This is a great topic. I have not read all of the link texts about deviancy. However it seems fair to say that at least in the States, unless you are pushing for a huge 700k house, SUV's galore etc, you are deviant in some way.
I do wonder about preparedness psychology - part of sailing is that you have to think about all the contingencies, and all the worst case scenarios. This is one of the reasons my wife does not like sailing. She finds my triple redundancy systems to be a huge fear factor for her. Whatever wavelength I am on -- which is prepare for the worst, and then enjoy that you won't need to be there -- she senses, and never gets past the anxiety stage, which is otherwise a useful thing in preparation for me.
I will ask her about the links, especially the doctoral thesis one, since she's a sociologist, and might be able to shed light on deviancy theories.
I have resolved that I would probably be more suited to single
handing anyways. It averts the types of expectations/problems outlined above, and it is useful to prepare any boat sailed by a couple so that it is single
handeable. This is a reason why my ideal boat is 27-30ft.
So in digging about singlehanding
, I found a useful book called Singlehanding
Sailing by Richard Henderson. He does a beautiful study into singlehanders, using all the documented journeys, most of them circumnavigations, from Slocum to about mid 90's. This does not include the modern race
machines or people like Ellen, etc.
One whole chapter is devoted to the psychology of singlehanders, again using logs
and biographical stuff. Very interesting. Those of you who have dreams of going around, might like reading it. Henderson also looks at boat shapes, and makes very useful comments about suitability of various boats for singlehanding and circumnavigating (among them Ericson
27, Contessa, Vega, and would you believe--- Catalina
27? --though he states it would need to be beefed up extensifely in RGP and rigging
Lastly, Allan, I take minimal issue with the nuclear comments. I agree with the gist of your comments, but not the details.. Nuclear weapons have always been a deterent due to one specific reason -- assuming only governments can afford them, then any attack would mean CERTAIN destruction of whomever launches this attack -- so dual anihilation is the deterent between nations. Where it gets tricky is when rogue sub-states or terorists get their hands on these weapons.
Fire power is a great deterent especially when talking about tanks
. But nuclear deterents work in a different way.