I have been reluctant to link to Randy’s blog in the past but lately I am getting to really like this blog - he is one of my favourites. Like me, he seems to have a background in psychology/behaviour or something in that line, so we have been having some interesting discussions as of late. He is a regular at Scottie’s Toy Box and does visit here on occasion. Visit Randy’s blog at Or Words To That Effect...


Lately, I have noticed in this blog community there is much focus on the justice system and what it is doing or not doing. I have also waded into this discussion, as I find it quite interesting. I believe that part of the difficulty is that “justice” can mean different things to different people, and while it is supposed to officially be free from emotional response, most peoples’ concept of justice is heavily based on emotions.

And there lies the problem. I believe the motivation for many people who “seek justice” are not really after justice but revenge. Now revenge encompasses more than what you probably consider it to be, like vigilantism and multi-generation family grudges that usually involve a great deal of bloodshed. Revenge in a more mundane form is actually a desire to have the perpetrator of a crime suffer as much as the victim, because of the anger and/or hurt that the victim feels. Here is where vengeance get entangled with the concept of justice. Obviously as a society we consider it unacceptable that someone who has committed a crime should be able to avoid facing any consequences for their actions. It would also be heartless to disregard the suffering or damages inflicted on the victim(s) of such actions.

The desire for vengeance is deeply ingrained in us. As a social species, we rely on a set of communal laws to ensure we can continue to thrive as a collective. Therefore, if someone violates these laws, it threatens everyone and undermines confidence in the ability of one’s society to function. That is why fear and anger often rule and there is a desire for harsh punishments that inflict suffering. Over time, most societies try to implement a fair and effective justice system to ensure that the consequences meted out are appropriate. One of the earlier forms of justice is the biblical standard of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”. The purpose was to set a punishment that was equal to the offense. Today this standard, especially when interpreted literally, is seen as barbaric and, in the New Testament, Christian tradition moves beyond his standard, in keeping with Christ’s teachings of love and forgiveness. It should be noted though that “an eye for an eye” was never considered by Jewish scholars to be a literal requirement. There are a couple reasons for this. First, this rule was actually a limitation as other contemporary nations punished minor offenses with disfigurement or death and the Israelites determined that the punishment can never be more severe than the crime. Second, due to the implications of this limitation, it is not actually commensurate to literally take out someone’s eye or knock out one’s teeth as punishment for doing these things. If you did these things, the accused might suffer additional harm as a result, rendering the punishment excessive. So instead, the practice was to require the offender to pay the monetary value of an eye, a tooth, etc. The exception was “a life for a life” since murder is a crime that can never be undone and it is completely impossible to place a value on a human life, the sages determined that the literal penalty of death is still appropriate. After all, there is no way in this case that the penalty can be exceeded as death is terminal. It should also be noted though, the Jewish high court in the days of the temple were extremely reluctant to impose any death penalties. Because such a penalty is irreversible, they put so many constraints and such a high burden of proof it was almost impossible have a case strong enough to merit the death penalty and a lesser punishment was used instead. Still, starting from the base principle of an eye for an eye still seems like unthinking retribution, albeit somewhat tempered, which is probably why in the New Testament, different standards were espoused.

So if we do not want our justice system to be based on seeking revenge, then what is the purpose? The best I can tell, the ideals of justice would entail that any wrong or illegal behaviour is met with appropriate consequences, the victims are protected, and an opportunity is provided for rehabilitation. The efficacy of the court systems of providing this ideal is not really my focus here as I am more concerned with personal ethics. Although justice is primarily considered a legal construct, we generally believe that “justice must be done” even in matters of ethical or moral violations that do not violate a governmental law. In any event, in discussions of ethics, civil laws are not constructed based on ideals but on consensus, so you take what you can get.

In my teens, one person whose life and writings greatly influenced me was Simon Wiesenthal, a man who was commonly known as a “Nazi Hunter”. He was a survivor of the Holocaust and the concentration camps and after liberation he dedicated his life to seeking out and putting escaped Nazis on trial for their crimes. With the passage of time, more people criticized him for doing this, as they felt that there was no good to be served in prosecuting old men decades after the crimes and surmising that Wiesenthal’s motivation for this continuing quest was revenge for what was done to him, his family, and his fellow Jews. He took great pains to explain how this was not at all the case, especially in his memoir published in the late 1980's, entitled Justice Not Vengeance. After the camps were liberated and Simon had recovered most of his physical strength, he went to work helping the allied tribunals set up to try Nazi war criminals. Over the next few years, he found that many former Nazis, who had committed some horrific offenses were living quite comfortably in many other countries, as close as Switzerland and some even seemed proud of what they had done. Many other survivors he talked to considered the only appropriate punishment to kill them - in other words getting revenge. This seemed wrong to Wiesenthal, like one was sinking to their level and being just as inhuman as their tormentors. By contrast, the Nuremberg trials were fair and sober proceedings, allowing those accused to defend themselves, and making judgements based on the evidence, even acquitting a few. To Simon, this was proper justice: outside judges who were not biased by being directly victimized judged the accused’s guilt and the severity of the crimes and set an appropriate punishment. Meanwhile, the process itself would ensure that the people do not forget about what happened and prevent such a tragedy from happening again. As for those who say it does not serve justice to prosecute men in their 80's and 90's in frail health whose crimes took place decades ago? To me, letting this go sends the message that there are no consequences for the crimes, as long as you hide away or lie about your past for long enough.

