Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)

I agree about TV being immoral and evil.I mean, you have people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, among a bunch of other lesser wacko preachers, telling people to hate Islam and for men to control women and for God to srike down gay people.Let's not even START to talk about Jim Bakker or Jerry Falwell.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-05-2003]

So, what about Botticelli or Reubens or many other artists? Are nude paintings evil, too? What about the clear eroticism of the Song of Solomon in the Bible? Are your kids allowed to read that?And what about Jars of Clay, or Mister Mister? Those are both rock bands that are christian. And what is so evil about rock music, anyway? It's less evil than a football game, or a Promise Keepers rally, if you ask me.The human experience is wide ranging, to say the least, and art in all of it's forms seeks to express all of the different aspects to emotion and experience.A lot of art, including music, is not the equivalent of a painting of a bowl of fruit. Art can be disturbing and scary and moving, but it is nothing to protect ourselves from out of fear of life.Fear of art is fear of our humanity.

Page not found – National Organization for Women

quote:

---

Tony Evans, one of the most dynamic Promise Keepers speakers, wrote in his contribution to the official Promise Keepers treatise, "Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper," under the heading "Reclaiming Your Manhood": ". . . sit down with your wife and say something like this, `Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.' . . . I'm not suggesting you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back. . . .there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. . . .Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!"

​

Elsewhere Evans has written, "Over the last thirty years, this role reversal has given rise to a feminist movement specifically designed to assert the role of women. Now a lot of women don't like to hear me say this, but I believe that feminists of the more aggressive persuasion are frustrated women unable to find the proper male leadership."

---

This does not fill me with warm fuzzy feelings for their agenda.

quote:

---

I'm not real prone to using the word evil, but I would neither look at a nude painting, nor let my children. I don't dodge the nude statues we run across in museums, or occasionally in other buildings. I don't even pay them much attention, nor tell my children not to look. However, I would not paint or sculpt a nude figure, nor would I own one.

---

Well, I think that is sad. What is wrong with nudity is that our culture is so obsessed with sex that we cannot think of nude bodies in any other way. I would contend that conservative Christian culture is the most sex-obsessed group of all.OTOH...The human body isbeautiful, and we are very sexual creatures. We have evolved in a way that uses sex as a bonding act, so it is as much a part of us as breathing and eating.To cast this natural part of our very being in some kind of bad or shameful light, or something to be avoided rather than celebrated and cherished is simply tragic, and in fact, I think it inflates sex into this huge "thing" that it really isn't.

quote:

---

quote:What about the clear eroticism of the Song of Solomon in the Bible? Are your kids allowed to read that?

​

No. That was a real difficult question for me when I was a Christian. The apocryphal parts of Daniel and the apocryphal book Judith were difficult for me, too. However, since I don't believe anymore that the Bible is the center of the faith Jesus and the apostles taught, I just tell the kids they can't read that yet. Not that any of them, even the 13-year-old, have asked to read such a thing.

​

I guess I'd let my 13-year-old read Judith; not Song of Solomon.

---

Don't they have their own Bibles?Anyway, at least you are consistent.

quote:

---

quote:And what is so evil about rock music, anyway? It's less evil than a football game

​

Really? Why? I understand, although I definitely disagree, you saying that about Promise Keepers, but I can't think of any reasons for you to say that about football.

---

That comment about football was a little bit of a joke, sorry.However, I will say that most individual people and players at a football game are fine, good people, but there are a few fans and players who are immoral or violence-worshipping people.The same can be said of most rock music fans and bands.

quote:

---

quote:Fear of art is fear of our humanity.

​

I don't consider myself afraid of art. I consider some things that I guess you would call art not to be art. I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't approve of mixed nudity, nor mixed almost nudity, so I wouldn't paint or sculpt anything like that, and I wouldn't purposely go see such paintings or sculptures. I guess I don't believe that qualifies as fear of art.

---

So, I guess all of those paintings and engravings of Adam and Eve, some of which are very famous, you wouldn't consider art?I mean, do you ALWAYS think sexual thoughts when you see images of nude people? If you do, then I think that is a bit obsessive. But even if you did think of sex, what is wrong with that?I am not talking about crass sexual images here, mind you. I am talking about art which has meaning and beauty, or makes a statement about the human condition.

quote:

---

I understand people might disagree with me, especially those who don't follow or believe in my God. I do not think, however, that my opinion is bizarre. If there is no God, and we have no history but that which goes through Homo erectus and the Australopithecines, then my opposition to nudity and arousing sexual desires is pretty foolish, I admit.

