I remember a time when park benches in London were exactly that, benches. What I mean is that a controversy once brewed in GB over people sleeping on public benches and I read in the papers (long ago) that armrests were to be installed to end the issue. I do not know if this reaction is the source of all armrests on long bench-like seating areas, but armrests certainly do seem to be more common now (airports, movie-theaters) than in older seating areas (e.g. Cathedral pews). Are people more worried today about personal space than in the past?

From where I sit, armrests are an interesting type of behavior regulation. I wonder if it self-imposed (we need some way to divide spaces evenly for us, especially as weight/size averages grow, and/or want someone to keep us from lying down) or whether it is a result of some kind of offensive use or abuse that we wish to be stopped (homeless taking up residence on the benches and claiming it as permanently theirs). Movable armrests would be a good idea to solve the former problem. I suppose the reason movable armrests are not more common, however, is because the cost justification for the armrests has more to do with the latter problem. Wonder if anyone has researched the history of armrests…

From an opposite perspective, since public benches have off-peak access during the night, perhaps they should be intentionally designed and maintained to be a form of homeless accomodation. Otherwise, as this report points out, the armrests might just end up forcing the homeless to sleep somewhere even less palatable to the regulators:

“Sure it says (the city) is unfriendly to homeless,” said Andy Baines, a formerly homeless 36-year-old who is working hard at the Winston-Salem Rescue Mission to get his life right. “But you know what? There’s always somewhere else to go. We’ll find another place. It might be a couch, an abandoned building or an abandoned car.

The term “abandoned” gives a hint to the nature of the problem. The armrests raise the stakes of what is to be considered abandoned enough to be suitable for a nap. In airports, apparently the base of the seats with armrests has become the preferred spot. So instead of napping on the bench, people put their bags on the seats and sleep just below them, which seems like an unnecessary and unfortunate consequence of behavior regulation.

The BBC suggests Japan has a “new” problem:

“Being a fake priest is big business in Japan – I’ve done a TV commercial for one company,” [Mark Kelly] added. “In Sapporo, there are five agencies employing about 20 fake priests. In a city like Tokyo, there must be hundreds.”

The fake Western priests are employed at Western-style weddings to give a performance and add to the atmosphere. These are not legal ceremonies – the couples also have to make a trip to the local registrar.

“In the past almost all weddings in Japan were Shinto, but in the last few years Western-style weddings have appeared and become very popular,” said one Japanese priest.

It is important for the bride and groom to have a proper wedding, and they are not getting it from these foreign priests. “People like the dress, the kiss and the image. Japanese Christians make up only 1% of the country, but now about 90% of weddings are in the Christian style.”

Without trying to be too controversial about this, who really gets to decide whether someone is a real priest, and what constitutes a real/proper wedding? The infrastructure and regulations seem to always be under some kind of challenge as denominations fracture and feud. As a famous anthropologist once said, “marriage is as relative as time has zones”. After all, how different is this than the infamous Vegas weddings and (Elvis) priests?