I’m Back, and Things Have Changed

Do I have your attention?

Good.  The fidget spinners have done their duty, and we can move on.

Do I know you?

Even better.

Are you a past Into the Dance reader?

Better still.

Does it seem to you that I’ve been gone for quite awhile?

That doesn’t surprise me.  It’s because I have.

Read Full Post »

Elves, A-Rod, and Forgiveness

I got a lot of enjoyment out of Terry Brooks’ novels in high school and college.  His philosophy of fantasy closely resembles

Read Full Post »

Charles Dickens, Charlie Lovett, and the Philosophy of Christmas

I know, I know — there are only two days left until Christmas.  But if you’re looking for a nice little holiday read that can be easily begun and finished in one sitting, you might consider Charlie Lovett’s The Further Adventures of Ebenezer Scrooge.

Set 20 years after the events of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Lovett’s novel introduces us to a Scrooge who still puts people off, but because of his indefatigable enthusiasm rather than because of his miserly cruelty.  We find him annoying the denizens of London

Read Full Post »

Why ‘Grey’ is Still Not Okay

I can think of no better way to start than by quoting the hypothetical question with which I ended the previous post, “Why ‘Grey’ is Not Okay”

“But wait a minute,” you ask.  “Maybe the stuff you’re saying is true, but what about when it’s two consenting adults?  Doesn’t that pretty much neutralize your objections?”

Not at all.  The informed consent of two mature adults makes a difference most of the time, but there are some things that even consent cannot justify.

First of all, the kind of behavior connected with BDSM (bondage/discipline and sadomasochism) sex is harmful to both partners.  The dominant partner reduces himself to a brute, while the passive partner — if she consents willingly — reduces herself to the dignity of a toy (actually, less than that, as most would agree that using a toy to gratify one’s sexual appetites is inappropriate and disturbing).  We must therefore conclude that there is a mutual injustice here, because the passive partner does the dominant partner an injustice by enabling him to degrade himself as well as her.

So consent, rather than making a positive difference, actually makes things worse.

“Sri Lankan woman and child” by Steve Evans from India and USA – Sri Lanka. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Lankan_woman_and_child.jpg#/media/File:Sri_Lankan_woman_and_child.jpg

Let us consider for a moment the paradox of the human person: We find ourselves by giving ourselves away.  We are made and called to make a gift of ourselves to others.  This makes total sense.  We are an interdependent species.  We need each other, and therefore each one of us is needed.

But making a gift of ourselves to others demands that we take proper care of ourselves, and that we do our best to preserve our own proper dignity.  If we fail to care for ourselves physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually, then realistically what do we have to give our fellow human beings?  So no one may in good  conscience submit to BDSM sex, because each person owes the protection of personal dignity not only to him/herself, but to others as well.

“The National Archives UK – WORK 25-208” by The National Archives UK – Flickr: The Fifties in 3D. Licensed under OGL via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_National_Archives_UK_-_WORK_25-208.jpg#/media/File:The_National_Archives_UK_-_WORK_25-208.jpg

The very same  consideration must occupy our minds in the discernment of whether it is a good idea to expose ourselves to such material.  We must consider whether making ourselves spectators of this spectacle wherein human beings become degraded specimens does not significantly harm our own personal dignity as well.

And with that, let us put “Grey” to bed…though without the ball and chain.

Movie still obtained through a Google image search; remaining images from Wikipedia

Read Full Post »

Why ‘Grey’ is Not Okay

“Fifty Shades Darker book cover” by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fifty_Shades_Darker_book_cover.jpg#/media/File:Fifty_Shades_Darker_book_cover.jpg

I hate to sound like a Puritan.  Believe me, I despise Puritanical negativity as much as the next person.  But there comes a time when one must either call a spade a spade, or cease to speak altogether.

