1

Having reached the limits (for now) of exposed flesh in sexual imagery, advertisers are forced to stretch the laws of logic by increasing the number of sexual partners.

Ummm... read John Berger's Ways of Seeing for a good Gilded Age counterexample that shows this is nothing new at all, and in fact, a direct product of so-called "Christian culture."

I suspect you could go way back and find lots of adds like this; in fact, from my experiences recently I have personal knowledge of a several years' old add campaign by San Diego that features, inter alia, several semi-naked men on surf boards encouraging folks to come on down to vacation to the Republican-governed-at-the-time city of San Diego.

Perhaps though the apotheosis of this all is indeed the buff crucified Christ.

2

So tell me, Mumon, are you representative of "Buddist culture" or "so-called Buddist culture"?

3

I only see 9 women in the 3rd ad

4

Bevets, you're right. The man makes ten, and he's positioned fifth. Hmmm... (as Mumon would so stylistically say), ten members. Perhaps there's some conspiracy here, some last days key. Where's Hal Lindsey when we need him?

5

Mumon,

Is everything political for you?

Joe has already stated that sex sells has been used for years. Of course "years" in this case means throughout the existence of civilization.

And why would a Republican controlled city be any different than any other city? Not all Republicans are Christians (and too many that are do not act like it).

Though politics can be involved (and has been), I fail to see how this is a political conversation.

6

So tell me, Mumon, are you representative of "Buddist culture" or "so-called Buddist culture"?

Neither.

Is everything political for you?

Not everything. But lots of things.

And why would a Republican controlled city be any different than any other city? Not all Republicans are Christians (and too many that are do not act like it).

Why that's rather easy to answer; a Republican controlled city would have less criminality on the streets, and more criminality in the government. ;0.

A preponderance of state Republican parties are being run by so-called ChrINOs. (I think it's a smear against Christianity to associate Christians with conservative Republicans.

7

Tim,
A better question would be, "Is everything adversarial for you?" I shake my head and marvel on a frequent basis.

8

What's wrong w/ three gay guys hanging out?

9

I love logic.

Logic is a metaphysical laser. It slices through layers of protective rhetoric or imagery to reach the underlying core of truth or fallacy.

A powerful tool must be handled with care, however. When applying logic to matters sexual, it is easy to be blinded by the reflections that ricochet off the bright, shiny surfaces.

The Axe ads are so blatantly ironic, it is hard to understand how Joe failed to pick up on that. The ads catch one's attention, as Joe correctly notes, with the naughty thrill of suggesting the sexual taboo of polyamoury. But the ads use images that are so playfully over-the-top that the sexual frisson gets twisted into absurd silliness.

In other words, it's a joke.

Joe's next post: the disturbing trend of talking and otherwise anthropomorphic animals appearing in animated movies and anecdotal humor.

10

Mumon, I don't think anyone would want to be known as a "so called" Christian anymore than you would want to be known as a "so called" Buddist. When did you begin to think that as a Buddist you could define what was and was not a proper Christian behaviour? And how much respect would you accord my opinion if I questioned your character compared to a 'proper' Buddist?

11

This is only the beginning of what will come. So sad to see our society going down the road that will lead to our downfall as a nation with values and virtues once held high by most americans completely gone. Our freedom of speach is indeed wonderful, but there should be limits as to what can be printed and seen, especially by childredn. Their eyes, ears, hearts and minds are exposed to so much trash that it is not funny. And, when they, and others do "trasy" things, there is no need to ask why!

12

***Comment deleted***

13

rob,
Not that you should be addressed at all; but, you have no idea how sad and bitter you sound. I would encourage you to look up the word 'arrogant' in the dictionary, then maybe you could also figure out how to spell the word 'their'; if you can master that, then we might trust your all knowing stance on how the universe works. I'm happy to be called a fool by folks that spit rhetoric and bile like this...

14

Actually a fair argument can be made that these ads are far more restrictive in what they claim today than in the past.

Look at an old Sears Roebuck catalog from the 19th century and you will see ads describing talcum powder as a cure for everything from infertility to "consumption"-aka- Pneumonia.

It's not the fallacies of what they claim that bothers you, it is, predictably, the sex.

I wonder if someday Christians will ever be honest enough to admit that they simply are afraid of sex? That they are fearful of the intimacy and loss of control it implies to them? Well too bad. Join the rest of the human race for a change.

Christians classify sex as both the ultimate attainment and as the most base of acts a human can commit at exactly the same time. It's the very definition of confused. Its as if their understanding of sex is frozen into the same level as that of a fearful immature teenager at the Prom.

Thats why these ads work by the way. When I see ads like this I look at them, pass over them, and forget them. It's only you that remembers them clearly enough to be discussing them perhaps even years later. The only reason they are so provocative to you is that they hit your particular button that turns on your outrage. And that outrage is simply a result of your fears and insecurities about sexual relations or physical intimacy.

And in one particular case, its your fears and sexual insecurities about being a man. The picture of the three men together to you implies homosexuality. For me I'll grant thats one interpretation, but since there is no actual sex taking place I really see it as simple physical non-sexual intimacy among friends. It's apparently an option that most straight men in our culture can tolerate only if there is no hint of homosexuality -aka, if there is a woman in the picture. It's a stupid and fearful reaction.

And it's not a reaction shared by those straight men who are actually comfortable with themselves as men. Who have nothing they think they need to prove to others about their "manhood". Not coincidentally, those kind of men are the least homophobic, and also make the best husbands and fathers as well. It's a question of self-confidence.

You look at all the pictures and are outraged because you think you could never do such things because they are immoral, ungodly, un-manly, yada, yada, yada. I look at them and simply don't care because I know that what I do with my body is by my choice, outrage or not. If I see something that morally I wouldn't want to do, I don't go into hysterics about it, I simply don't do it. If you find something you believe to be immoral, you create great furies of sound and emotion and drama about it. Not to mention un-ending blog entries.

Sexual intimacy with my partner can be the most sacred act imaginable to me. But so can be the act of getting him a cup of coffee unasked for too. I choose to give it the meaning it does, for loves sake. But unlike you, I'm aware that I'm making a choice.

Really your negative attachment to these things is just as bad as if you had a positive one. Isn't it the attachment itself that is the real "sin" if there is one?

15

Patrick,
Explain to me how not wanting my 7 year old to be peppered with sexual imagery when he picks up my Chicago Tribune equals me being afraid of sex? You act as if everyone in the world is an adult capable of discernment and choice in sexual matters---as well as the exposure to such. Perhaps a conversation about common decency and regard for others is needed. As for the psuedopsychological analysis of Christian's sexual attitudes, it's a steaming... well, I'll try not to go too far. But, my wife would laugh at the dribble...(I suppose only non-Christian gay men have the market on sexual enjoyment and intimacy---you're kidding, right??

16

Matthew The Axe ads are so blatantly ironic, it is hard to understand how Joe failed to pick up on that. The ads catch one's attention, as Joe correctly notes, with the naughty thrill of suggesting the sexual taboo of polyamoury. But the ads use images that are so playfully over-the-top that the sexual frisson gets twisted into absurd silliness.

I’ll grant that Axe probably meant the ads to be “ironic”, though, like Alanis Morrisette, I doubt they know what the term means. What the ads are really using is hyperbole – an exaggeration meant to make a strong impression but not meant to be taken literally. But let’s not forget that the ads are actually intended to sell a product.