Contrast this to the current mess that goes by the name of the U.S. Justice System. I was particularly disturbed by the media circus that surrounded the recent Casey Anthony trial. Now it seems pretty clear that Ms. Anthony is no model citizen and certainly, as confirmed pathological liar, should not be trusted in any way, shape or form. And given the available evidence I would say that it is quite possible she did in fact kill her child. But considering the charges laid, the evidence presented, and the principle of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not guilty seemed to be the only responsible verdict. Of course this infuriated everyone. I won’t even get into the appalling behaviour of the so-called “experts” on TV, and especially Nancy Grace, except to say that she actually is a lawyer, and as such ought to maintain some professional standards. But what really caught my attention was the insistence that she ought to be punished, despite the lack of proof, because the kid is dead. While they present this as justice, this is what I would consider vengeance. They start with the fact that a little girl is dead, quite likely murdered (but again, not proven). Therefore someone has to “pay” for this crime. But here the judgement of guilt has been made in the court of public opinion rather than law. With law you actually have to prove the case and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With public opinion it is the reverse except without the “until proven” part. And how does the public opinion form? Well, from the media reports, just about always sensationalist. This is why I can’t watch HLN for more than a few seconds without feeling like puking.

Another related concept that is quite interesting is perhaps more sensitive. We have just past the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks this past weekend. How do you see justice done here? For one thing, all the actual hijackers died while carrying out their evil. And can any of the other actions taken since be considered to be even some measure of justice? What if, for instance, the U.S. had been able to capture Bin Laden alive and try him, as was done with many top Nazis such as Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess, and eventually, Adolf Eichmann? And currently, former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for crimes against humanity for his role in the massacres in Bosnia. First of all, a fair trial for such a hated individual on U.S. soil and abiding by the rules of US law would be highly unlikely. But even if that were to happen by some miracle or if he could have been prosecuted at the International Criminal Court like Milosevic, would it even then be possible for justice to proceed? When other suspected Al-Qaeda members have gone on trial, they have turned it into a spectacle to continue their hatred and vitriol. Given the messages Bin Laden released in the past, such a scenario would be likely. So you would have the American people on one side howling for blood, and Bin Laden on the other issuing a rallying cry to all the other terrorists. The pursuit for justice dissolves into a tangled mess with no good outcomes. And the way it actually did end, there is certainly no justice but only a small element of revenge. But perhaps in such cases you can’t really do any better.

I think what we ought to strive for is not perfection, but to do the best we can, while remaining aware of our own natures, whether in policy or our personal lives. When it comes to the justice system, it is much more difficult as we have to weigh the priorities of all a country’s citizens, some of whom have no interest in the ideals of justice. Also, since our written laws must stand up in all circumstances and be fair to everyone, there is a certain lack of flexibility built into the system. But when we have been personally victimized, it might be helpful to remember that there is a natural tendency to seek revenge, but this urge is not good for society as a whole. Take a step back and think about what rules/laws were violated and what a fair and appropriate penalty would be. Note that I am not discussing forgiveness here. Forgiveness is something that comes later and is different in nature. It is also frequently misunderstood and I will discuss my thoughts on it in an upcoming post. That post will come together with a review of a book written by Simon Wiesenthal that poses some fascinating and difficult questions.

And one last thing before I close. A Happy 16th Birthday wish goes out to a special online friend. Thanks Amar, for being such a great inspiration and example to all.

A Moral Panic

Today’s topic may be a little more controversial than what I typically write, but I believe this topic is important. In the past couple weeks, a fellow blogger I respect a great deal, has been posting many stories and opinions regarding the way in which convicted sex offenders are treated in the United States. The reason for the interest is that there are recent laws coming into effect across the United States intended to create a uniform system and procedure for maintaining sex offender registries in all states. The original law is a federal law and states need to make new laws to be compliant with the federal regulations. The difficulty is that being on the registry makes it extremely difficult to get a job and the law also creates additional restrictions beyond those that already existed on where those on the registry may live (ie not near schools, playgrounds, etc.) The reason of course is to keep the public safe from potential predators, and to ensure that offenders continue to be monitored. To read a good selection of articles surrounding this issue visit Scottie’s Toy Box and scroll through. I have a link to his site on my sidebar or click here.

The point Scottie has been making is that this is extreme overkill and unnecessarily stigmatizes convicted sex offenders, making rehabilitation less likely. Also, many on the registry are either victims themselves or are not actually pedophiles or other sexual predators. He also claims that the public and the authorities seem to be putting more emphasis and severity of punishment on sexual abuse, than on other forms of abuse that can be just as damaging, if not more so. The post where he sets out his position on the issue can be found here (http://scottiestoybox.com/2011/07/03/injustice-for-all/) Scottie recently asked me for my opinion on this issue and I decided than, rather than spend lots of time composing a response to him that he would be able to post on his site, I thought that I should at least get a post of my own out of it. Scottie, you may reblog this post in the Toy Box if you wish, with a credit to me and a link back. While I must acknowledge I am not very familiar with the exact nature of the US laws on this issue, I would say that I mostly agree with the statement that the sex offender laws are not well thought out and, in some cases, seem to be overly punitive. Still there are some differences of opinion I will address later.