Okay, okay — so let’s start by summarizing the main point of the first post, “Is ‘Grey’ Okay?”  Throughout E.L. James’ “Fifty Shades” trilogy there is a vague hope of sweet Anastasia “Ana” Steele saving Christian Grey from the sordid world of BDSM (bondage/discipline and sadomasochism), but in reality it is he who drags her into his dark world.

I should, however, modify that conclusion with the admission that Christian and Ana do, in fact, get married by the end of the series.  By the end of the third book, “Fifty Shades Freed,” they have a two-year-old son and a daughter on the way.

The problem is the material itself.  One can get the impression that even granting a BDSM relationship to be a questionable thing, it can lead to a truly intimate and healthy relationship.  I don’t want to make this post too long, so I will just hope that the dubiousness of this premise is obvious to the reader and leave it at that.

But beyond that, let’s be honest about something: The “torture porn” element of the books — and of the film based on the first book — is clearly the selling point.  It is so embedded in the narrative that it cannot be otherwise.  Many readers and viewers are much attracted to this element, seeing in it nothing worse than the proverbial guilty pleasure.

And that’s what troubles me so deeply.

Let me step back a moment.  Why is pornography a problem in the first place?  The problem with pornography — whether involving people having sex or individuals posing naked and in erotic poses — is that it shows too much of the person, right?

Wrong.

As Pope John Paul II once said, the problem with pornography is that it shows too little of the person.  It reduces him/her to the least common denominator, and it renders him/her a spectacle for the pleasure of viewers.

Think about it a moment.  A woman depicted in a pornographic image has no story, no personality, nothing to say, and no purpose other than to stimulate sexual feelings.  She is robbed of her human dignity — in fact, as far as the spectator is concerned, such dignity was never there to begin with.  In other words, for all intents and purposes, there is no person behind the image.

“Romeo and juliet brown” by Ford Madox Brown – http://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/2009/07/_ford_madox_bro_1.html , museum link. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romeo_and_juliet_brown.jpg#/media/File:Romeo_and_juliet_brown.jpg

This is not to disparage sexual attraction, by any means.  Sexual attraction is in itself not only good, but fundamental to the identity of human beings.  But its purpose has nothing to do with what one can get out of one’s sexual partner.  It’s purpose, rather, is self-gift.  That is why the sexual act is meant to be reserved for marriage, for the lifelong and exclusive commitment between a man and woman in genuine love for one another.

Seen in the proper light, sex is far from evil or “dirty.”  On the contrary, sex is sacred.  It is perhaps the holiest encounter two people can have with one another in the natural course of human life.  And so when it is wrested out of its proper context, trivialized, and made a spectacle of, it is almost a sort of sacrilege.

I would not say that the BDSM style of sex one sees/reads about in “Fifty Shades of Grey” is the logical extreme of sex gone wrong (that, of course, would be rape); but it does come close.  Again, remember the contract: Ana is to be an object of use; Christian is to have his enjoyment of her, which enjoyment is going to involve the infliction of pain.

“But wait a minute,” you ask.  “Maybe the stuff you’re saying is true, but what about when it’s two consenting adults?  Doesn’t that pretty much neutralize your objections?”

Next time.

Movie stills obtained through a Google image search; remaining images from Wikipedia

Read Full Post »

Is ‘Grey’ Okay?

“50ShadesofGreyCoverArt” by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:50ShadesofGreyCoverArt.jpg#/media/File:50ShadesofGreyCoverArt.jpg

I am not in the habit of commenting on movies I haven’t seen, nor on books I haven’t read.  But the buzz that the recent film adaptation of E.L. James’ “Fifty Shades of Grey” has generated compels me to make an exception.

The massive commercial success of the “Fifty Shades” trilogy and of the film based on the first book, the “Fifty Shades”-themes menus at popular dining establishments, and the fact that even children’s toys are clothed with Christian Grey attire speak to the fact that the time has long passed since “Fifty Shades” was merely a story.  If it ever was so, it has long since become a phenomenon.