For the hyperbole to be effective, the underlying point must be viewed as a possibility.

The problem with the ads is not that they are “selling sex” for it is understandable how such a product may feel compelled to use culture’s notions of attractivness (i.e., smelling like a metrosexual) as a selling point. Where the ad fails, in my opinion, is in implying that the logical (though exaggerated) extension of being sexual attractive to a woman is to be sexually attractive to multiple women who are willing to make themselves sexually available at the same time. Yes, it may be a joke but that does not mean that we need to feel compelled to accept such misogynistically oriented humor.

Patrick It's not the fallacies of what they claim that bothers you, it is, predictably, the sex.

Um, yeah, Patrick, I’m bothered by sex. I never, ever, write about that topic, do I?

I wonder if someday Christians will ever be honest enough to admit that they simply are afraid of sex? That they are fearful of the intimacy and loss of control it implies to them? Well too bad. Join the rest of the human race for a change.

To claim that your assertion is a strawman would be to give it too much credit. Did you even read the post? Do you really believe that thinking that taking a stand against the use of polyamoury in advertising is evidence that I’m afraid of sex? Do you ever try to address my posts for what they say or do you just have these phrases ready to cut-and-paste when I write about sex. ; )

And in one particular case, its your fears and sexual insecurities about being a man. The picture of the three men together to you implies homosexuality. For me I'll grant thats one interpretation, but since there is no actual sex taking place I really see it as simple physical non-sexual intimacy among friends. It's apparently an option that most straight men in our culture can tolerate only if there is no hint of homosexuality -aka, if there is a woman in the picture. It's a stupid and fearful reaction.

I have a hard time believing you wrote that line with a straight face. Do you really not believe that the advertisers were using gay-themes in order to sell vodka to a gay audience? Obviously, the image could be taken in a way that was never intended by the advertisers (straight men lying around with their heads at each others crotches) but it seems rather silly to view it that way.

And it's not a reaction shared by those straight men who are actually comfortable with themselves as men. Who have nothing they think they need to prove to others about their "manhood". Not coincidentally, those kind of men are the least homophobic, and also make the best husbands and fathers as well. It's a question of self-confidence.

Oh, please. Can we finally put to rest the tired notion that any man who finds male homosexual behavior “icky” is “insecure about their manhood.” That’s quite possibly one of the dumbest reverse psychology clichés ever to be produced. A man can be completely comfortable with themselves, be a great husband and a loving father, be self-confident and still be turned off by the sight of two men engaged in sexual conduct.

17

Since, when did the jerk quotient get so high? I suspect that I, like many others who visit this blog, want to have a deep discussion with other Christians about the topics presented. I don't feel comfortable leaving comments, becasue everything is torn down by a few self-righteous haters who have no interest in anything besides poking fun. They know nothing about the true Chritians attitude towards sex except the strawmen and stereotypes they build in their minds.

18

Rob B

You act as if everyone in the world is an adult capable of discernment and choice in sexual matters

Since when is that a improper assumption to make around here?

Explain to me how not wanting my 7 year old to be peppered with sexual imagery when he picks up my Chicago Tribune equals me being afraid of sex?

Here's how: 7 year olds since the beginning of humankind have been "peppered" with sexual imagery of one kind or another and yet the human race managed to survive without dissolving in a giant pool of flesh and herpes.

Please recall that it wasn't very long ago that quite a few male Christians in this country were having sex with 14 year olds -- after a marriage ceremony, of course!

If something your 7 year old sees in the Chicago Tribune is going to turn your kid into an amoral sex freak, then your kid has some other issues that demand your attention. Why aren't you willing to provide that attention?

19

"How long will it take those pushing these polyamorous ads to come to the same conclusion and realize that the public simply isn't ready for it?"

It will take as long as it takes the companies paying for the advertisements to realize they do not increase sales enough to justify the expenditure. That may be a very long time indeed, since an ad needn't be logical to be effective. If an ad is memorable enough to call the product to mind when a buying decision is being made, it may be effective despite whatever logical black hole it evinces. If an ad has pleasant associations for a segment of the buying public, those associations might be transferred to the product itself on a subconscious level, leading to increased sales. Sometimes seemingly stupid ads are effective, and seemingly brilliant (or at least logical) ads fail miserably.

20

Joe writes:

Inconceivable though it may be, there has been a marked trend in advertising that attempts to use the allure of multiple sexual partners to sell products. Polyamoury has become a recurring them in print and media advertising. Having reached the limits (for now) of exposed flesh in sexual imagery, advertisers are forced to stretch the laws of logic by increasing the number of sexual partners.

But that's just not true — blantantly so. Look at advertising from decades ago or even the last century: can-can girls kicking up their legs with a guy in a tux in the middle, a man holding a drink with three gorgeous women staring adoringly at him, a man driving a car filled with young, beautiful women. In the 1960's the Dean Martin show's basic theme was to show him surrounded by sexy young women. Advertisers flocked to it. There is no "marked trend."

I fear you are just marketing the new Christian right buzzword: polyamoury.

Rob B writes:

Explain to me how not wanting my 7 year old to be peppered with sexual imagery when he picks up my Chicago Tribune equals me being afraid of sex?

Must all media be made child-safe? Don't you as a parent have some control of where you leave your paper? Is the Trib really that hot?

Franklin writes:

So sad to see our society going down the road that will lead to our downfall as a nation with values and virtues once held high by most americans completely gone. Our freedom of speach is indeed wonderful, but there should be limits as to what can be printed and seen, especially by children.

I wish parents would step up to the bar. You own your TV, it has parental controls built-in, and you as a parent can determine when and what your child watches and reads. You can also teach your children to be their own person and not fall for the advertizer's game.

Brian writes:

I don't feel comfortable leaving comments, becasue everything is torn down by a few self-righteous haters who have no interest in anything besides poking fun. They know nothing about the true Chritians attitude towards sex except the strawmen and stereotypes they build in their minds.

Self-righteous haters? Leaving aside that comment which seems too much like the pot calling the kettle black, many of us were/are Christians, have daily contact with Christians, have many Christian friends and relatives, live in this American society dominated by Christians, and perhaps most importantly were brought up by Christian parents and spent years working through the denial of sexuality we were taught.

If this blog has any real value it is in providing a forum for such discussion between the Christian right and others to take place — and Joe sets the tone and has complete control over the comments.

Joe, there is much to be concerned about with respect to advertizing (drug manufactures marketing directly to the public rather than to doctors to name but one). Trying to make a case about polyamoury is just silly.

21

Just out of curiosity, have there been many ads which use bestiality as a way of "spicing up" a pitch?

I'm sure that ironic or subtle references to sexual relations between a male animal (dog/horse/ape) and a human female have been made.

But is anyone aware of any ads designed to appeal to men which implicitly suggest relations between a man and an animal?

That would seem to fit in with this idea of Joe's, and it would also fit in with those laughable anti-gay marriage "arguments" which rely on an alleged slippery slope to polyamorous and/or interspecies marriages.

22

No one has yet point out this:

When advertizers put a bottle of vodka in a picture with a guy and a pretty girl, they are not expecting you to associate their brand of vodka with giving you the ability to hang out with pretty girls. Nor are they especially interested in getting you to associate the brand with a pleasureful experience -- although they'd be happy with that. Rather, they just are getting you to imprint on their brand.