The biggest objection I have with what is happening is that all criminal offenses that are sexual in nature seem to require being placed on the registry. While the new rules do create tiers of offender depending on the severity of the crime, the only difference seems to be the length of time they must remain on the registry. Most people think sex offenders are pedophiles and rapists. The reality is that a surprisingly large percentage is people on the registry are youth, who may have been having sex while underage and the partner’s parents pressed charges. Or, since there is no allowance for young couples who are close in age, it is considered statutory rape if anyone over 18 has sex with someone under 18. This is a predicament that can potentially face anyone who is sexually active and does not share the same birthday as their partner (that would be most people). While I imagine that making laws uniform is intended to change this, people have ended up on a sex offender registry for public urination. Scottie has recently posted a story about 2 14-year old boys that pulled down their pants and sat on another boy’s face. While this is obviously bullying and unacceptable behaviour, possibly befitting criminal charges, an appeals court ruled that this was a sexual offense and as such, the boys would have to be placed on the sex offender registry for life. The point is that the judges seemed to indicate that this was overly harsh but the law gave them no alternative. On what planet does this make sense?

Another big problem I have is that placement on the registry seems to be allowed to factor into employment decisions. Honestly, unless the job is as a school teacher or child care worker, I don’t see how this is relevant in any way. And I can also understand that a job that requires an employee to be bondable would entail that the employee could not have a criminal record (usually), so there would be a problem in those instances as well. But there are so many industries that don’t require contact with children or other vulnerable people or require security clearances that this shouldn’t be an insurmountable barrier to employment. Yet employers won’t hire sex offenders and so many in the public seem to agree with this. But if society rejects you on a permanent basis, what incentive is there to obey the law and get on with your life?

This issue brings to mind a paper I wrote in a first-year university sociology class about moral panics. This is the short paragraph, exactly as I wrote it in that paper, that defines what a moral panic is - I think you will see how well it applies to the situation with sex offenders.

British sociologist Stanley Cohen, an acknowledged authority on moral panic, is credited with coining the phrase, although it actually made its first appearance in a colleague’s paper (Burns & Crawford, 1999; Thompson, 1999). Despite this technicality, it was Cohen who fully defined the term. In the classic definition, someone identifies an issue as a problem; it is reported in the media so as to influence the general public; the public develops an outrage against the issue; the authorities respond in some way; and the issue will finally either fade in importance or corrective action will be taken (Thompson, 1999). More recently, sociologists have attempted to specify the conditions that give rise to a moral panic (DeYoung, 1998). There has to be a pre-existing worry about the issue (DeYoung, 1998), and it must have the ability to create hostility among the public (Burns & Crawford, 1999). The media must be able to identify what Cohen calls a “folk devil”, a scapegoat upon which the public can easily place blame. These folk devils are very often marginalised members of the community (DeYoung, 1998).

One of the examples I had mentioned, though it was not central to the paper, was the allegation of satanic ritual sexual abuse in day care centres in the United States. In the 1980's there were claims that at least one (and later others) day care centre was sexually abusing children in their care using satanic symbolism. The only evidence was the claims of the children, many of whom were under 4 years old at the time and, even when questioned years later, were still young children. It later came out that these stories were all pure invention, but a large number of day care centres had come under suspicion and were shut down in the interim and forever casting suspicion upon their operators.

But looking at that definition above, I’m sure you can see how well our current hysteria regarding sex offenders fits the pattern. The pre-existing issue is obviously those cases of child abduction and molestation that make the news, everyone is outraged and demands horrendous penalties for the perpetrators and there has been a large quantity of legislative response, mostly ill-considered. This building of a moral panic is why you see so much of a push to have a public registry of sex offenders. While anyone who looks carefully will know that most registered sex offenders are not accused of a crime stemming from pedophilia, this is the offense most people imagine when discussing sex offenders. The actual occurrence of child abduction is very rare (although child sexual abuse is not - it is more often perpetrated by family and/or friends) but a whole variety of sexual indiscretions can result in mandatory registration, from brutal, violent rapes, to in some places, indecent exposure. Also, the part about the folk devils being marginalised members of the community is especially obvious here: the focus is exclusively on pedophiles, since adults having sexual desire for children is considered so revolting and incomprehensible to most people. These people also tend to have histories that involve abuse and neglect, meaning they are even further marginalised. Putting them on a “list” underscores this separateness from society and makes it easier to create laws that would be considered excessive and cruel for any member of the “normal” society. For this reason, I am strongly opposed to the way in which congress develops these laws. The laws are supposedly about all sexual offenses, yet they name these laws invariably after victims of child abduction (Adam Walsh, Megan Kanka, etc.) The way I see it, if there are so few victims of a particular crime you know all the names of the victims, is so much social and legal change really needed? In Ontario in the early 1990's there was a serial killer on the loose, raping women and abducting, abusing and killing girls. Eventually the perpetrator was found to be Paul Bernardo and his wife/girlfriend Karla Homolka. While some may argue that Homolka was not sufficiently punished (she testified against him, striking a deal for 12 years in prison and has already served the full sentence), Bernardo was rightly identified as a dangerous menace, was convicted of many charges. He received life in prison and was declared a dangerous offender, rendering him ineligible for parole. Because we have dangerous offender status and a somewhat lesser status of high risk offender, this means that if an individual is too dangerous and at too much risk to re-offend, we have methods to keep such people off the streets but only on a case by case basis, and it is not an easy designation to get. We also do have a sex offender registry, but it is not generally available to the public but only to the police. Maybe this is a better way to go, as there is still monitoring and tracking of potentially dangerous people, but does not have the high potential for vigilante justice as in the US where the registry is available to any member of the general public, some of whom have questionable motives.

