Pornography Part 5: Chris' Words

One characteristic/flaw/strength I have is that when I feel passionately about something, I speak passionately about it.  I struggle tremendously trying to keep emotion from my voice.  Doesn't matter if it's a sacrament meeting talk or RS lesson, a random debate in class, an argument with my friend, a post on my blog... if I'm standing up for something I believe in [to any potent degree], you'll know it.

I think this is a strength in that that I am not afraid to show emotion [anger, excitement, disappointment, passion] when there is emotion to be shown.  I feel strongly about certain things that I will never stop defending or supporting.

This is also a weakness in that sometimes my passion is not eloquent.  When I'm full of emotion I struggle for words to express in intelligent, moderate, socially acceptable ways the things which I am feeling.

I think this may have been the case in my {discourses} on pornography.  If so, I'm {sorry}.  I know there is more to be said than my desperate and impassioned plea to stop... but that's all I can communicate because that's all I feel needs to be said in many instances.  But there is certainly something to be said about the ability to eloquently express the degrading affect of this phenomena.  My friend, Chris, writes a very thought provoking blog, and expresses himself so well that I couldn't help but be engaged and intrigued.  His latest posts discusses pornography.  I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I agree with the fundamental points of his post. Regardless of my agreement, it's definitely worth a read.   If you're too lazy to click the link and read it yourself, this is the gist: *Chris is discussing the new movie, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"*

"... Let me explain.  According to Wikipedia, "[Stieg] Larsson witnessed the gang rape of a young girl when he was 15. He never forgave himself for failing to help the girl, whose name was Lisbeth – like the young main character of his books, herself a rape victim, which inspired the theme of sexual violence against women in his books."  So, here we have an author who hates sexual violence and writes a story about a fiercely independent girl who stays emotionally sturdy in the face of unspeakable victimization.  In a lot of ways, she's a great character.  And the film adaptation did a terrific job showing how she is strong and smart and resourceful and has an unyielding sense of justice.  Unfortunately, the film also showed her as a piece of furniture...

It's not just about the nudity.  I understand that sometimes people are naked in films.  People are naked in real life.  It happens.  But when it comes to any explicit content in film (whether that be nudity or violence or profanity), there's a difference between plot-driven necessity and pornographic nonsense.  "Dragon Tattoo" was, for the most part, the latter, disguised as the former...
...In short, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is guilty of the very objectification that it pretends to condemn.  It wastes its title character (played extremely well by Rooney Mara) and treats her essentially, in the end, as an object.

I know I have used a very loaded word in this article ("pornographic") that ought not to be thrown around lightly.  I'm trying very carefully not to call good evil here.  But, the way I see it, there are two main problems with pornography.  The first is a problem for the participants:  pornography creates an extremely unhealthy environment in which young girls become addicted to drugs and ruin their lives trying to live from paycheck to paycheck, meanwhile trying to cope daily with diseases and other dangers.  The second problem is more sociological:  pornography poisons those who view it, and poisons the world itself.  It presents an unrealistic and damaging view of sexuality, a distorted ideology of manhood and womanhood, and it desensitizes its viewers to violent sexuality and the objectification of human beings.  Studies link its consumption with increased aggression, etc.  Basically, it turns our world into a worse place.

Good, professional films, for the most part, are not guilty of the first problem as defined above.  You don't often hear of high-profile actresses grabbing a movie role so they can scrape up the money to pay for their next hit of cocaine, the rent of their crummy apartment, or their doctor bills to try to deal with STDs.  But no matter how well actresses and actors are treated, films can still be guilty of the second problem as defined above:  the problem of what pornographic imagery does to society on a subliminal, psychological level."

Now, I don't think that it is any secret that I am heartily opposed to any nudity, whether it is a "plot-driven necessity" or not.  I feel... hold on... that's a whole new emotion-filled post...humm mmm... I appreciate Chris' honest and thoughtful assessment of a movie which I have not seen myself (I wanted to, but decided not to once I read about the offensive content). I think, perhaps, I use a much broader definition of pornography.  I use the word to describe any visual stimulate intended [or not intended, but sought after because of initially unintended arousal] to arouse the sexual feelings outside of a marriage relationship, regardless of arousal [meaning if a naked woman doesn't arouse a man, the image is still pornographic because of intent].  But, the problem is the same.  "It presents an unrealistic and damaging view of sexuality and desensitizes the objectification of human beings."

that is all for tonight.