It rather funny that given all the commercials that show a football star with a product you don't hear people wailing "football sells," but put a sexy woman in the picture and people cry from the mountain top "sex sells." Now we have this new meme: polyamory sells. All the advertizer wishes is to embed their logo in your mind. That's why so much clothing is covered with logos (an actual recent trend), and even our TV screens have persistent branding for the channel we are watching.

As amazing as it may seem, you don't have cave in. You can decide not to have every toy, every experience, every product that someone is pushing at you. And you have a duty to teach your children that ability. It's our job as parents and community leaders to do that. Joe isn't helping by focusing on a made up story about new trends in polyamory.

23

Gee Larry Lord,
It's so unlike you to take people's words and twist them into what they don't represent. I never commented on what these images might or might not turn my child into, did I? I think it's reasonable to have a discussion about what is appropriate content for publications that could be purchased by any minor in a Target, or a 7 Eleven. (I'm just that crazy)

LLord blathers,
"then your kid has some other issues that demand your attention. Why aren't you willing to provide that attention?"

Do you ever feel the least bit disgusted with yourself when you write utter crap like that? If you really must know, I went to two of my kid's football games this weekend, one birthday party, played catch multiple times with the boys, read with them; and cooked dinner for the whole family around the table last night. (tucking them into bed is a given, and of course those nightly prayers you would appreciate so much.) Do you want to analyze my fathering expertise by reading a few comments of mine in this blog?

As one who portrays such intillectual brilliance, you certainly propogate tremendous ignorance. And, by the way, I'm not patting myself on the back here with my child raising; I always feel like I could be doing better; and I'd say it's pretty creepy for you to try and indite someone you don't even know on such matters. Sad really.

24

Joe asked, "How long will it take those pushing these polyamorous ads to come to the same conclusion and realize that the public simply isn't ready for it? "

When they stop working. These ads, like the axe ads, are working. They are getting people talking. That's the point of the ad. They'll stop working when they fail to attract attention -- or when the next more fear-laden or attention-grabbing idea comes along.

25

Rob Ryan That may be a very long time indeed, since an ad needn't be logical to be effective.

Great point. I think Axe is a great product (confession: I like smelling like a metrosexual) and have bought it on several occasions. But the ad agency is likely to think it was their marketing rather than the fresh, fruity smell of the body spray that was responsible for the increased sales.

AndyS I fear you are just marketing the new Christian right buzzword: polyamoury.

You think it’s a “Christian right buzzword?” Perhaps I’m a bit more “worldly wise” than I realized because I’ve known about the polyamourous subculture for years.

Joe, there is much to be concerned about with respect to advertizing (drug manufactures marketing directly to the public rather than to doctors to name but one)

True. And I hope to cover that topic in the future. I chose this one first because, well, sex sells. ; )

26

Rob B

I think it's reasonable to have a discussion about what is appropriate content for publications that could be purchased by any minor in a Target, or a 7 Eleven. (I'm just that crazy)

Okay, so is a picture of two women lying in bed with a plastic troll inappropriate for a 7 year old to see? And why?

27

Okay so today I learned that some metrosexuals, and at least one evangelical Christian, like to smell "fresh and fruity."

Maybe I should change my tagline from "try a new salad dressing" to "try a new body spray."

28

That depends, Larry, I mean, do we know that the troll is schooled in the policies of safe sex, and that he's got everything covered? Can we demonstrate that for the seven year old? I mean, we don't want to set a bad example or anything..I would imagine a mutating troll virus could be pretty damned murderous--

29

Patrick,

It is so unfortunate that you confuse fear of sex and the Christian with the real issue of the fact that sex is a beautiful blessing that is to be treated with honor. In other words it is to be sanctified.

Our objection is when it is treated otherwise.

30

Andy wrote:
"It rather funny that given all the commercials that show a football star with a product you don't hear people wailing "football sells," but put a sexy woman in the picture and people cry from the mountain top "sex sells." Now we have this new meme: polyamory sells. All the advertizer wishes is to embed their logo in your mind."

Yeah, but Andy, you are stilling trying to garner attention to the product using what? That's right, sex. Whether they are trying to associate using the product with sexual conquest, or just trying to "brand" us with their product, sensuality is still used.

And to answer the previous post, Christians are not afraid. It's by Christians that it finds it's ultimate fulfillment. Christians find it so offensive not because it scares us, but because we consider it so sacred. If you consider that most if not all Christians see marriage/sex as a type or example of Christ and his church, to mar that image should illicit a response from Christians. You may not like the reaction, but please do not chalk it up to Fruedian ("Fraudian") complexes. I think it is the other side that finds it so fearful. It can't get it arms around it.

31

These are not depictions of polyamory. Polyamory is about multiple people establishing long-term romantic and erotic relationships with more than one partner at the same time. I know, let's actually go look the word up!!! Here, from The Oxford American Dictionary: "Polyamory, the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time."

What these pictures are playing on is mere sexual conquest of multiple partners. This is as old as civilization itself: A great man (King, Chief, Patriarch) signified and solidified their social dominance by their ability to procure and keep several wives.

What these ads essentially are about is the male desire for power and feeling successful. And that desire is infinite, even in a man who doesn't necessarily want more than one partner.

Of course, the fact that women are of no interest in these ads except as enhancers of male status goes right to the root of an amazing amount of social interplay throughout our society.

And why should it not. These attitudes and behaviors are tribal and deeply ingrained, as deeply ingrained as our impulse to care for our own children, or people who look like them, more than the children down the street.

As usual, it might look like it's about sex, but it has NOTHING to do with sex. The images of sex we have in our culture are always about power and dominance, and have nothing to do with intimacy or fear or care. We allow a movie to show sex in which the woman has her requisite "oh what a man!" orgasm, as long as we don't see any genitals. If we really believed in sex and not power, we would have more frontal nudity (which is more vulnerable and hardly ever flattering to the ego) and less vapid up-against-the-wall-you-fully-clothed-conqueror-you sex.

Fear of the naked body in public is about power. Revealing the naked body is about dissolution of hierarchy, and is thus threatening to societies whose core values are about power and dominance.

32

Christians find it so offensive not because it scares us, but because we consider it so sacred.

That is your personal issue to resolve in your own heart, my friend, because what is 'sacred' or not is simply a restatement of your personal religious beliefs. Granted, those beliefs may be shared by your preachers and/or parents who indoctrinated you, but they remain your personal beliefs.

There is no way for someone who does not share your faith to determine what is 'sacred' (or 'really really sacred') unless they ask you or someone who speaks for you. Am I expected to do that every time I willfully take any action? Seek approval from religious groups so I don't "offend" someone's sensibilities about what is "sacred" or not?

Who wants to live in a world like that? Okay, the clerics in Iran for sure. Besides them? Do you?

Look at it this way:

Cows are sacred to Hindus, are they not?

Do you shun beef-eating out of respect for the deeply-held and sincere religious beliefs of Hindus who are trying to raise their children to be good little Hindus?

I assume you must. Am I wrong? Surely you wouldn't do anything intentional to offend Hindus and their deeply-held beliefs!

33

Do you really believe that thinking that taking a stand against the use of polyamoury in advertising is evidence that I’m afraid of sex?