Then there are the issues over which I disagree with my friend. First there is the nature of the crime and the prospects for rehabilitation. While it may be true that sex offenders, as a group, are the second least likely class of offenders to reoffend, I think this has a lot to do with grouping all kinds of tenuously related offences together, from child abuse, to young love, to rape, to a domestic dispute. Age of consent issues will of course not result in a re-offence, since once the “criminal” ages a bit, the crime can no longer be committed. For some who use force in sexual situations, therapy and rehabilitation is possible and effective. The same can be true when the crime happened as a result of substance abuse. So why is there an impression that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated? Because some - those that get most of the press but make up a very small percentage of the offender population - commit crimes that are usually the result of a very serious compulsion for which an effective rehabilitation has not been found. Pedophiles are extremely likely to re-offend, as are some serial rapists. But even though they are a small percentage of all sex offenders, these are the most serious crimes in the category, and the fact that treatment and rehab is highly unlikely in these cases is a concern we need to take seriously. This is why the strict conditions, reporting requirements, and tight restrictions are in place. These people are known to be dangers and in all likelihood will remain so unless carefully monitored. Now, why every other sex offender is subject to all the same restrictions is beyond me, but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater (is it inappropriate to use that phrase here? Oh, well). While this means convicted pedophiles are going to have a hard time finding a place to live and a good job, safety is a very real concern, and no they should not be working with kids if they have molested children before. And if they live near playgrounds and such, they will be too hard to keep track of and they will be too close to temptation. But for other sex offences that have no relation to children, especially for those who can be rehabilitated, I do agree that all those restrictions are draconian, not to mention pointless.

Finally, there is the issue of damage caused by sexual abuse as compared to other forms of abuse. I think the key thing to remember here is that everyone is their own individual and reacts to the events of their lives in different ways. Also, having not been abused myself, I don’t really have a frame of reference. Although from what little Scottie has shared with the reading public on his blog, I get the impression that the sexual abuse he suffered was not as extensive or painful. Also, something that I believe makes a bit of difference, he seems to suggest that those who abused him physically were more direct family members than those who committed the sexual abuse. I apologize if I got this wrong, and if it is, just take this as a theoretical example of someone else for whom this was the case. If someone very close, such as a parent, abuses you in ANY way, I would think that this abuse would have longer-lasting psychological effects, as there is also a deep betrayal of trust that goes along with the physical pain, guilt and/or shame suffered. For others, the sexual abuse could be worse. And while physical abuse may be more likely to cause long term health effects, the same thing can happen if a sexually transmitted disease is contracted as a result of a molestation. Several months ago I was following the blog of a young man who had been sexually abused by the father of one of his friends. Because of this, he contracted Hepatitis and HIV and died last winter. Sexual abuse can have horrific consequences as well, it is just a matter of what happened in each individual case.

To summarize, I think that the biggest problem with the manner in which sex crimes are dealt with in the United States is the failure to separate the more serious crimes from the less serious ones.

Can We Eat That?

In modern society we have knowledge of so many cultures, and our cuisines and palates have become more sophisticated. We will try many foods that have previously not been part of our native culture. This can be true either of cuisine styles or particular ingredients. From this form of globalization, there arises questions of cultural equivalency and whether it is morally correct to eat certain foods.

One example is that cui is a delicacy in Peruvian cuisine, but illegal to sell for food in Canada. Cui refers to guinea pig. In Peru, it is a very popular feast dish, served on special occasions. In North America, the guinea pig is primarily a child’s pet and it is illegal to sell them as food. Now this would not have been an issue were Peruvian cuisine not the latest popular food trend, with authentic Peruvian restaurants cropping up in many places in Canada. For instance, Montreal has an excellent high end Peruvian restaurant called Mochica (I have not reviewed them as my last visit was 2 years ago). They try to use authentic ingredients: the chef imports his spices from Peru and they feature llama (Quebec raised) on the menu. I would imagine, if cui were legal, they might consider offering it on occasion, perhaps as a special. Now most of you are probably disgusted at the idea of eating guinea pig, but rabbits are frequently eaten, and they are similar in the sense of also being a popular cute and cuddly pet for children.

This paradox raises the question of which foods are morally acceptable to eat and which, if any, are not. I am not referring here to religious proscriptions against certain classes of food. Since I do not follow the dietary laws of my own religion, it does not really concern me in a general societal sense whether or not others do. What I am trying to ascertain is whether some foods are morally unacceptable for all of society to consume. For instance, many animal rights groups are exerting pressure in various places in North America to ban the production and sale of Foie Gras, the fattened liver of ducks and geese. The reasoning behind the opposition is that, to produce foie gras, the ducks need to be force fed grain for a period of time, which some regard as cruelty. In 2006, Foie Gras was actually banned in the city of Chicago but only two years later the ban was overturned. My personal opinion is that there is no reason for foie gras to be banned. The first reason is that it is one of the world’s true gastronomic pleasures. The second, and more pertinent reason, is that, as far as cruelty in animal rearing is concerned, foie gras production is not overly cruel, and some other accepted practices are far worse. While you certainly would not want a tube shoved down your throat and force fed, people do not realize that geese and ducks do not have the same physiology as humans. The entrance to the human airway is in the back of the throat, but in birds is in the top of the bill. This means that ducks and geese do not have a gag reflex, so the insertion of the feeding tube is not painful. The actual force feeding process is for only 30 seconds at a time. Finally, this force feeding only occurs in the final weeks before slaughter; before that ducks are generally raised with a great deal of open space, and a great deal better than animals raised only for meat (foie gras is more commonly produced from ducks in North America, while geese are the more common source in Europe). I find it interesting that North American foie gras producers are usually willing to allow film crews and tv programs to bring cameras into their farms and barns, yet you almost never see the same access at high-density chicken farms. And on those rare occasions when we do get to see these conditions, it becomes obvious why the chicken producers want to hide their barns. The “living” conditions are atrocious - they are pumped full of antibiotics, primarily because most of them would catch diseases and die if this wasn’t done. That is why, when I post chicken recipes I stress the importance of avoiding the least expensive chickens, as they are the ones raised in these horrible conditions.

