Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Some Pondering About Pornography Posts


Well now, what have I learned from the comments to the porn post, which are approaching and may have already exceeded 100 comments?

Well, for one thing, I learned that humans get angry very fast when they are defending their beliefs, and that even Christians start shouting or use cruel sarcasm to score a point, without noticing that in the heat of battle they’ve forgotten Jesus' advice, “íf someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”.

It was an education for me. We barnyard talking pigs have a rule – we’re expected to treat each other with respect when we’re discussing something. Using that plan, we often come to agreement, or at least understand the other pig's point of view and gain some sympathy as to why they might think that way. When I forget that rule, I'm always sorry afterwards.

I also learned that, when humans discuss deeply held beliefs, they generally don't feel they need to bring in evidence to support their belief. Generally, when pigs talk, we’re expected to bring in examples from something that happened in our lives, or something we read in the newspaper or a book.

Like, for instance, two or three years ago I read a series of profiles in the Toronto paper of a sixteen year old runaway girl (Google didn't turn the story up, so I guess it's not online anymore.) When she arrived in town, she was met at the bus station by a great guy who wanted to take care of her and be her boy friend. He bought her meals and nice clothes and fell in love with her and wanted to marry her. But first she had to do one "one" thing to prove her love for him. She had to sleep with another guy, of course. He was a pimp who had found a nice new profit center for his collection. The girl was coerced, brainwashed I guess you could say, and came to believe that being a prostitute was the way to prove her love for him. And, when she was arrested - time and time again - and sent to a foster home, she would run away and return to her life on the streets. No policeman, no social worker, thought she was doing this from free rational choice, but because she was a dumb sixteen year old kid who was screwing up her life. The series made a big impression on me and influenced my opinion of how and why young girls might choose to become pornography models, as well as prostitutes. So I would probably have brought something like that up.

One reader, Paula did bring in a documentary she had seen about a porn actress. "It was difficult to watch", Paula wrote. "She was so pathetic, and had to work so hard to convince herself that this was what she wanted." I thought that was helpful, but then - she was agreeing with me.

Here's some stuff everyone agreed on: Child pornography, like child prostitution is, as Mr. Weiner described it, "wrong, amoral, evil and sick". I would extend that to include what the pimp did to that sixteen year old runaway. Probably most of us would.

Personally, if I was king I’d extend this circle of protection to naive eighteen or twenty-one year olds who are enticed by the same kind of pimp. I’d do it simply because I have known so many naive dumb twenty-one year olds of both sexes. And I wish them well.

I was intrigued by a couple of points that came up but not developed. Belladonna pointed out that the sexually exploited are in essence not different than "those poor souls who 'sell their body' to deep pit mines or mindless factories that seem dehumanizing (and often dangerous) for the profit of corporate stakeholders." That’s a thought worth developing. In fact somebody already did. I read a book by Gary Haugen, called Good News About Injustice, which very powerfully makes that case from a Christian perspective. The book had a big influence on my thinking and I recommend it.

And finally, one reader, who I am proud to say is also a talking pig, actually suggested a potential strategy for regulating abuses within the pornography industry.

Here's what she said: "If the courts decide that, due to First Amendment reasons, such violent (sexual) images have to be allowed to be produced (this IS currently a Pennsylvania court case), at a bare minimum the industry needs to be TIGHTLY regulated. Perhaps we could demand that substantial changes be instigated in the industry. For example, CGI (Computer Graphics Imaging) be required to create all intercourse/penetration images. In this day and age with our advanced CGI there is no reason for any human to be subjected to the very real threat of sexually transmitted diseases and possible internal and organ injury for a paycheck. Period. Make porn producers get OSHA work practices inspections and licenses, and seals of approval from watchdog groups for every movie made and magazine pic taken, and have it put in large letters on the magazine cover that “No human was in any way injured in the making of these images. These are staged images only. Computer graphics are responsible for all penetration images.” I can hear the porn producers screeching now."

To me, that proposal makes a lot of sense, and might be a useful place to take a civil, mutually respectful discussion with neither Bible-pounding nor cruel sarcasm, but just trying to understand each other and hopefully even eventually discover a strategy that normal people like us (pigs are people too, you know) could implement. Or decide we don’t need to.