Why no Joe, I was speaking about Christians in general, not you specifically. Is there something you would like to tell us? In fact, I think my phrase "join the rest of the human race" says that all humans are afraid of sex, not just Christians. Don't you ever read what I write? Christians are just the current drama queens in discussion. Could just as easily be devout Muslim men as well. Or even some Gay men, to an extent.

I have a hard time believing you wrote that line with a straight face. Do you really not believe that the advertisers were using gay-themes in order to sell vodka to a gay audience?

Why Joe, you should know that it's impossible for me to say anything with a "straight" face. (You walked right into that one.)
But as I pointed out, it's subject to interpretation. I can show you soldiers of Marines sunning themselves on the decks of Aircraft Carriers in WWII that show men in far more explicit states of physical intimacy than the ad has shown. And it's all quite innocent behavior. It's your fears and feelings that give the image power, not the image itself.

It's the same as Rob B complaining about what his 7 year old sees. It's not what the child sees that makes such a difference, its the reaction to the images he sees displayed by his parents and others that will direct him to think that everything sexual is "bad" or something to be afraid of. As I said, its just useless drama.

Oh, please. Can we finally put to rest the tired notion that any man who finds male homosexual behavior “icky” is “insecure about their manhood.” That’s quite possibly one of the dumbest reverse psychology clichés ever to be produced. A man can be completely comfortable with themselves, be a great husband and a loving father, be self-confident and still be turned off by the sight of two men engaged in sexual conduct.

Actually, Joe, there was a 1997 study at the University of Georgia that showed exactly that. Go look it up. Just because something is a cliché does not mean that it is not the truth. And what is interesting is that the actual cliché has always been that those who are the most homophobic are themselves closeted gays. But you re-arranged that a bit. An interesting adaptation.

As for you not liking to watch "gay sex", Its interesting that you defined that specifically as male-male sex. Or does that include lesbian lip-locks as well? Whatever. You are entitled to the way you feel. I'm not particularly enthused seeing a heterosexual couple having sex either. The difference is that I don't go into such hysterics about it that I feel the need to outlaw it or condemn it etc., even in the privacy of someone else's home.

And Joe, the reason some people, including myself, think that term "polyamoury" is the current Conservative Christian buzzword is simply because for the most part they are the only ones using it. Even I had to go look it up, I had no idea what you were talking about. But then I guess I'm just not as sexually educated as you are apparently are.

34

Patrick,

Why Joe, you should know that it's impossible for me to say anything with a "straight" face.

I was going to let you have the last word on this one but I had to say that was pretty dang funny.

But then I guess I'm just not as sexually educated as you are apparently are.

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if I should be knowing about this stuff since no one else seems to have heard about it. ; )

35

I see, Patrick, I should assume that my 7-year old will be better guided by the reactions of the secular and gays in his development? Please don't ever try to make me feel ashamed for trying to raise my kids with common decency. Do you lay all of your sexual baggage on your parents because they might have told you at one time certain images just might be better left alone? Common' really?

And, is hoping and encouraging that advertisors act with constraint and common sense the same as outlawing their actions? I think not, give us a huge break. I think you're a heterophobe, and obviously with all of the concern over Christians and traditional lifestyles you gripe about, you must really be straight, and an evangelical.

As far as I can tell, Larry, you haven't had to submit any permission slips to the Christians for your acts of debauchery; or did I miss that wing of government regulation??...that's just laughable..

36

Okay, since everyone's too busy showing off their male prowess in an endless flame war to respond to a serious post, maybe I should just go with my juvenile instinct and point out the lovely innuendo in the subheading of Joe's original post. "The *Rise* of Polyamorous Advertising?" You might to need to work on obfuscating your prurient interest behind the moralizing a bit more.

Yeah, I know I'm being obnoxious. Just thought I should kind of try to fit in a little more.

37

Kristofer,
I might agree that these are ads using sexual imagery, in hyperbole form, to communicate that you are more desirable/powerful if you have many sexual partners, and this product will do that for you. I'd say that it is more likely the imprint that is more important, although the medium carries over to be the message to some degree. However, and I think this is Joe's point, it doesn't end there. In order to be as shocking as in the past, advertisers have to up it, and they do so by taking the logic too far to the point of hyperbole that really is absurdity.

Also, you make an interesting point about power. This knowledge you are revealing to us fails to account for the actual passion it is attached to. I'd say these instances of concealed sex actually do a great job to elicit sexual passion without crossing cultural boundaries and use this arousal as a way to connect to power.

Finally, your last comment here sounds like you are overly suspicous of power. Is it possible that power can be good?

Joe,
I'd have to say that while I agree most people are not at the point yet where they are willing to incorporate their fantasies into their lifestyles, I do think there are some who are, and eventually sexual sin takes one there. Not that I am a big fan of the slippery slope argument, but this really does seem like a good instance for it. Unfortunately, even introducing the idea is enough in a culture of people driven by suggestive impulse and not critical thinking.

Patrick,
It's your fears and feelings that give the image power, not the image itself.
Come on, now. Certainly it is possible to interpret this differently, but I have to agree with Joe here about the right interpretation of this ad--it suggests homosexual activity. Look at the rest of the ads for the context of this one--they indicate a trend to elicit sexual desire in the viewer.

Andy
Rather, they just are getting you to imprint on their brand.
I wholeheartedly agree that imprinting the brand is the goal. However, I think there is something more subtle at work. The medium used to imprint this image and to associate it with good feelings is sexual desire. While most advertisers may not understand or even want to know about what they are actually doing, the truth is they are using the good feeling to imprint their brand in the hopes to sell their product. To some extent, the medium is the message, and in this instance, I think this is definitely so.

38

>Also, you make an interesting point about power.
>This knowledge you are revealing to us fails to
>account for the actual passion it is attached
>to. I'd say these instances of concealed sex
>actually do a great job to elicit sexual passion
>without crossing cultural boundaries and use
>this arousal as a way to connect to power.
Huh? _Concealed_ sex? no no no no. The sex is the obvious stuff. I mean, come on, that's why it raised Joe's ire in the first place. It's the need for affirmation through sexual conquest that is the _concealed_ part of the ad. And this dynamic, where sex is used as a way to shore up an insecure ego (if only I could bed a beautiful woman like that; if only I could bed that desirable/intelligent/popular woman; if only I could have 10 women eating from the palm of my hand I would feel good about myself) is the actual _source_ of the sexual urge that comes about from viewing the ad. Anyone with any real life experience knows that sex with the person you love and who loves you is, generally speaking, and over a longer period of time, something more deeply satisfying than various experiments/adventures/mistakes one might be drawn to commit. So why the sexual desire? Is it the sight of naked flesh? Nope. Being from Sweden, I can testify to sitting in saunas, or pool-side, or on a beach surrounded by naked ladies, even beautiful ones, and not having desire unduly awakened (and that even while being a raging teenager). The source of desire for sex in the case of seeing 10 beautiful girls surrounding a man is not actually your sexual drive at all; it is your desire for that feeling of being powerful, of being desired, of being able to finally fulfill the wish of the structurally unfulfillable... If your actual sex drive were being engaged, you would be lusting after your wife/girlfriend/partner instead of the girls in the picture.

>Finally, your last comment here sounds like you
>are overly suspicous of power. Is it possible
>that power can be good?
I think that power is a great and even necessary good, but, like Foucault, I think it has the best potential to be used for good when dealt with suspiciously and with a deep-seated distrust.