---

It could also be true that God made us to be sexual creatures and doesn't want us to suppress the natural expression of our natures.Hence, the Song of Solomon in the Bible.

quote:

---

On the other hand, my opposition to Rock music is an opposition to a lifestyle, at least when it comes to "hard rock." I was a teenager. I went to rock concerts. That lifestyle is destructive. I'm glad I'm out of it. I'm glad the youth of our village avoid such a lifestyle. It has no appeal to them.

​

Rock is a wide term, I understand, although I'm no musician. When I say I'm opposed to the rock music lifestyle, I mean what I see at hard rock concerts. I don't know where the line is between rock and pop music, whatever.

---

Oh, for goodness sake, you make it sound like going to a rock concert every once in a while means you will likely become a drug addict or start sleeping around.I was a teenager. I went to rock concerts. I was never in any kind of "destructive" lifestyle. Any "destructiveness" in my lifestyle came from my parents, both of whom smoked a lot and drank a lot. I don't smoke, have never done any illegal drugs and enjoy a glass of wine every once in a while.Rock music doesn't make someone make self-destructive choices, any more than looking at nude paintings does.

quote:

---

"Sodomite steam baths"? I wish I could come up with some witty remark because it just sounds so...commercial. Like everything is cleaner with..."Anthracite." How about "Steam clean your rugs with...The Sodomizer 2000." oh well...
I didn't think there were any Sodomite steam baths left in the world. Wasn't God responsible for wiping out all those "Sodomite" steam baths?

---

ROTFLMAO!!!Oh, I think you could probably find a sodomite steam bath in the Village, or maybe at the San Francisco YMCA.

quote:

---

That is not the same, however, as exposing them to nude photos or letting them watch humans mate.

---

But what about nude art that is beautiful and meaningful, like the famous engravings depicting Adam and Eve in the garden of eden?And "nude" doesn't always mean "sexual", you know....unless you teach the kids it does.

quote:

---

In fact, I have some problems with the 2nd grade sex education books that I saw while I was in Germany.

---

I'm curious; what was so objectionable? I mean, at age 7 or 8 kids are well-aware that they have genitals and that boys and girls are different, even without the books.

quote:

---

That may be no more than my upbringing, but my upbringing says you don't expose kids to sex prematurely, but a certain amount of violence is okay.

---

Eeew, I think that's backwards.How can early exposure to violence be a good thing? All we know about early exposure to violence indicates that it makes people desensitized to it and tends to cause people to more easily dehumanize others and decrease their ability to empathize.Violence is scary. Really scary.I am not saying that little children should be exposed to hardcore porn or anything, but seeing nude bodies is not the same thing as seeing overtly sexualized images. I think that second grade is a good time to start talking to kids about sex.

quote:

---

As for the rock and nudity, I don't think I live as frightened of that as you picture.

---

Well, I'm still trying to figure that out, actually. I give a lot of leeway for people to explain themselves and for me to understand their meaning properly in these written forums.

quote:

---

I have been to a couple rock concerts as an adult, and there are situations I could picture allowing my children to go to one. On the other hand, the saying is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and while the circle of drug users and the circle of hard rock concert attenders are not the same circle, they do intersect way too much for my comfort.

---

Like I said, it isn't the rock music that makes kids take drugs. Not even close. The values they are taught and the information they are given will let kids make healthy choices, and their positive sense of self, too.

quote:

---

Besides, it's not really an issue. We live in a village. None of my children's friends go to rock concerts or listen to rock music. My children barely know what rock music is, and it probably rarely comes up in a discussion.

​

Anyway, I'm not sure how you get anywhere with a discussion on nudity or hard rock. There's not like some authority to appeal to. I think it's bad for kids, and I don't think people live as "free and natural" as they think they do. Maybe that's our culture and not our nature, as I would say it is, but either way I do not think people in general are as unaffected by nudity as they wish they were.

