The Hugh Hefner on High

if skimpy bathing suits bother you... don't watch this. 

Strip clubs are one thing.. But Art Lovers have been looking at naked bodies for years.. Somehow the appreciation doesn't translate well in the faith world however.

But there is a middle way.

I've never quite felt comfortable with an anything goes approach to art ie... stuff like child pornography.. (Again.. see Rapha House and Black Box International to help sexually exploited children).. but I've never liked a "bubble-type" definition of what pornography is either.

Again... the Holy Book is filled with graphic and shocking descriptions of all kinds of things.

That said.. Nakedness is not porn. Nakedness is someones Vulnerability becoming something else...

What's the difference between describing a lovers naked body in an Ancient text.. and showing it as a piece of art on canvas.. in a photo.. or on film?..

..(or even the sexuality associated with it for that matter??).

on the other hand... PORNOGRAPHY ISN'T as much an image... As it is a mindset.. or an attitude.

PORNOGRAPHY itself IS MORE LIKE graphically taking a shotgun and blasting someones humanity...

words used to describe what porn looks like are words like..
exploiting
graphically dehumanizing
degrading
obscene
profane
each of those words require strict definition..

it can be confusing at times as some things that appear as porn aren't actually porn at all... and being able to successfully identify porn as porn is sometimes directly proportional to our awareness of our condition

example: the art may be (relatively) shocking but the artists intention may be the absolute opposite of say.. someone who.. for practical purposes.. is in the business of graphically killing people.
again.. pornographers degrade and exploit..... artists (sometimes) shock for a greater purpose.

on the other hand.. other things that seem benign (perhaps because of our callousness) are actually a major offense to human-kind and we never even realize it.

example: The 1915 film "The Birth of A Nation" portrays the KKK as a group of heroes to a Southern culture. It was well received (and artistically respected) as a major motion picture of its day... There is no nakedness or sexually explicit material in the film at all. But does it actually fit the usual porn criteria?...
..Exploitive? Dehumanizing? Profane? Obscene?

Wise people know the difference between literature like Lolita.. and child pornography.

Beyond that though.. only God above... (or the Hugh Hefner on High)... can truly identify pornography.. because pornography happens in the heart..

...and strictly speaking.. for legal purposes.. God doesn't seem to be speaking.

Pride and Prejudice and the problem of Porn

How incredibly Lazy we all are.
Or is it something worse than that?

I've been reading a book by Vladimir Nabokov called "Lolita".  High school friends will remember the reference by Sting... in that 80's song... "Don't stand so close to me".

-It's no use... he sees her... he starts to shake and cough... 
just like the... old man in.... that book by Nabakov".  

Traditionally its a very controversial book.... considered at times in history to be pornography...  (primarily I think because of the tendency for moralist masses to knee jerk... and miss the point).

It was banned in England for a time because of it's subject matter.... the story of a French Literary Scholar (Humbert, Humbert) who only finds very young women... girls... attractive.. (in Humberts case.... Lolita... 12.)...

* Before judging Humbert too strongly as a random historical freak...  BTW... please see the history of European monarchs... and the tradition to pledge marriage of daughters as young as 4 and 5... (actually not wedding... until around age 12 to 13)...  Near eastern cultures  as well..  It's believed that perhaps Mary... the mother of Jesus could have been as young as 12 or 13 when she was betrothed to Joseph.

The Nabakov book is controversial because it's a look into the polluted mind of a pervert.... a willful pedophile..  He... (Humbert.. the character.... not Nabakov... the writer)... is a dangerous ass for sure.

He's dangerous because he roams free.  He has the ability to do what he wants... when he wants... Manipulate... etc.  But most dangerous when he's thinking.

He is dangerous primarily because he has the freedom to think what he wants... about a thing... or a person... with no concern for rightness... accuracy... truthfulness... or reality.

He's not concerned about knowing a thing as it is...  for what it is...  rather he's content to settle in on his own preconceived notions about it.

What I had madly possessed was not she.... but my own creation... another.... fanciful Lolita- perhaps....  More real than Lolita...  Overlapping... Encasing her....  Floating between me and her...  and having no will....  no consciousness.... indeed no life of her own.  
-Humbert.

This is the pornography.  The idolatry.  The "unholiness of it".

It's the pornographic mind of the character... (not the book) because Humbert is content to settle on conveniences in his own mind about the girl...  He settles on the things he wants to believe about her....  Not the things about her that are actually true.

Let me ask....
Is this the reason that... say.. things like lawn jockeys are offensive to black people?

Stereotypes?

Are prejudices offensive to people because they're oversimplifications and generalizations of who and what people actually are?

Why do we do it?  Settle for the fraud... or the fake?

Laziness?

Convenience?

Are we safer that way???  Our meticulously crafted world?    

What about Idolatry??  Worshipping the false God??  The convenient God of our own choosing?  (Fred Phelps)...  The God of our own creation?

As the world considers "Holy Week"... I wonder...  do we kill the God of reality?...  crucify Him because we just can't take the possibility that we might all be wrong after all?