39

Kristofer,
"Concealed sex" as opposed to revealed nudity, etc.--I was using the term to point to what you seemed to be implying, although maybe concealed nudity is a better term.

I see your point, but the attachment of that power lust to sexual desire produces the effect--it isn't as linear or black and white as you seem to want it. The message is key (you=powerful), but the medium is also key (sexual imagery=good feeling). I think we're probably getting close to saying the same thing, but I'd argue that the place where the sexual desire does not play a role is when a choice is made to not let it--not that it isn't there. I think your definition of sexual desire is too restrictive.

40

Joe....great topic. Thanks for sharing this. I think it is a topic that most people aren't even aware of.

Good meeting you this weekend as well. Sorry I didn't have a longer chance to talk.

Rhett

41

I see your point, but the attachment of that power lust to sexual desire produces the effect--it isn't as linear or black and white as you seem to want it. The message is key (you=powerful), but the medium is also key (sexual imagery=good feeling). I think we're probably getting close to saying the same thing, but I'd argue that the place where the sexual desire does not play a role is when a choice is made to not let it--not that it isn't there. I think your definition of sexual desire is too restrictive.
Fair enough. There are some nitpicky things I could say here, but they don't lend themselves to a forum as well as they would to an actual conversation. I agree also with you that my definition of sexual desire is too restrictive. I have restricted it's play in this context because I feel that people all too readily see something that _relates_ to our sexuality as actually _being_ our sexuality, and what I'm trying to point out is that the salient and potentially provocative thing about these ads is not the supposed sex (which I think is there only on the surface, as a device), but male insecurity and desire for self-affirming power. The preoccupation with sex blinds our social analyses (especially among people for whom anything vaguely sexual unleashes a hellstorm of anxieties and dire predictions about societal collapse), and keeps us from seeing the real _reasons_ why something might be morally problematic. In this case, the presence of three scantily clad women's bodies next to a man is not a moral issue. There is nothing immoral about a naked body. What is a challenge to me, as a man, and should be to most of us in our country, and probably through most fairly patriarchal cultures is the REAL beast lurking beneath this whole issue. It's not sex, or our sexuality. It's our selfish desire to be adulated, and our willingness to use our sexual other halves as accomplices to that end. The real point to ponder is not some cheap "oh my, MORE naked bodies! What is the world coming to?" but rather something more along the lines of:
What does it say about the structure of our culture and economy that so much of it is fueled by the exploitation of perceived inadequacies?

I think the desire to stand out is a common, normal, and healthy one, but in most, more rigid societies, this desire is largely made inert by the hierarchies and social obligations an individual has.

However, in our capitalist/individualist culture (in which your labor is not a product of your personhood, but a commodity to be exchanged on a market) your worth is entirely dependent upon two things: 1) How much you can control (women, converts, agencies), and 2) How much you can consume.

Your power to consume is your only valuable contribution to society, because it is your consumption that furthers this economy. Think about it; if we all stopped consuming more than we absolutely needed our economy would collapse spectacularly.

So the economic structure of our society demands that we either are powerful consumers, or actively try to fulfill ourselves through consumption, whether it be of women, beer, cars, or diplomas.

All I'm saying to Joe and other people who like to criticize the tips of the icebergs of our social problems without addressing the issues underneath _within which they themselves are embedded_ by virtue of economics and a completely absorbed ideology of capital and human individuality, can in the end only really be performing this criticism with an end to feeling like powerful critics, and, in proportion to their rage, _righteous_, powerful critics.

We're ALL in bed with the enemy. Every one of us IS the enemy.

42

Larry Lord says:

"Granted, those beliefs may be shared by your preachers and/or parents who indoctrinated you, but they remain your personal beliefs".

The old indoctrinated argument. Like we don't have a mind to make decisions based on evidence and belief. Whatever

Larry Lord says:

"There is no way for someone who does not share your faith to determine what is 'sacred' (or 'really really sacred') unless they ask you or someone who speaks for you. Am I expected to do that every time I willfully take any action? Seek approval from religious groups so I don't "offend" someone's sensibilities about what is "sacred" or not?"

Who is asking for this? If you have difficulty respecting other people's beliefs and really not care if you offend them, then you really should examine your own beliefs.

Larry Lord says:

"Surely you wouldn't do anything intentional to offend Hindus and their deeply-held beliefs!"

No, I don't. I have yet to go to an Hindu market or the owner of any Hindu store, plop myself down and start eating a juicy McDonalds hamburger. And likewise I have yet to hear of McDonalds running TV advertisements in India.

43

Good topic, Joe.

Working in a major ad agency as I do, perhaps I can add a little professional perspective here. The Axe ads and those like it are currently among the darlings of the advertising industry for 'pushing the envelope,' being 'risque,' and being seductive and sexy (this all from an ADWEEK article I read quite a while back). It is an attempt to use sex - polyamourous, homosexual, or necrophiliac, or otherwise - to sell something. The account and staff teams have said as much. Additionally, the ads are directly aimed at males aged 14-34 (hello, Peter Pan). What do males aged 14-34 (Christian and otherwise) usually want? Hrm, lots of sex with lots of women! *gasps* And...Axe is using...sex with lots of women in their ads!

But no, they aren't using sex to sell. I guess Nike only uses Tiger Woods to fulfill their race quota, too, eh?

I guarantee you that advertising people (well, most of us) do not care about your child's innocence, much less destroying it or warping it. They don't care about you or your life, either - we care about the client and moving their product. Advertising creatives do not care about morality, if they indeed have any. As a matter of fact, most advertising creatives I have met and gotten to know are generally interested in nothing BUT living the very lifestyle(s) portrayed in their work - fabulous product with fabulous, promiscuous women/men/both around them.

While using this sort of imagery - which I, too consider offensive and vulgar - is not *always* a blatant attempt to offend or nick away at traditional Judeo-Christian morality, there is often an intention to sell product while pushing the envelope and giving one's client an 'edgy' image, yes, in hope of imprinting the brand upon potential consumers of the client's products. I've seen too many ad campaigns just like this or worse - and ad for an awards show several years ago, while tongue-in-cheek, was awfully raunchy - be piled on with awards, praise, and free publicity (from both sides). The only campaign using sex to sell that failed was Buick's creepily inane 'Dream up' campaign with naked women fondling upholstery. The others are lifted up as examples.

Many advertising people are immoral, sexually and otherwise - and the execs are the tame ones. They see offending people as a point of pride, and will always strive to continue doing so until consumers respond by NOT BUYING THE PRODUCT. And even then, it will take a while.

I'll tell you what, dear Joe, it will be nice to leave the business!

44

>>>I'll tell you what, dear Joe, it will be nice to leave the business!

But you won't, because you need the money, so you can buy stuff. And in a capital-driven economy it doesn't matter how good you are as a person, or how good your work is; the only thing that matters is that you contribute to the GNP. So stay in your job, and I'll stay in my dirty job creating software that helps entertainment conglomerates spew drivel across the Internet. Why? Because I need the money so I can buy stuff.

45

If the advertisers want to stand out then they should use no amourous or"polyamourous advertising. None. Things with no sexual conotations at all would indeed stand out. Even at a subliminal level people will know that somethings different.