---

Do you think that breasts are a sexual signal? If you do, that means you agree with the vast majority of Americans, and probably most of the West.However, there are several large cultural groups, such as several in Africa, where breasts are not considered sexual at all. They are strictly considered "mommy parts".Additionally, many native cultures (where it's warm, of course) live most of their lives nude or nearly nude. Nudity is not sexualized for them at all.So, I think it can safely be said that one's attitude towards nudity, and if one considers nudity to be always sexual or generally damaging to children, is completely cultural and learned, not "natural" or intrinsic.On the other hand, what's wrong with having sexual feelings? I mean, do you think that sexual feelings are bad or something, and need to be denied or avoided? I mean, come on, we're human. We have evolved as one of the rare species in which the female not only derives gratification from intercourse, but is also capable and interested in intercourse at all times during her cycle, not just during estrus.This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.Now, I am certainly NOT saying that young kids or even many teenagers aught to actually have sex. But I am wondering how healthy it is to remove nearly ALL references to sex or anything associated with it to a child's environment. It's a part of life, after all.It seems to be your fear that exposing kids to rock and roll would make them immediately run out and start doing drugs, or that exposing them to even the most beautiful and artistic paintings or sculpture which also happen to depict the human body will make them start sleeping around.To me, it is overkill. It would be like removing all references to death from the life of a child for fear they might commit suicide.

quote:

---

And no, I am not talking about the Michelangelo's David or pictures of Adam in religious art, although, no, I wouldn't have paintings of Adam enjoying the garden in my house.

​

Those are value systems, and I think ours are working great. I have happy, well-adjusted kids, and I don't see the need for rock and roll or nudity in their lives, and because I've rubbed off on them, they feel that way, too, probably stronger than me. We've found that as our kids grow, we have to teach them how to keep their nose out of the air and enjoy things quite as often as we have to urge them to avoid things.

---

Hmmm. Well, you didn't say anything about the violence you say that it's OK for them to be exposed to. (not trying to be snotty, really, just pointing out that this was kind of a major part of our last exchange...)[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-21-2003]

quote:

---

A: This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.

---

quote:

---

I have read some things about this. I have trouble seeing how it applies to our culture very well. I've read about sexual activity among tribes, where there are definite lines drawn where it is acceptable and unacceptable. It isn't the same as Judeo/Christian morals, but there are lines, and they apply because of what is good and useful to the society.

---

That human females are one of the rare "higher" mammals on Earth that are able (and generally willing ) to engage in sexual activity while not in estrus has little to do with current culture. It is simply a fact of our evolution.The reason such a thing is so rare is that it is both very dangerous (predator/rival-wise) and very expensive (from a calorie standpoint) to have sex all the time and not just for the few days out of the month that a female is fertile. From a reproductive viewpoint also, this is extremely wasteful, yet our species does it anyway. A lot.The best explanation is that it evolved to be very important in social and pair bonding, and this is strengthened by the similar behavior of our closest relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzees.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-23-2003]

Don't you just want to lose your mind when you lose a post like that?At least you figured out why it happened. Most of the time I can't figure ot how I screwed up, of if it wasn't me. I'm glad it almost never happens to me for some reason. No, the exposure to violence you mention doesn't bother me, as you might have expected.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the point in nude paintings or sculptures.

---

They can and do reveal and comment upon our vulnerability, beauty, power, grace, mysticism, sexuality, capacity for love, place in nature, culture, etc. etc. Just like all other art.

quote:

---

I'm sure Michelangelo's David is awesome, although I don't think I've seen the real thing, but I'm also sure that there are other awesome sculptures of men or women with clothes on.

---

Yes, of course, but clothed figures convey other things that nude figures are not able to, and vice versa.

quote:

---

In my culture, we wear clothes.

---

Mine too.

quote:

---

Admittedly, in my culture we also consider breasts as possibly a sexual signal, as you pointed out. "Consider," though, or "think," which is what you used, are the wrong words. In the US, breasts affect men. Women know they affect men. That's not because anyone considers or thinks it ought to be so. It just is so.

---

No, it is not "just so." That's what my point about certain African cultures NOT seeing breasts as sexual signals at all was about.The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood is not the same as it being intrinsically so that breasts are a sexual signal. It is completely arbitrary whether breasts are considered a sexual signal. It all depends upon the culture you are in.

quote:

---

I won't argue that's cultural.

---

But when you say "It's just so that breasts are a sexual signal" then you are contradicting the cultural argument.It's like saying "It's just so that very tiny feet are a very attractive sign of femininity in a woman.", or "It is just so that no man wants to marry a woman who hasn't had her clitoris removed and her vagina sewed almost shut."

quote:

---

I'm sure nudity has a much different or maybe no effect on Amazon tribes that live naked. We don't, and nudity affects us Americans.

