Showing posts with label Pornography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pornography. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Turns out, the Staples Singers taught me all I need to know about pornography

I was thinking about pornography.
Well,  let's be clear: I wasn't thinking pornographic thoughts or images; I was thinking about pornography itself.
A friend of mine called me the other day to tell me about a young girl she is close to  (and by "young" I mean probably early 30s) whose marriage was shattered upon discovering her husband's obsession with pornography. The girl found out because she couldn't figure out why her husband had become, after so many years of marriage, abusive with her. One thing led to another and she discovered this whole other life that he was leading that she was completely unaware of, and the first step seemed to be pornography.
This really bothered my friend because it wasn't the first marriage in her circle that had been blown apart by basically the same thing. Indeed, I know of similar situations among people I know. And maybe you do, too.

When I was a kid (sigh! Here we go again) we heard about pictures of nekkid women (you might say 'naked,' but we used to say 'nekkid' - which sounds more graphic, doesn't it?). But it wasn't easy to find then (outside of certain issues of National Geographic, which wasn't quite the same). Maybe a friend's father got Playboy magazine (scandalous at the time), but I only heard about it. I did have a friend who allegedly had these playing cards he'd stumbled across somehow that had the black-and-white pictures of nekkid women on them. I say "allegedly" because I never really saw them. He kept them hidden in his basement, so terrified of someone finding out about his secret treasure that he refused to bring them out to show off. For all I know, they're still hidden above the heating duct, between two floor joists, way back in the dirt crawl space under his house.
Of course now you walk down any mall in America and can't avoid images that, in my childhood, would have been considered, well, pornographic (if we'd even known the word, which I don't think we did).
Walk down the mall? How about just turn on the computer? You can't hardly check email without some kind of picture or offer of someone 'looking' for you (and by that they really mean hoping you'd look at them).

When The Heir was just kind of coming to that age where I figured it was time to start talking about such things, with the noblest of intentions I decided to educate him about the kind of women he would run into as he grew up.
I told him there were women out there that didn't respect themselves, but that I wanted him to respect all women, whether they respected themselves or not. He asked how he would know the ones who respected themselves from the ones who didn't, and I just said that he'd know - it might be the way they dressed, or the way they acted, or their conversation, but he'd know.
It was stupid, I know. Not because it was so totally judgemental on my part (and such a guy attitude), but because from then on, whenever we were out in public, The Little Heir would walk along beside me, scanning every female he saw and then, in a sincere little voice that was just a little too loud, ask me, "Dad - does that woman respect herself? How about that one? Does she respect herself?"
You can't imagine the kind of looks I got (and, I admit, deserved).
I realize now of course that I had it backward. I should have been teaching The Heir - and myself - that the issue of respect was internal: the only respect I should have been concerned with was that The Heir learned to respect himself.
We had a later conversation about horror movies. A bunch of his friends had it in their heads to go see some slasher film, and The Heir was upset that The Trophy Wife and I wouldn't let him go. When he asked why, I told him that he needed to guard his mind, that whatever images he allowed in their would be there forever. The things he was likely to see in that movie (and others like it) would stay with him; once seen, there would be no way to erase them.
(Selfishly, of course, I was concerned about nightmares. I didn't want him going to sleep and waking up screaming, and then coming into my room and getting into bed with The Trophy Wife and I, afraid to go to sleep.)
Much later - to my chagrin - I realized the same truth about horror movies would apply to pornography: once the images or ideas are in your head, you can't get them out.
Complicating the problem is that it doesn't take long before the people in those images are no longer real people. Instead of being somebodies' daughter or sister they become objects of self-gratification, less than human. Nobody cares what the person in the picture thinks or believes or reads or listens to; nobody cares how she spends her holidays or what her dreams are. She becomes an object - a vehicle, if you will, like a car or train or plane whose sole purpose is to 'take you there.'
To think that the actors or models might have real emotions or feelings ruins the image. After all, cars don't have feelings and emotions, only a machine-like purpose.
Some people take care of their cars. Some people abuse them. Some people take care of the people in their lives; some people abuse them.
I know, I know - people have free will. Who am I to tell them it's not "respectful?"
And you're right. It's not my place.
My only responsibility is to respect myself - which includes how I allow myself to see others.
Don't misunderstand. I'm as tempted as the next guy when it comes to attractive women. And yes, I admit I've been inside a strip club in my life. But I was always so self-conscious that it was just uncomfortable.
I remember going with a friend of mine, way back before I was married. It was his bachelor party, and the 'best man' took us all to a strip club. We went inside for awhile, but after a few minutes I slipped outside where, to my surprise, I found the soon-to-be groom. We never said why we were outside. We just sat on the steps of the club and started talking, then laughing, then telling stories (lies, or near-lies), and generally having a great time.
I am probably messing this story up, but I remember reading C. S. Lewis (I think it was) put it this way: imagine going into a fine restuarant, and ordering the most expensive meal on the menu, having the waiter bring it to your table with a cover over it, and after much teasing and drama he pulls the cover off, and this incredible meal sits there on my plate and I look at it, admire it from all angles, joke about how good I bet it is - then pay for it and walk out, never having tasted it.
You'd think I was stupid, wouldn't you? But isn't it the same thing?
At some point, you get frustrated. And frustration leads, too often, to anger, and perhaps violence. While what you wanted, in the beginning, was something good and healthy, now it has become an obsession and you don't care how you get it. And it becomes wrong.
The actor, Paul Newman - considered a really good-looking guy - was once asked about the women that made themselves available to him, and if he wasn't ever tempted. Newman, married to a good Southern girl and a pretty actress named Joanne Woodward, answered this way: "Sure, I'm aware of it. I'm not dead. But why would I settle for hamburger when I have steak at home?"
Now, Woodward happened to be in the next room when he said it, and came storming into the room, unhappy at being referred to as if she were a piece of meat.
It was obvious they respected each other.
And themselves.
Turns out, the Staple Singers had it right: "If you don't respect yourself ain't nobody going to give a good cahoot ..."
Ah, let's just let Mavis tell it:




OK, that was supposed to be a video link of Mavis Staples. Maybe it didn't work. If not, and you want to hear one of the great soul singers of all time, click here
 Respect yourself.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Pictures that steal a piece of your soul

Remember those old movies where some American with a camera would try to take a picture of an Indian or Asian or African, but the Indian/Asian/African would run away, screaming in terror, and we'd learn that these "primitives" believed that by taking their picture, the "magic box'' took a piece of their soul?
Remember?
No?
Well, let's just pretend that you do.
Anyway, it seems to me that these "primatives'' might have been on to something.
Stick with me.
Let's say I take a picture of a loin-clothe wearing, spear-carrying, flesh-eating pygmy while on safari in Africa (and I mean loin-clothe wearing, spear-carrying, flesh-eating in the nicest way possible!).
I show you that picture. You say, "Wow! He looks mean/cute/bored/in love! That must have been quite a trip. Tell me about it."
And so the picture of the pygmy turns an actual live pygmy into an object. He's no longer a real person, but a thing - an object of curiosity that I saw while on vacation, or maybe he becomes a cause as I return home determined to bring tennis shoes to the Pygmies of Africa.
In other words, he becomes less of a real person with emotions and feelings and a soul and more of an inanimate "thing."
In my last blog ("Globally Positioned Somewhere ... But Where?"), I talked about how my grandmother used to assign gender and personality to inanimate objects like her toaster or favorite chair.
Then it occurred to me how often we do just the opposite: we turn people with gender and personality into inanimate objects.
And nowhere is this more obvious than with porn.
(Wow, I bet you never saw that coming!)
It doesn't matter that the men and women of porn choose to become objects used by purchasers of porn in the same way you or I might use a lawn mower or toaster or pencil.
(Wait. Don't take that too literally. I'm not suggesting you or I use lawn mowers the same way some people use porn - unless you do. I don't. I absolutely respect my lawn mower because he has feelings and a unique personality and makes me laugh while cutting the grass. He's much more fun than my toaster, whose personality is unpredictable - either 'up' or 'down').
The truth is, our society does a lot to objectify people and turn them into objects. And there is apparently pretty good money in allowing yourself to become an object, particularly an object that other people can use for their own gratification.
And while those people that allow themselves to become objects may not think of themselves as impersonal objects, most of us don't care what they think. All we know is that person has been photographed or filmed in some manner that causes us to see them not as some one but as some thing.
And that's just wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not assuming responsibility for what anyone else chooses to do. But I am assuming responsibility for how I view other people, no matter how they view themselves.
And I do think I have a responsibility to always see people as, well, people. With emotions, personality, souls.
(Hello, my name is Ray, and I'm addicted to italics).
Even if they don't care how the rest of the world sees them - maybe they like (there I go again) being viewed as objects, like lawn mowers and toasters (albeit undressed lawn mowers and toasters), I should not see them as they see themselves, but as for the worth that each individual was created with (a phrase that makes me sound like a Miss America contestant).
You know - we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator .... yeah, yeah.
Here's the deal, though: the more we view these images, the more we - and by 'we' I really mean "men" - become susceptible to stop seeing women as human beings and start seeing them as soulless objects that are supposed to be there to give us what we want in the same kind of self-absorbed, self-satisfaction seeking mentality that we get from the pictures.
See?
Pictures really do have a way of stealing a person's soul.