We could also just go on to the next topic, of which I have one million.

We could discuss, for instance, how to best take Jesus’ warning to heart and try to remember it in our lives. The one where he says, “I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or a sister you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire.”

Written along the Little Deschutes River, LaPine Oregon.

Labels:

9 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

I don't want to wander down the porn road again, Mr. Pig. Thankfully, sometimes the laws of society are more humanistic than those of the followers of God. (Whichever God that may be.)

With that said I also think the OSHA regulations are good and should be followed. They are in place. Visit your OSHA website and you will see. I don't think the porn manufactures should be hounded anymore than other employers. They should be kept honest, but unfair attention in their direction is un-American.

Either way, I think the debate was between two different Christian ideologies more than a one about porn. Maybe that is why you noticed a lack of links and research.

To be honest, I don’t relate to many of the ideas that have been floating around your Blog. I find this particular brand of Christianity heavy-handed, un-fun and not very inspiring. But most importantly it doesn’t ring true for me. I understand that I am in the minority around these here parts.

It seems I struck a nerve with my bible-thumping statement. I apologize. Maybe better words could have been used. It came in the wake of a barrage of bible verses.

I still believe this is one of the most presumptuous means of making a point. I think it illustrates the difference in ideologies I spoke about. Words/Power/Author/Text/Reader these are all concepts that, I believe, need to be fully weighed before quoting the Good Book.

Though I typically hate Post-Modernism, I believe a good dose of Derrida, Foucaut and Baudrillard could help some see that assuming an authoritative voice (especially a biblical voice) is accruing a substantial risk. Risk, of what? You ask.

The risk of being wrong!

When it comes to a secular debate that may seem like no big deal, but when the discussion is religious, being wrong is another matter. I for one would hate to be responsible for speaking on behalf of God.

A quote is never just a quote. All quotes are edited by selection and are the words of those doing the quoting.

The bible, as I’ve stated before, is nothing but a string of unimportant words without the guidance of its author. The authority of the text comes only from God. There is no truth in the physical words of the bible. The truth only exists in the mind of the prayer/reader as the text is being read. It is a medium for God to speak and God speaks personally.

(See, no Humor masquerading as “cruel sarcasm.”)

7/21/2006 3:12 PM  
Blogger Leonard Sadorf said...

You know what? I miss some of the sarcasm. Call me old fashioned, but I like a little cynical banter on occasion.

I wanted to add to Luther's last comment a thought I've been tossing about for a while. It's the comparison of process to content in the realm of communication.

The thing we want most is to be understood, for our thoughts and ideas to make sense. What we want to say consumes us, makes us want to have people hear if not agree. That, as communicator, is our primary focus.

So what happens?

Pretty often, actually the majority of the time, when someone presents a thought or idea the way it is said takes precedent over the content of the statement. How someone speaks becomes the center of attention rather than what they say. The content gets lost with the focus ending with the process.

Believe me, I know this well. I fall into the trap daily. Being a parent does that to a person. What I have to say and the direction or correction I have to give gets lost because the kids see a crabby old man who's not getting his way.

Does this make sense? I know it's a simple concept, but it's one that gets too easily ignored when opinions and beliefs get bruised or threatened.

How does this all relate to Luther's comment? I'm not completely sure. It just sort of popped into my head when I finished reading it and I figured it fit. That was my process. How was my content?

7/22/2006 11:33 AM  
Blogger Peggi Meyer Graminski said...

I totally agree with Luther about not wanting "to wander down the porn road again." I'm sure we can find something else to talk about now...

As far as what Leo says (and I quote...): "Pretty often, actually the majority of the time, when someone presents a thought or idea the way it is said takes precedent over the content of the statement. How someone speaks becomes the center of attention rather than what they say." I say Right On and yes, your content is very well put, sir.

I tend to stay out of discussions like the porn one, simply because of how thoughts and words can be misinterpreted...and then I admit, I get frustrated if I feel I haven't made myself clear or if I am not being understood...I guess that comes with any sort of discussion really. Still, I think respect is what it comes down to - everyone is entitled to their own opinion (a cliche, but also very true), and if people want to be in a discussion where things can get sensitive and even heated, then the most responsible thing to do is to remember RESPECT.