46

Kristofer,
I think your true colors are shining through--the issue is more about economic theory for you. At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful comments. As a reader of Evangelical Outpost, you've caused me to think about this topic a bit more.

Changing the subject a bit, although not entirely, I wonder if you can support this claim:
In this case, the presence of three scantily clad women's bodies next to a man is not a moral issue. There is nothing immoral about a naked body.

47

It just wouldnt be as stimulating to discuss how to help widows and orphans now would it?

48

>I think your true colors are shining
>through--the issue is more about economic theory
>for you. At any rate, thanks for the thoughtful
>comments. As a reader of Evangelical Outpost,
>you've caused me to think about this topic a bit
>more.
Well, I don't know whether to be flattered or offended. Your statement about true colors implies that I have in any way been masking my true intentions, or somehow coyly withholding some kind of agenda. I have not.

Further, to say that I think it's about economic theory is uncomfortably reductive. What I am arguing for is a more nuanced view of these hot-button moral issues, a view that does not just reflexively look at a phenomenon and deplore it, but tries to look at the intermeshing of our anthropological constitution, our economic practices, our religious beliefs (including taboos about the body), etc. etc. No, I don't believe it's all economic.

>Changing the subject a bit, although not
>entirely, I wonder if you can support this
>claim: In this case, the presence of three
>scantily clad women's bodies next to a man is
>not a moral issue. There is nothing immoral
>about a naked body.

Well, it's the use of the image, rather than the image itself (I say this in a non-technical sense; I'm well aware there is no "image itself"). If we assume that nakedness is neither moral or immoral, but simply the state of being undressed, which I hope I can assume because otherwise our argument will indeed be long and tiring, then we really have only one hurdle left to cross: Is it immoral to be undressed in the presence of other naked people? Considering the vast amounts of moral practice that comes down on both sides of this issue, this is tough one to argue either way, and there are good arguments on both sides. So I will plead from my own anecdotal experience of finding social nakedness a completely humanizing and normal experience, in no way associated in my mind with anything nefarious or corrupting of character. (To explain, for example. As a child, I would go to the public bath house once a week for a swim and a sauna. Once I was out of the dressing room, I was surrounded by naked men. Most of them very old. They were scary looking, but also created a lot of empathy for what happens to normal human bodies during a lifetime. Also, there were bath attendants, almost all female, dressed in green robes. They would walk around making sure everything was safe and clean, and would scrub the old men's backs because they couldn't reach. Nothing could be further from an eroticized, "sexy" atmosphere. In the sauna, it was co-ed. Men, women, old ladies, old men, young children all together. All naked. Talk of politics. Talk of the weather. I learned a lot about what women's bodies actually look like from those days, which, I hope, has made me more kind and accepting towards the women in my life, all of whom seem to battle hugely with self-consciousness about their bodies--and yes, I do see much more of this debilitating self-consciousness in the USA than in other countries, though it is spreading.)

So, based on this anecdote, purely drawn from one poor observer's life, where do you stand? Do you think it's immoral for naked people to be in the same place? And if not, why would it be immoral to depict it?

The moral issues I have with the presentation of the nakedness is the way in which the maker of the product is profiteering from our insecurities and desires. Especially since many of these insecurities are themselves the creation of marketing savvy.

And the moral issues I have with people who moralize about shock-value topics like sex-in-advertisements, etc., is that they moralize about them in this facile manner in order to not have to face the deeper ethical problems that undergird their entire lifestyle, from which the hot-button, shock-value things arise. Thus the economics. Thus the sociology.

Essentially, the moralizing shock-jocks that love to parade the excesses of our culture as regards eroticism can blithely ignore the fact that their entire lifestyle, including going to church with it's six football-field sized parking lots, and worrying about what you wear, and who got a divorce and who didn't, and the fact that 40% of their taxes go to making machines for killing people, and the fact that most evangelical churches are almost completely racially segregated (your presentation of an exception will most definitely prove the rule here) is based on fundamentally exploitative, deeply de-humanizing assumptions about individuality, economic freedom and justice. It's what allows an allegedly Christian nation to plunder the earth to satisfy is gluttony on its way to heaven, all the while pointing fingers at the people who do "the really bad things."

As a side note, I might even tentatively surmise that one of the reasons we are so vulnerable to these kinds of images is the fact that there is a dearth of normal, healthy, regular old naked bodies visible in our society for any other purpose than to sell things. But this is a cultural critique, and not a terribly interesting one at that. Forgive me.

MWC, thanks for the interchange. I'm going to go have a shower, and yes, I will be naked. Shocking.

49

Every once in a while I follow a link here. This time I was pleasantly surprised by the depth introduced through Kristofer's comments, though there are a lot of po-mo, anti-market, and reductive-economics assumptions I don't buy, that it's difficult to calmly and concisely engage. It's too bad his link leads nowhere, it would be interesting to see what else he says, rather than watching him shoot "Americans are so prudish" fish in a barrel.

The psychological / spiritual resonance of behavior at a deeper level than rule-based erotic taboos is really worth contemplating by thinking Christians. Other matters involving power, endorphins, and obsessive escape from unexamined anxieties coarsen our experience as effectively as ritualistic sexual fantasy. With all the neuroscience coming down the pike, we may some day be nostalgic for the days when the undermining imagery was laughably obvious, like the examples here.

Incidentally, judging from "Miss O'Hara's" blog, I wouldn't be so convinced that she's on a treadmill just to "buy stuff." I'd bet that if she needs or wants to simplify, she could do so, turning on a dime with no sweat. Freedom's just another name for the capacity to enjoy life under any circumstances.

50

Hey Kristofer,
Good post on the bath house thing. Intelligently written.

However, there is a marked contrast between what you detailed above and what advertisers put forward to sell or brand a product.

Ravi Zacharias details the story of the trial in Atlanta (of Larry Flynt, I think). He notes that in defense of his pronography, the lawyer would ask people if they had ever paid to go into an art museum with works by the great masters that had nudity in them. When responded with an affirmative, he asks them why it is any different to make his point that they are not much different at all.

Stay with me here. He goes on to make the point that C.S. Lewis made in his allegory the Pilgrims Regress, when John, the main character, is held prisoner by the Spirit of the Age, he is brought milk. He comments on it's pleasant taste at which point the attendant who brought it demeans him stating that milk is just the excriment of a cow, no different than anything else that comes from it's orafices. He then says the same thing about the eggs he's brought at which point the attendant makes another crude remark. Later on, when Reason (riding on her white horse in her shinging armor) comes to his rescue, John turns to the Spirit of the Age and states that he is wrong because he does not know what nature has intended for pleasure and what nature has intended for waste.

The point he is making is obvious. There is a difference between nudity in general, and the exploitation of (using mostly women) sex. One carries with it a factor of shame that should be realized, the other captures the wholeness and beauty of God/nature and creation. We can easily discern what the differnece between the two are. One cannot argue from a point of no reference for objective truth without losing your sense of shame.

I do not think it is coincidence that the Christians argue from a objective value standpoint, while those that argue from another standpoint have lost or distain that objective value and therefore have lost their inherent sense of shame, calling anything whatever they want (which may just be the goal they were looking for). To compare your example with the above advertisements is not something that can be compared without taking this into account. There is a glaring difference. It is a moral issue.

51

Kristofer,

You know, it's okay for the United States to be different from Sweden. It's doesn't mean we're a pack of vikings pillaging and raping the world.