Okay — so I haven’t seen the movie or read the books.  I have, however, read the synopses online, so I can offer some very basic commentary based on what I know of the overall story.  I will begin by reflecting on some of the positive aspects, before proceeding to offer what I consider to be some much-needed criticism. College senior Anastasia Steele (portrayed by Dakota Johnson in the film) meets wunderkind business tycoon Christian Grey during what can best be described as an accidental journalism assignment.  In short order, she is drawn into his dark and shady (no pun intended) world of BDSM (short for bondage/discipline and sadomasochism).  Eventually, he has her sign a contract to the effect that their relationship will not entail romance or commitment; she is to be an object for his pleasure, and nothing more.

All that said, literary person that I am, I’d like to play the same “name game” that I played in my commentary on “Frozen.”  If you think I’m reading too much into it, all I can do is ask you to bear with me. The name “Anastasia” means “resurrection.”  As such, it is an appropriate name for the sweet, beautiful, innocent young virgin who comes into the life of this seductive and dominating tycoon (played by Jamie Dornan in the film) with twisted fetishes.  I think what many of the women who read James’ novels admire in Anastasia’s character is the desire to “save” him — to draw him out of the dark underworld he has built for himself and for his lovers, and back into the light.  Indeed, she does seem to hold onto hope that he will eventually relent in his determination to keep their relationship out of the realm of genuine affection.

If Anastasia’s name is interesting, her nickname is even more so.  Many women with the name Anastasia go by Stacy for short, but James decided to shorten her protagonist’s appellation differently: Ana.  That name means “grace” — which, among other things, can refer to unmerited favor aimed at another person’s betterment.  Surely this should remind us of the aforementioned point. But it is even more interesting when we meet Christian’s mother, whose name is…wait for it… Grace.

So Ana shares with Christian’s mother the same name, but couched within “resurrection.”  It is as if she hopes to do what Christians mother was, for whatever reason, unable to do.

And that brings us to how Christian got into this lifestyle to begin with.  When he was fifteen years old, he was seduced by a woman named Elena Lincoln.  Unbeknownst to Christian’s parents, Elena drew him headfirst into the realm of BDSM sex — only she was the dominant partner in this case.

This is very telling.  At a young and relatively vulnerable age, Christian had a sexual experience in the form of being dominated.  We could perhaps infer that his sordid activities as an adult bespeak a subconscious quest to regain and reassert his compromised masculinity. “Helen Moreau” by Gustave Moreau – World Gallery; see also Maguire, Helen of Troy, 41. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helen_Moreau.jpg#/media/File:Helen_Moreau.jpg

Back to the “name game” a moment: Elena is a variant of Helena or Helen, which immediately brings to mind Helen of Troy, the proverbial “face that launched a thousand ships” during the Trojan War.  The name itself means “light,” but it is clearly a false light in the cases of both Helen of Troy and Elena Lincoln — a light that distracts and leads to ruin, as opposed to one that enlightens and leads to life.  So Christian’s dark sexual escapades are bookended by two women: Elena — false light — and Anastasia or Ana – resurrection and grace.

But there is a problem: Rather than being Christian’s salvation, Ana becomes another one of his conquests.  Rather than him being rescued, she is corrupted.  This gives us our segue into my more “negative” comments on the story’s subject matter.

Next time.

Top image from Wikipedia; movie stills obtained through a Google image search

Read Full Post »

Video: ‘Thomas Merton, Spiritual Master’

A brief and thoughtful video on a great — and much misunderstood — spiritual writer of the twentieth-century.

Read Full Post »

Wish You Could Read More?

“Lavery Maiss Auras” by John Lavery – http://kevinalfredstrom.com/art/v/paintings/Sir+John+Lavery_Miss_Auras_the_red_book.jpg.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lavery_Maiss_Auras.jpg#/media/File:Lavery_Maiss_Auras.jpg

Reading can open up a whole new world of adventure, knowledge, and inspiration.  But who has the time, right?