---

It affects us Americans differently depending (mainly) upon how we are raised, and this is my whole point.It is arbitrary. If you teach your kids that nude paintings are dirty or pointless, that's what they will grow up thinking. If you teach your kids that nude art is beautiful and meaningful, then that's what they will believe. Most people have to battle the outside culture, but you don't, as there doesn't seem to be much influence from "outside culture" where you are. So, you can teach your kids that nude art is always inappropriate and pointless.Of course, I am talking about age appropriateness and not forcing anything on them.My sister and brother in law have a wonderful victorian home in which they have always had a lot of art, as both of them are artists. They have quite a few 18th century prints, some Deco lamps and various sculptures, quite a few of which depict nude or barely clad figures. None of them are in any way of an erotic tone; mostly they are of cherubs or wispy goddesses or Greek-type neoclassic figures.Their daughter is 12 and has always lived with these things in her house. She doesn't really notice them. I have never heard her talk about them. They are normal things to her, and going to a museum with nude figures would likely elicit a similar non-response.In addition, even if she did get an erotic thought, what's so terrible about that? We all have them, and we all start having them at a pretty young age. It's how we do or don't act on them, or how we feel about ourselves for having them, in which our upbringing and the values our parents taught us comes into play.See, my upbringing taught me to not act on my sexual feelings, but it also taught me to feel ashamed and frightened of even having sexual thoughts at all.

quote:

---

The circles overlap greatly, though, because the drug culture and the rock culture bear a lot of similarities, enough to let them work together. I like neither culture at all; I think both are destructive.

---

Well, by this reasoning, the work culture and the drug culture bear a lot of similarities, plenty to let them work together. Can I tell you how many cokeheads wear Italian suits? Do you how much abuse of alcohol goes on in country music bars? In people's living rooms? At sporting events? In the rural Midwest? Prescription drug abuse is there, too. I could go on...The point is, drugs and the abuse of them are nearly everywhere in our culture, and singling out rock music as somehow "most compatible" with the drug culture is just not true.

quote:

---

Shoot, I took our young teenagers, about a dozen of them, to a skating rink on a Friday night (last year) that was packed full of kids from the local high school. Most of the kids skated, but none of them found the atmosphere even tolerable, and a couple hated the place so much they saw no reason to skate. They just wanted to leave.

---

Well, that sounds kind of anti-social to me. Could it be that your kids felt uncomfortable and scared because they were never exposed to large groups of people before? If so, then that's simly a problem of lack of socialization, not that large groups of people or skating rinks are inherently bad. They just didn't have the skills to deal with it because they weren't taught them.Could it also be that they saw that you didn't like it, or possibly that they weren't supposed to like it, so they didn't like it in order to gain approval from the adults?(I have a sister that did this her whole time in our parent's house, so don't tell me that it wouldn't occur.)Were they also feeling uncomfortable because there was this big group of other kids and they felt like they were being stared at or they felt like outsiders?

quote:

---

There's peace and light, and there's darkness, confusion and noise.

---

There's also high-energy, excitement, and fun! Just because it's peaceful doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's raucous doesn't mean it's bad.

quote:

---

Our life is one, and a rock concert, which is an amplified version of that loud, dark skating rink, is the other.

---

Well, I'm sorry that you think that high-energy, exciting things are inherently bad. They are not.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2003]

quote:

---

Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.

---

A sign of "sexual maturity" is not the same as a "sexual signal". According to this logic, beards would be universally erotic to women, and menstrual blood would be universally erotic to men.A "sexual signal" is something that turns you on. A sign of "sexual maturity" is simply perceivable evidence that the person is sexually mature.

quote:

---

I'll commend all you atheists and agnostics (if that's different, lol, I don't want to be involved in that discussion from another thread!). Until Contracycle I have never once had an unbeliever pay no attention to my side of the argument the way Christians do regularly.

---

I have to tell you, TL, that I am a little embarassed that I didn't object to Contracycle's inflammatory messages to you before now. Although it's late and it probably means less because it's late, I was dismayed at his/her unkind remarks. I certainly do not share the position and I don't actually believe that I would consider your kids abused, from what I have read so far. Not at all.So, sorry I didn't speak up before now. I was enjoying our discussion and I hope, although I was asking you pointed questions and our viewpoints are obviously pretty different, that you were too.AllisonPS Thanks to Crash, as well

quote:

---

I don't ever have to wonder what your point is, and across the internet, it can be hard to gauge where people are coming from.

---

Wow, that's the nicest way I have ever been told I was blunt!I guess by "enjoying our discussions" I meant "have they been intellectually stimulating" or something like that.Anyway, I'm glad that we are square.