If you look at what we consume, it's very impressive. If you look at what we export, it's even more impressive. If you look at one without looking at the other, you'll get a totally distorted (that is to say, false) view of things.

Are evangelical Americans any more hypocritical than anyone else? Why are you picking on them -- is Sweden a model of non-hypocritical virtue?

Is it possible than hypocrisy is just a part of human nature -- and is it further possible that evangelicals make a honest effort to overcome their human weaknesses and be good people? Just how good a person does someone have to be in order to discuss sexually suggestive advertising without being heckled for being allegedly hypocritical:

Essentially, the moralizing shock-jocks that love to parade the excesses of our culture as regards eroticism can blithely ignore the fact that their entire lifestyle, including going to church with it's six football-field sized parking lots, and worrying about what you wear, and who got a divorce and who didn't, and the fact that 40% of their taxes go to making machines for killing people, and the fact that most evangelical churches are almost completely racially segregated (your presentation of an exception will most definitely prove the rule here) is based on fundamentally exploitative, deeply de-humanizing assumptions about individuality, economic freedom and justice. It's what allows an allegedly Christian nation to plunder the earth to satisfy is gluttony on its way to heaven, all the while pointing fingers at the people who do "the really bad things.

Exploitation is what happens when people take a good, bad, or neutral system and abuse it to take advantage of other people. In this sense, someone who takes advantage of Sweden's generous welfare provisions is "exploiting" the hard work and good will of tax-paying Swedes.

You have a sharp mind, Kristofer, when it comes to criticizing, but do you apply your reason with as much passion in an effort to put your criticisms into a proper perspective?

52

By Tim:
It is so unfortunate that you confuse fear of sex and the Christian with the real issue of the fact that sex is a beautiful blessing that is to be treated with honor. In other words it is to be sanctified.

Our objection is when it is treated otherwise.

The real problem is with the church's continual misperception that they should be regulating the rest of world's morality. Joe's post may not say this explicitly, but the idea has certainly been conveyed in the comments. It isn't the church's function to do this. Moral self-righteousness doesn't help the cause. Maybe you guys should work some more on your biblical literacy.

By RandiLover:
And to answer the previous post, Christians are not afraid. It's by Christians that it finds it's ultimate fulfillment. Christians find it so offensive not because it scares us, but because we consider it so sacred. If you consider that most if not all Christians see marriage/sex as a type or example of Christ and his church, to mar that image should illicit a response from Christians. You may not like the reaction, but please do not chalk it up to Fruedian ("Fraudian") complexes. I think it is the other side that finds it so fearful. It can't get it arms around it.

Wishful thinking. Most Christians don't understand sanctification, much less apply it to their marriage bed. I think this dates back to Augistine's view of women as evil...

By Rob B:
I see, Patrick, I should assume that my 7-year old will be better guided by the reactions of the secular and gays in his development? Please don't ever try to make me feel ashamed for trying to raise my kids with common decency.

I don't know what Patrick thinks, but I think you should teach your kids to live within the morals of the kingdom and minister to the secular. Not regulate the secular.

By Kristofer:
Essentially, the moralizing shock-jocks that love to parade the excesses of our culture as regards eroticism can blithely ignore the fact that their entire lifestyle, including going to church with it's six football-field sized parking lots, and worrying about what you wear, and who got a divorce and who didn't, and the fact that 40% of their taxes go to making machines for killing people, and the fact that most evangelical churches are almost completely racially segregated (your presentation of an exception will most definitely prove the rule here) is based on fundamentally exploitative, deeply de-humanizing assumptions about individuality, economic freedom and justice. It's what allows an allegedly Christian nation to plunder the earth to satisfy is gluttony on its way to heaven, all the while pointing fingers at the people who do "the really bad things."

Amen. Unfortunately, I think you speak the truth. I don't know people here very well, are you a believer? Anyways, onto that biblical illiteracy issue Joe wrote about. Its a big contributor to this problem. Let's not confuse the message of the scriptures with the actions of the church.

By Matthew Goggins:
Are evangelical Americans any more hypocritical than anyone else? Why are you picking on them -- is Sweden a model of non-hypocritical virtue?

Who cares? Just as the bible always paint a picture of a God more interested in the behavior of His people than those who aren't, perhaps we should follow suit.

53

Explain to me how not wanting my 7 year old to be peppered with sexual imagery when he picks up my Chicago Tribune equals me being afraid of sex? You act as if everyone in the world is an adult capable of discernment and choice in sexual matters---as well as the exposure to such.

If your 7 year old reads the Chicago Tribune then he seems exceptionally well informed and mature for his age! Certainly more than capable of taking sexually charged advertising with a grain of salt!

Seriously, though, I understand why you'd rather not have your child see sexually charged visual images. It's important to note, however, that historically children have been subjected to a lot more. In many cultures it was and is acceptable for children to be in the same room with parents who are making love. If anyone here has watched the new HBO series Rome (which I recommend very much !) you'd see that as far as sexual frankness in front of children goes US culture is the tip of the historical iceberg!

Living in a house with many children and quite a few premium cable channels and a very large screen TV in the living room I've observed a little bit of how kids process adult images while remaining detached enough to hopefully look at it objectively. I feel that for the most part kids don't really asorb the images much at all. Why should they? Sexual images are flashpoints for the adult brain. They are designed to excite the adult brain. Like a virus that infects dogs but not humans, I think much of this cultures sexual images passes children by until they are old enough to start becoming sexual beigns in their own right.

Now what does effect children dramatically is material designed to target the brains of children. Look at the children's TV channels for an hour or two and your head will ache at the rapid fire commercialism they are subjected too. Adults birstle at excessive product placement in their movies but when I watch something like Pokeman I see a non-stop ad for those silly cards blasted at kids every 30 seconds. Unlike sexual images there is no doubt these images have an impact. The kids demand to buy new pokeman cards constantly. This isn't even collecting since the new cards end up scattered on the floor and either destroyed or in the garbage. What's being imprinted on them is not to collect cards but to collect the sensation of getting your parents to go to the store and buy and then buy again.

The problem with the ads is not that they are “selling sex” for it is understandable how such a product may feel compelled to use culture’s notions of attractivness (i.e., smelling like a metrosexual) as a selling point. Where the ad fails, in my opinion, is in implying that the logical (though exaggerated) extension of being sexual attractive to a woman is to be sexually attractive to multiple women who are willing to make themselves sexually available at the same time.

Reading a bit much into things Joe. First off all what is the difference between the attracting multiple women (which you seem to feel is fine) versus attracting them all at once? Would the ads be better if they included a calendar and the implication that each woman would have her own day of the month with the lucky guy?

Second since ads are designed to excite the brain of the viewer they often combine multiple images. They may include numerous attractive ladies and a bed, for example. The purpose is not to connect the two logically (all these ladies will get into bed with me at the same time) but symbolically (the ladies will love me in bed).

Yes, it may be a joke but that does not mean that we need to feel compelled to accept such misogynistically oriented humor.

Being attractive to women is misogyny?

54

Kaimond,

"Are evangelical Americans any more hypocritical than anyone else? Why are you picking on them -- is Sweden a model of non-hypocritical virtue?

Who cares? Just as the bible always paint a picture of a God more interested in the behavior of His people than those who aren't, perhaps we should follow suit.