I recently came across blogger Brandon Vogt’s “Read More Books Now” video series.  Vogt, an avid bibliophile, shares the secrets of a “big reader” and shows us how to find time for reading in the midst of a busy schedule.

If you are a bookworm like myself, I highly recommend you check it out.  The series is totally free, but is being offered on a limited-time basis…in fact, only three more days.

Here’s the link: http://www.readmorebooksnow.com.

Image from Wikipedia

Read Full Post »

On ‘American Sniper’ — Part One: ‘American Sniper’ and ‘Why I am not a Pacifist’

If you are going to accuse me of anything on the basis of this post’s title, let it be lack of originality (a charge I would gladly accept, as I think originality is overrated): I have chosen to construct my title out of those of not one, but two previously existing works — namely, Clint Eastwood’s recent blockbuster film “American Sniper” and popular Christian apologist C.S. Lewis’ 1940 essay “Why I am not a Pacifist.”

First, the movie.  I won’t go into great detail, other than to say that it is based on the true story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) — hailed as the deadliest shooter in American military history — his experiences in the Iraq War, and his struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder upon his return home.

At the beginning of the film, me meet a young Chris Kyle (Cole Konis), who fights a group of bullies in defense of his younger brother.  Chris’ father, Wayne (Ben Reed), tells his young sons that there are three kinds of people in the world.  Most people, he says, are sheep — that is, people who “prefer to think that evil doesn’t exist in the world.”  And then there are the wolves, who prey on the weak and thrive on violence.  Finally, there are the sheepdogs, the strong who defend the vulnerable against the wolves.

Wayne, a Christian father raising a Christian family, intends for his sons to be the latter.  His goal in this instance is to make sure that Chris was acting as a sheepdog rather than as a wolf.

“C.s.lewis3”. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C.s.lewis3.JPG#/media/File:C.s.lewis3.JPG

It is with that in mind that I cite the following passage from Lewis’ essay (which is published along with a number of others in “The Weight of Glory“):

The relevant intuition [used in support of pacifism] seems to be that (…) helping is good and harming bad.  (…) [T]hat intuition can lead to no action unless it is limited in some way or other.  You cannot do simply good to simply Man; you must do this or that good to this or that man.  (…) [W]hen B is up to mischief against A, you must either do nothing (which disobeys intuition) or you must help one against the other.

Between these two citations — the scene from “American Sniper” and the snippet from “Why I am not a Pacifist” — we can gain a pretty decent understanding of how a Christian can choose to go to war, or use force in any instance.

It is not my intention to get into a discussion of whether the Iraq War meets Just War criteria, nor whether sniping, as a practice, constitutes a form of just warfare.  But a lot of people tend to make this automatic, knee-jerk assumption that to fight in a war or use any kind of force is ipso facto incompatible with being a faithful Christian.

But, as Lewis and the elder Kyle suggest, part of one’s Christian duty is to defend the weak.  And sometimes, this requires force — on individual, communal, and sometimes even national and international levels.  To be sure, such force should always be as minimal as possible, restraint must be preferred to killing, and the death of a “wolf” should be avoided whenever reasonably possible.  But if we want to issue a wholesale condemnation of all warfare, it should give us pause that the weight of reason, history, and even Christian tradition itself is against us.

Needless to say, I am only scratching the surface of Lewis’ essay.  But since my main intention is a treatment of Eastwood’s film, I think I’ll just encourage you to read it yourself and leave it at that.

As for the movie, more to come.

Photo of C.S. Lewis from Wikipedia; remaining images obtained through a Google image search

Read Full Post »

No Reflections Yet, Video Instead

I thought I might be able to have my post-retreat reflections ready for tonight…alas, it didn’t work out.  I’ll try for tomorrow.  In the meantime, hopefully this will more than make up for its absence tonight:

Read Full Post »