Getting back to my point, while some believe people should not eat foie gras, I have good reasons to refute their claims and have no moral problem with foie gras. Getting a little more controversial, in North America eating dog is generally considered abhorrent. I have personally never eaten dog and am not certain if I ever would. However, ancient Hawaiians and other Polynesians used to eat dog as a ceremonial food, as it was one of the few meats they had available. Even in modern times, dog is eaten by some in Korea and, I think, China. I only have two animals that I have determined I will never knowingly eat under any circumstances: cat and horse, because I have some deep personal connections with these animals. Now I know of no society that eats cats, but horse meat is frequently consumed in France and some other places in Europe. It is even offered for sale here in Montreal, even in some large supermarkets. I know some people have mistakenly purchased ground horse meat thinking it was ground beef. I have had wonderful equine friends over the years and could never let myself eat their meat. But the point is, some do.

As I mentioned earlier, immigration and globalization are bringing the culinary traditions of one society into another, possibly generating moral conflicts. I think the best way to deal with this is simply to go with the flow - at least as far as you are personally able. Apart from the two animals I have mentioned, I am open to trying pretty much anything. My mother cooked cuisines from around the world and I continue in that tradtion - I have even shared some of those recipes here with you. Since moving to Montreal I have eaten a wide variety of new foods and tried many different cuisines. In the past few years I have tried alligator, llama, kangaroo, octopus, oysters, goat, organ meats and offal of all kinds, and probably a bunch of other stuff I’ve forgotten about. On my trip to Washington D.C. I had Ethiopian food for the first time, leaving very few world cuisines I have not yet sampled. I believe that being open minded regarding food can also facilitate being open minded about other cultures and, by extension, other people. Back in University, I conducted a study that sought to find a relation between exposure to ethnic foods and a measure of Intercultural Sensitivity. This complicated-sounding measure simply is a test that seeks to determine one’s attitudes regarding openness and willingness to accommodate people from other cultures. I found that people who were culturally sensitive were more likely to have tried more of the examples of ethnic foods that I listed. I also recorded peoples’ willingness to try these foods, but found that actually trying these foods was more strongly related than willingness. To me, this implies that sensitivity and understanding of other cultures can likely be improved as much by practice as by having good intentions. So, as I am discussing ethnic foods, the lesson to take from my study is: just try it!

At least from my perspective, I think we can conclude that we can’t really apply any standard criteria to what foods are acceptable or not. We will always have personal standards and restrictions to what we choose to eat. Some, like me, may only have one or two potential foods they will not eat, while vegans and vegetarians have entire classes of foods they will never eat. So it comes down to personal choice, although I do believe that the more we are open to trying, the better. I invite your thoughts on this issue, or if you just want to share what your experiences have been.

On Disabilities - A Lesson from Amar and Noah

I’m sure we can all agree that it is rather difficult to get through life, even without any special obstacles in our way. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if one of our senses was not available to use, or a body part was not functioning, or our mental processes were outside our control.

Many millions of people around the world experience these problems and thus have a more difficult path than the rest of us. These problems are typically called “disabilities” and the people who experience them are typically called “disabled”. But what do we really mean by disabled? And is there a difference between a strict, literal definition of a disability and actually being disabled? To illustrate what I mean, consider the following three examples:

1. The daughter of a relative of mine was born with severe cerebral palsy. She could not speak, was confined to a wheelchair and had little to no control of bodily functions. She needed extensive assistance in almost every aspect of life.

2. Myself. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I have Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). I have a very short attention span and thus have difficulty staying focussed on a single topic and can be impulsive. This has affected my school performance in the past, and has affected my work performance if my medication was not correctly adjusted.

3. A 13-year-old boy is deaf and has been since birth. He is very intelligent, can read lips and uses sign language and seems in every way normal except for his deafness.

Of these three people, who is disabled? One of them? Two of them? All of them? None of them?

Depending on how we define the term, any of the above answers could be considered correct. But briefly, I think most people would agree that my relative’s daughter was disabled. There is not much of a way to see it otherwise. As for myself, ADD is considered a learning disability and it has affected my functioning at times, which should mean I would be disabled. However I do not consider myself disabled and to most people who know me, I am not disabled. The third case presents some very interesting issues. But first some background.

This case example, which inspired this piece, was drawn from a recent post on Amar’s World, where Amar took time out from his vacation to visit Noah, a deaf boy who would transferring to Amar’s school in the coming year. For more details about Noah, visit Amar’s World by following the link on the sidebar and read the post “Noah - The Grand Teacher” posted August 5, 2010. When Amar met Noah for the first time, it was obvious he had an image of Noah being disabled; Amar found it hard to imagine how someone could get along in life without hearing (see “Such an Interesting Day!” posted June 14, 2010 on Amar’s World) and embarrassed himself in his first attempts at communicating with Noah. As he got more comfortable however, Amar began to learn sign language to better communicate and, when they met the second time, Amar came to the realization “that Noah was NOT disabled - he was just deaf.” So his answer to my third example would have changed from a “yes” to a “no”.