If 10 people discuss something, there will be 10 different viewpoints - and that can make discussions diverse, and interesting too. It's when someone implies that their way is the ONLY way that problems arise.

7/22/2006 2:33 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"If 10 people discuss something, there will be 10 different viewpoints."

If 10 people read something, there will be 10 different readings.

Leonard, what you said about process and content is interesting.

"The thing we want most is to be understood, for our thoughts and ideas to make sense."

And they never do make real sense. All communication is flawed. But, I take a pragmatic view on this. Who cares if it’s flawed! Communication is good enough to be useful and that’s all we really want from it.

If I go tell my workers “Go make me a road.” They may not make the road of which I was dreaming, but they will probably make something good enough to drive on.

If I tell them “GO MAKE ME A ROAD!!!!” they will probably make it faster. It’s all use.

What I’m trying to say is that I don’t separate meaning from how something is said. Both are means of getting language to work.

Now this is me talking to you and you talking to me.

What about God talking to me and me talking to God!!? Since God is flawless he couldn’t have flawed speech. If one believes that all spoken and written word is flawed then God wouldn’t use ONLY text to communicate. He must intervene in the understanding process.

Author makes Text. Reader reads Text. Reader interprets Text.

It makes sense to me that God would intervene in the interpretation part.

And how do we talk to God? Prayer. God is the perfect/ideal reader of the human spirit and does not misinterpret.

7/22/2006 7:59 PM  
Blogger Christopher Newton said...

Actually, I like Luther's non-sarcastic approach a lot better. It helps me see what he's trying to get at without having my feelings hurt or getting mad or something - either way my emotions would get in the way of understanding.

We are still traveling. (This is getting so old) Had a small altercation with a motel manager the other day. We had no hot water in the morning and I wanted a discount and she didn't want to give it to me. As we argued, I felt myself going into attack mode. I didn't shout, didn't even raise my voice but I felt all that caveman stuff going to work inside my body - increased pulse, mind racing. I was also expressing myself much less clearly than I normally do, and we weren't able to come to any agreement. And I felt bad all day, like I'd broken a rule about something that I thought was important.
I don't know. Maybe it's just the stress of not knowing where we live that's getting to me.
I know that for Patrushka and I to flourish or even get through this period we strive to be gentle with each other, even when I miss the key left turn and we have to five miles out of our way, or when we're trying to decide which town is better, Azuza or Cucamonga. If we gave in to sarcasm or lashing out - we'd be divorced by now.
Humor - now that's an entirely different proposition.

7/23/2006 8:06 AM  
Blogger Leonard Sadorf said...

I guess with process/content, my thought is that we need be aware of it and not expect it to be perfect. That makes misunderstanding easier to deal with. Or not.

Whenever someone talks of flawlessness of God, I think about the first verse of Highway 61, where Bob so succinctly paraphrases holy writ:

"Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

Nope, no miscommunication there.

Personally, I sometimes prefer ambiguity, as it lends itself to a plurality of meanings and changes with people and times. Yep.Clear as muddy water. That's for me.

7/23/2006 8:59 AM  
Blogger Leonard Sadorf said...

"When the great Rabbi Israel Baal Shem-Tov saw misfortune threatening the Jews it was his custom to go into a certain part of the forest to meditate. There he would light a fire, say a special prayer, and the miracle would be accomplished and the misfortune averted.

Later, when his disciple, the celebrated Magid of Mezritch, had occasion, for the same reason, to intercede with heaven, he would go to to the same place in the forest and say: "Master of the Universe, listen! I do not know how to light the fire, but I am still able to say the prayer." and again the miracle would be accomplished.

Still later, Rabbi Moshe-Leib of Sasov, in order to save his people once more, would go into the forest and say: "I do not know how to light the fire, I do not know the prayer, but I know the place and this must be sufficient." It was sufficient and the miracle wass accomplished.

Then it fell to Rabbi Israel of Rizhyn to overcome misfortune. Sitting in his armchair, his head in his hands, he spoke to God: I am unable to light the fire and I don't know the prayer; I cannot even find the place in the forest. All I can do is tell the story, and this must be sufficient."
And it was sufficient.