I have already claimed that the definition of disability can be very important. In the strictest, narrowest sense, we can take a literal definition of the word, namely the inability to do something. Noah is not ABLE to hear therefore in this very specific way, he is disabled. However, when we normally use the term “disabled” it is used in a broader sense. We see it, as Amar did, to be an inability to function in life. Noah has no such problem. Going further, as long as my ADD is under control, I am not disabled either. If we look closely at people we may think are disabled, I am willing to bet we would find most of them have found ways to function quite well, by using various means to compensate for the obstacles they face. If we apply the broad definition now, very few people are actually disabled. We could probably still correctly define my relative’s daughter as disabled, as well as others who are very severely handicapped, but most people are able to find ways to overcome one or two “disabilities”. This is why the current push to ensure that workplaces make accommodations rather than not hire someone with a “disability” is so important. With just a small bit of effort and understanding, everyone can have the opportunity to exercise their full potential.

With this new realization, however, comes a new problem. If we now decide that it is not correct to use the term “disabled” to describe these people, what words can we use? While we do want to avoid emphasizing someone’s differences, these things usually do need to be addressed in some way and we shouldn’t have to be scared away from talking about these “disabilities”. This is what is so problematic about always trying to be “politically correct” - at some point the verbal contortions become so dramatic there is no longer anything “correct”. Over the years, political correctness has come up with terms such as “differently abled”, “mentally/physically challenged”, or - the absolute worst - “special”. These terms sacrifice a great deal in the way of accuracy and have the added negative of sounding very condescending. Many “disabled” people find these terms to be even more offensive than the original. So, what to do?

First, the very idea of grouping people as “disabled” is probably something we should avoid if possible. Instead we should try to consider every one we meet as an individual human being. I know that this is far easier said than done, but it couldn’t hurt to try. Second, when we refer to the actual “disability”, an alternate term that might be a little more accurate could be to refer to it as an “obstacle”. In today’s world, “disabilities” do not really disable a person, but they are an obstacle. It is there and can impede progress if not addressed. However there is usually a way to get over or around a physical or mental obstacle, much like an obstacle that blocks a road. Sometimes the obstacle can even be removed, but it many instances this is not possible. But even though the obstacle may not disappear, no matter how much you may want it to, it still does not have to stop you in your tracks forever. The only disadvantage to this wording is that changing around words and terminology can confuse matters. That is why I have frequently used the terms “disabled” or “disabilities” while putting them in quotation marks. This was to indicate that these are the terms we would previously have used but I feel are not entirely appropriate.

In the end, I think that if we put less emphasis on a person’s personal obstacles and more emphasis on their character and abilities, it will not matter as much what words we use to describe these obstacles, because it will be understood that making reference to obstacles does not denigrate the person nor does it imply that they are less able to function than anyone else.

Who Is a Cook?

It is often said that those who work in professional kitchens are a breed apart and I concur. Some reasons for this are quite obvious. The work conditions alone are rather taxing. You are working for 8-10 hours (sometimes longer) standing up 100% of the time in a very hot kitchen directly in front of very hot stoves . The pay is quite low, unless you are an executive chef for a rather wealthy owner/corporation. There is no acceptable pace other than “faster” and inability to live up to these standards typically is cause for dismissal, or at least demotion. In addition to these obvious differences to jobs in the real world, there are other factors that make kitchen work unique. Due in part to the harsh work conditions, the tone of conversation in kitchens is very coarse and sexually charged (obviously in a heterosexual direction). Almost everyone works on weekends and quite often on holidays as well, since these are the times when restaurants are the busiest. Many chefs are very harsh and run their kitchens somewhere between a military camp and a despotic dictatorship. So why would anyone enter this line of work? Two reasons. One reason is not quite as true as it used to be but does still apply: people enter the business because they have no other productive options or do not feel at ease in a normal work environment. It used to be the only qualification needed to work in a kitchen is to show up and follow the chef’s instructions. Also, many forms of deviant and semi-criminal behaviour were tolerated as long as those aforementioned conditions were met. These circumstances meant that people who had few marketable skills or had unsavoury personal habits would still be valued members of a kitchen staff. It was certainly not glamorous back then but preferable to welfare or jail. The other reason is the more obvious one - a genuine passion for food and cooking. The desire to feed people and have them enjoy what you give them, combined with the rush you get from coping with very difficult conditions and producing great food that will wow the diner, yet producing it by the dozens or hundreds of portions in a matter of minutes.

So why am I doing this? Definitely more the second reason that the first - I have a University education and could have gone into other fields, although I did decide to enter the culinary field after my original plans to go to graduate school were not successful. I can state without hesitation that I cook because I love food and I love working with food. In fact when tasting something exceptionally good, I feel something close to a sexual turn-on. Lest this sound like a bizarre perversion on my part, I have since found out from some of my colleagues that this is definitely not unknown among cooks and chefs who are known to get “culinary boners” (figuratively, I assume!) On further consideration, I don’t believe this is restricted to culinary professionals. Cooking magazines and TV shows present food in ways that is remarkably similar to how pornography is presented, complete with airbrushing, touch-ups, moaning and oohs and aahs. And diners (for some reason more women than men) may describe particularly flavourful food as “orgasmic”. And of course, who can forget the famous fake orgasm scene in “When Harry met Sally” when Meg Ryan’s amazing demonstration of a fake orgasm in a diner prompts the old lady at the next table to tell the waitress “I’ll have what she’s having”! So obviously, there is a fairly deep connection between food and sex, which also may help in part to explain the usually crude and raunchy atmosphere in professional kitchens.

This deep association between food and sex serves as another explanation for the sexually charged tone of kitchen conversation described earlier. This can make for a difficult environment for a homosexual in a kitchen. Since most of the cooks are straight, the banter is heterosexual in tone and frequently tends toward the homophobic. And I do feel a little uncomfortable with this, since I am still in the process of coming to terms with my sexual identity and since I keep quiet about sexual matters. However, I do seem to be noticing there is more tolerance beneath the surface of intolerance. When I have actually talked seriously with other cooks about these matters, they are in fact quite tolerant. Part of this is because many cooks are sensation-seekers and, even though they are straight, some have experimented in the past and, when they are deal with someone who is gay, they are more tolerant than you would expect from the idle banter. Also, in many restaurants I have worked in, a large number of male waitstaff happen to be gay (I’m sure many have theories that rely on stereotypes but I’m truly not sure why this is).

So what was this post about anyway? Oh, right, it was about who is a professional cook. Or is it about food and sex? Maybe about gays in the kitchen? Well, it may not be the most cohesive of posts, I think it does show the importance of food and cooking in my life. Expect to see more ramblings about kitchen life.

************************************************************************************

While I’m on the topic of homosexuality(sort of), I would like to take a brief diversion to draw attention to some recent events relating to gay rights, some good some bad. First the negative. The State of Hawaii in the United States had finally passed a bill through both state houses to legalize civil unions but it was vetoed by the governor, who stalled the maximum time allowed by law until congress was on summer recess and could not return to override the veto, which might have been possible as the vote was close to the needed supermajority. The governor instead favours civil unions be decided by popular vote, which will likely create a situation similar to Proposition 8 in California which used hate to overturn law. Rights for minorities should never be decided by popular vote, which only takes majority rule into account and not legal principles that ensures all are served. Hawaii has an election for a new governor in November and hopefully the voters will go back to the Democrats who are more in tune with Hawaiian attitudes and values. Contrast this with Argentina, which has just legalized gay marriage, the first Latin American country to do so. Finally in some more trivial gay news, the Stanley Cup, the championship trophy for ice hockey, won by the Chicago Blackhawks, was carried in Chicago’s gay pride parade in late June. It was carried by Blackhawks player Brent Sopel during his appointed day to spend with the trophy as he wishes. He chose the pride parade in honour of Brendan Burke, the son of Brian Burke, the manager of one of Sopel’s former teams. Brendan, a college hockey player, died in a car accident last year, not long after coming out, something very difficult for athletes in team sports. This was the first pride parade for the 117-year-old trophy, the most revered trophy in professional sports, but it is not all that unusual, as the Cup has a history of being brought to many different places.

The New Freakshows

In a post a while back, I made some comments relating to the popularity of reality television and how I thought our society had become more voyeuristic. I received a comment on that post which, in addition to other great points, made the claim that human nature has really always been this way. The more I think about this idea, the more I see the probable truth in it.

There is a common saying that if we do not remember our history we are doomed to repeat it. While this is usually meant as a warning, it illustrates the point that historical trends often present themselves in cycles, unless society changes in some fundamental way. If voyeurism is indeed an essential human trait, this would explain why reality TV has more longevity than other previous fads in the entertainment world. But it would also mean that we should be able to find some other manifestation of this voyeuristic trend in our past as well as our present. I think the source can be found if we look at a particular segment of the reality TV world, namely the medical and the addiction-related shows. The medical shows typically focus on bizarre medical conditions that require highly complicated surgical interventions. The addiction show s follow the lives of people living with addictions or mental illnesses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder. I have not watched these shows extensively because the very idea of these shows is to gawk at people who have a genuine medical or psychological problem that makes their lives very difficult, and I find this idea repugnant. Yet there is a phenomenon from the past that is remarkably similar to these shows - circus sideshows or “freakshows”. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, travelling circuses were very popular, the best known of which was probably Barnum & Bailey. In addition to the acrobats, clowns and animals, most of these circuses had a sideshow, typically consisting of individuals who had some form of physical abnormality, such as the “fat man” or “bearded lady” or the “siamese twins”. Unlike other circus performers these “freaks” (definitely not a politically correct term but it is the term used most often during that time) didn’t actually do anything - they just stood around and were watched by people who would “marvel” at them, meaning stare at them.

These sideshows were very popular in the first half of the 20th century. In the postwar era there were fewer travelling circuses and “freakshows” tended to be less prominent. My guess is that this might have had something to do with advancing technology that provided other forms of entertainment that were more readily available (primarily the TV). There was also some increased awareness of the exploitive nature of the sideshows. I don’t know when the sideshows stopped, but it was several decades ago (my guess is 60's, maybe 70's - perhaps someone has more accurate knowledge of this). In today’s more politically correct times, we outwardly applaud this development as we consider it cruel to ridicule or even just stare at a fellow human’s peculiarity (even this term may offend some - see how hard it is to be PC?). Still, are we really as progressive in this regard as we pretend to be?