God made man because he loves stories."
-Elie Wiesel 1966

++++++++++

At this remove, I guess all I can think about is Pig and Patrushka pushing that poor steed Gabbin even further into the cold and dark wetness of the Pacific Northwest. If Neal were there he'd find them a home. The Holy Goof had no home, but always knew one when he saw it. Maybe Eugene was the place to stop?

What about Salem? In scripture, City of Peace (Jeru-Salem). Perfect place to settle and ponder. Melchizedeck was king there in Abraham's time. Good place to land in my mind.

These thoughts came to me today after a long morning of church. No preaching today, just lots of prayer and some time that might be seen by some as an exorcism. There was a young guy with some chemical problems and some past dabblings in the occult. He needed direction and prayers and, mostly, just a rebuking of evil and demonic spirits, no matter their source. Demon or drug or attitude... All come from the same place and certainly not from God. Not too unusual a morning where I come from. Some people think it's weird, but it is very satisfying and redeeming in my mind. It's a purging of routine and a response to God and the needs of his people.

Today, the young guy needed freedom from things posessing him, spiritual or otherwise. He needed acceptance from brothers and sisters without our judgement on him. He already had God's forgiveness. He just needed to know he could be free of the stuff that binds him.

Worshipping God isn't always about singing some songs and being excited. It's not about how holy and reverent we can be. It's certainly not about how well we follow the law, because we can't even come close to following the 632 laws in Torah.

It's about how we hear God's word in our hearts and minds. It's about how we relate to him. It's on his terms, though he does accept us as we. He takes us wherever we're coming from and makes us his if we want him.

Relationships.

Like in Genesis when God asked Cain where his brother Abel was and Cain answered, "Am I my brother's keeper?" God's answer was a non-answer. He, with grief I believe, asked Cain, "What have you done?".

Of course we're our brother's keeper. Problem is, we have to learn how to be our brother's brother before we can even attempt to keep him very well.

Relationships.

Anyways, sometimes God does have people that speak on his behalf. They aren't always aware and, like the prophets, they aren't always willing. Remember Jeremiah, "Better I had never left my mother's womb..."? Well, we all left there, no matter how warm and secure it was.

See, I sometimes think there are still many called to be prophets. I don't mean Jeremiah or Ezekiel, but who knows? The point is that the word of God, as Luther points out, is for all people and interpretation and it depend on who hears it and how God has prepared them to hear it. I was talking abou Martin Luther, but the same holds for Luther "Pseudonym" Vandross' earlier comments. Maybe that's why your lady told you to be Luther?

Like Chronicler said previous to this; "What matters in the end is whether the new branch will bear good fruit, or whether it will end up like a nasty diseased ear of corn." Yeah, buddy. Let's all go bear some good fruit!

Sometimes we bear good fruit. Sometimes we bear a little. Sometimes we bear nothing.

No thing.

Sometimes the keeper of the vineyard has to cut the vine back to the stem and the roots. When the branches produce nothing, they are suckers, parasites, that live on the energy of the source and don't produce. When that happens, and they cut radically, it takes a long time for the new branches to produce fruit. It requires a generation, or a miracle.

I have a grape vine that I planted about 15 years ago to shade my east-facing bedroom window. Here in Arizona, even with no daylight savings time, the sun is coming up well before 4:00 this time of year. Anyways, my main reason for planting it was to shade the window. Every winter I'd cut it back to about a foot above ground level. It provided shade every year but, guess what? It never produced fruit.

So, one year I was lazy and didn't prune it back to the ground. I just cut the growth of the past year. What happened? It produced about 25 pounds of grapes the next year. Certainly more than we can eat, as they all come ripe at the same time, but enough for a large family to enjoy and plenty for the birds to enjoy for a long time.

++++++++++

Anaheim, Azuza, or Cuca.........monga? It's a hard choice Pig. Probably just forget about Bakersfield.

7/23/2006 5:38 PM  
Blogger Paula said...

I'm on my way to work and don't have time to properly read or enter this discussion, but I wanted to share a link to a blog of a friend of mine. She is doing something creative and positive to make a change in the skid-row area of Vancouver where she lives and works:

http://guerrillagardening.blogspot.com/

Check it out! She is an inspiration to me.

7/24/2006 7:04 AM  
Blogger Spoke said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/24/2006 1:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home