Now we get back to reality television. Is it really so different to stare at the bearded lady or the midget as to watch a TV show about the horribly cluttered home of a “hoarder” or about the inexplicable repetitive behaviours of someone who suffers from OCD? Now the makers of these shows claim that the purpose of these shows is to enlighten the world about the people living with these unusual situations, so we can all be more understanding. I don’t buy it. We have had actual informational shows about addiction, mental illness and similar topics for years, and they usually consist mainly of medical experts giving interviews, facts and figures, and other features without broad entertainment value. They provide genuine information; the only thing they are missing is the visceral thrill of seeing the “freaks” in their “natural habitat”, which the new breed of shows excel at.

Some shows have taken this idea even further and have essentially taken the freak show and put it on TV. There are shows about the excessively obese, the tallest people and shortest people. There is also a show about people trying to break world records, which often involve some physical contortion or use of a particular condition. These are all classic elements of the circus sideshows of old with not much changed except it is now on television.

Taking these points into consideration, we can see that these reality shows really are just a new manifestation of a voyeuristic desire which now does seem to be a part of human nature. Many of us may claim to be offended by the exploitive nature of the sideshows of old and now the reality TV shows, but these things clearly would not exist if people did not enjoy watching these displays of the unusual. While there are some reality shows that I do watch, I personally do not watch any of these shows but I know people who do. Hopefully some day we can evolve a little more as a society and actually progress beyond the need stare at people who are a bit different. Unfortunately I think this is a bit Utopian; I don't see this happening anytime soon.

A Different Kind of Coming Out Story, Pt. 2

In my last post I talked about coming out as a blogger and not being so interested in coming out as gay. In this post I would like to go back to that topic but view it in a somewhat different light. My recent experience with this process raises the question: Why is there so much mental stress associated with coming out and what makes other people’s coming out stories so popular?

The answer to the first question might seem obvious. There is still a social stigma associated with homosexuality and there is the fear that one’s parents will be disappointed with the news, or even reject their child. I do not dispute the impact of social stigma but the fear of parental reactions intrigues me. I would hazard to guess however, that most modern parents would not reject or shun their gay child, whatever their opinions may be about homosexuality. One would hope they love their children, and this kind of love comes entirely without conditions. Disappointment is perhaps a more plausible fear. Most parents eagerly await grandchildren once their children are grown, and knowing their child is gay may put an end to this dream. Also, some people, particularly in previous generations, still have homophobic attitudes and make disparaging remarks towards gays. Still, when reading a variety of posted stories, it strikes me that most stories have as a common element that the parents are generally accepting, even if some might need a little time. So, where is all this fear coming from? To illustrate this I will briefly mention something from my experience. I know my parents very well and was about 99% sure that they would have no problem with me being gay, but I was still very nervous about it and second-guessed everything my parents have said about the subject. Of course as it turned out there were no problems whatsoever - they were very understanding. They even pointed out that they had wondered and questioned me about my orientation years earlier but I had told them I was straight (I was not even able to admit it to myself at that time). So I knew there would be no problem and there was no problem, so why was I so afraid?

A clue may be that I was more concerned about my father’s reaction than my mother’s (the forthcoming comments primarily apply more to gay boys and men rather than to lesbians - I just don’t know enough about the experiences of gay girls and women to discuss the issues). Other stories I have read reveal more negative reactions and more fear about telling fathers than mothers. So perhaps the difficulty lies in the nature of the father-son relationship. In general, a father serves as a role model for their sons and fathers see in their sons an image of themselves. Sexual identity is certainly a part of one’s self image. Furthermore, many men further associate sexual orientation with masculinity or even self-worth. Therefore, if a son tells a father that he is gay, this chain of associations can be upset. It is quite likely that now it will be a little harder to see your son as being in your image (assuming the father is straight) and if you hold the aforementioned associations of sexual orientation and masculinity or self-worth, you might see your son as less of a “man” or even as less valued to you. Please note that I am not in any way supporting or validating this view - I think it is unconscionable and distressing - I am merely explaining how supposedly loving parents can react negatively to a child telling his parents something very personal and important to them. If you have other interpretations or believe that I am in error you are welcome to leave RESPECTFUL comments to explain your views. I welcome debate on this or any other topics I may raise on this blog. I simply request that you do not make any abusive or overtly insulting comments.

I think there is also another source of fear involved. Some may be afraid of admitting to themselves that they are gay. While they may look at other guys, view gay porn and even have gay relationships, there is a certain barrier to be crossed when making an open declaration that they are gay that can be surprisingly difficult to cross. This is harder for me to explain. One possible reason may be related to the social stigma of being gay. Another possibility, less likely, may be that by stating they are gay they may be closing themselves off to future experiences (ie. If things change and they happen to find someone of the opposite sex they are attracted to).

Moving on to the second question, why coming out stories are popular. One reason is simply that many youth that are questioning their sexuality want to know how other people in their situation dealt with the problem of coming out and accepting themselves. Another possibility relates to modern trends in media. In recent years media has become intensely voyeuristic. When reality TV shows first became popular about a decade ago it seemed to be another fad that would pass in time. Ten years later, there is even more of this stuff not only on TV but on the internet in the form of blogs, chatrooms and social networks (ie. Facebook). People seem to be enthralled with mundane details about the lives of strangers and if the story happens to be not quite so mundane, it becomes even more desired. In some ways I am fed up and annoyed with this trend but, at the same time, I am getting more involved in this practice (I mean I am writing a blog after all). My guess is that the reason this fad has not gone away is that we have permanently become more voyeuristic as a society. Why has this happened? Frankly, I have no clue. If anyone has a theory about this please leave a comment and give me your ideas. And yes I did appreciate and enjoy the irony involved in writing this last paragraph.