You ask an excellent question. Why should I care if Kristofer puts down evangelical moralizing?

Here are two reasons:

First, Kristofer is smart, and I'm curious to see how a smart person like himself will respond to my criticism.

Second, beliefs have consequences.

For example, if someone believes that the U.S. is a ravenous behemoth despoiling the planet, he may be predisposed to discount the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq as an imperial gambit to keep the Middle East oil pipelines flowing. In this scenario, the U.S. is little more than a hungry giant crushing a proud people underfoot just so we can secure our oil habit and enjoy some lopsided technological battle victories.

On the other hand, if someone believes that the U.S. is a good (though imperfect) nation committed to freedom and justice, then that person may be predisposed to view the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq as a reluctant mission to rid that country of a murderous dictator and to defeat any jihadis and fascists who have chosen to fight against the new government. In this scenario, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a worthy cause that demands the approval and support of freedom-loving people everywhere.

So as I said, beliefs have consequences. I'm sure you could give some compelling examples of that yourself.

55

Kaimond,
How is having a discussion about objectification of sex regulating and not ministering to the secular? Someone remind me where I advocated regulating this stuff? Oh yeah, I didn't.

But thanks for the advice on what to teach my children, I always appreciate that sort of thing from folks, and the implication that I'm not teaching them properly is always welcome.

I do wonder what you would think if we get to a point when XXX billboards are approved media. What then, does regulation apply? They won't even allow whiskey adds on TV, but try watching a football game with your kids... Whether your ready or not, your going to have a conversation about erectile dysfunction. What son?; an erection that lasts for over four hours?? I have no idea what they're talking about, just be a good boy and run and fill my whiskey glass, OK?

56

"I see, Patrick, I should assume that my 7-year old will be better guided by the reactions of the secular and gays in his development? Please don't ever try to make me feel ashamed for trying to raise my kids with common decency. Do you lay all of your sexual baggage on your parents because they might have told you at one time certain images just might be better left alone? Common' really?"

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I am saying is that your kids are going to figure out what is "common decency" more by seeing your reaction to the picture of the naked lady than just looking at the picture itself. What's so difficult to grasp about this concept? I don't object to parents limiting what their children see, I'd do the same thing. But I don't blame the image itself or the person who took it for corrupting my kids or other such nonsense.

57

Ads about erectile dysfunction are XXX rated? You are suffering from very low quality porn! ESpecially for someone with net access!

58

Fyi

Four Fox network programs, led by the comedies "The War at Home," "The Family Guy" and "American Dad," topped a parents group's annual listing of the worst prime-time shows for family viewing.

The Family Guy is hilarious. If more families watched The Family Guy, we wouldn't have all these problems.

59

Boonton,
I think your mixing my posts together, there, buddy. To date, I have not seen an XXX billboard; so see, that's a good thing (still hope for society). The mob would have to bury a lot of bodies to get that through the politicians.

But thanks for your concern regarding my access to quality porn. Any concern is appreciated.

60

Rob B,
its no problem. I'm glad I could help you to figure a few things out. Just rop me a line anytime you have questions about your kids. ;)

Seriously, how can you seemingly take such personal offense through such a generalized medium. We don't know each other, so my comments can only be based on what little I have read here. Lighten up a little. As to the issue of regulation, I can't say that you said it explicitly, but your acerbic tongue seems to point in that direction. Maybe you were just decrying how sinful the world is? My apologies for "hearing" you wrong, if that is the case.

As for your XXX billboard argument... Maybe Joe can enter that into his fallacy posting. Using an extreme to make your point hardly deals with the issue at hand. Perhaps that is the same argument our Taliban friends use to prevent women from exposing any skin.

My point to you isn't that the current imagery is good or bad. I tire of seeing the faithfu get so worked up over issues like this. Do you honestly think of your "discussion" here as a ministry? How is this issue central to the church's purpose? Do you suppose anybody here is advocating XXX billboards?

61

Matthew Goggins,
I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't care if Kristofer puts down evangelical moralizing. I was suggesting that we shouldn't care if Sweden is non-hypocritical. Perhaps we should care if evangelicals are. You're comment reminded me of my youth who are always complaing that it isn't fair that people call them hypocrites, because they're only human. You know, its okay for the church to be full of hypocritical actions, because everybody else is. We are supposed to be a light in a dark world. For a people claiming the aid of the holy spirit, shouldn't we be noticeably different? I think the church is generally over concerned with the behavior of hte secular world when we should be more concerned with our own. We evangelize the secular world and bring them into the church. I mean that in the non-hijacked since of evangelize. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but that is where it lead me.

62

Kaimond,
I guess I was sort of hoping that folks might see the acerbic (but non profane) tongue as a bit of a sign that I am taking this lightly. We all have our own personalities, right?

I wasn't trying to prove a point of logic by raising the extreme XXX billboard example. I was trying to make an exaggerated illustration that "ministering" to the secular will have no effect the first time Larry Flynt decides he'd like to push the envelope and put something vile on a billboard. The issue of whether the ads presented here (on this blog) are appropriate for all audiences bears debate; but someone else brought up regulation (not me) and the point I was trying to make is that at some juncture, regulation always enters the picture where it concerns mass media.

I do not consider my time posting here as a ministry---perhaps that is my problem. I really just consider it a chance to exchange ideas, and yes, perhaps verbally spar once in awhile. I don't consider this issue central to the church's purpose in any way. This happens to be the issue brought up for discussion here, and the church made up of people who live on this planet should be allowed to discuss issues that impact all culture, not just Christian culture.

Now, if you have to compare my views to the Taliban, then we're really just going to have to take a walk out to the ally ;-)

But seriously, thanks for the thoughts. My kids have a problem with vegetables, any ideas?

63

Response to Matthew Goggins

>Why should I care if Kristofer puts down
>evangelical moralizing?
>
>Here are two reasons:
>
>I'm curious to see how a smart person like
>himself will respond to my criticism.
If the audience for this blog were Swedes, and there was a post that I felt illustrated something that I found nefarious, I would be criticising Swedes. The fact that I'm responding to a post by an American Evangelical means that I am raising a critique about American Evangelicalism. Believe me, I have no illusions about the various hypocrisies of my kinsmen. And I have no illusions about my own terribly disappointing shortcomings as a person. Perhaps I am making a virtue of necessity, but the only claim I have to any grace in my life is the daily jagged realization that my entire existence is infused and circumscribed by systemic, casual exploitation and denigration of humanity.

What is different about the brand of evangelicalism I find here in America, and that I find so puzzling is that mixed in with the Calvinistic belief in original sin is an utterly incomprehensible belief in the hallowedness of their country, as if God had some special relationship with the USA. I see absolutely no solid theological reason for this. God allows nations to rise and fall entirely to suit his own purposes and he frankly doesn't give a damn about them qua nations, states, empires. He cares about people, and he cares especially about people who are being exploited. Nations are dross to be thrown on the fire of judgment. Yes, I'm speaking of your beloved USA. Biblically speaking, it is but another in a long line of empires. It will serve its purpose and then God will throw it away in judgment. This is clear to anyone who has spent any time in the minor prophets. Who can read Micah, or Zechariah without a deeply lacerating feeling of conviction?

Why are there American flags in churches? And why would a Christian EVER EVER conceive of pledging his or her allegiance to a STATE--when only Christ should be lord and master of their lives? The nation state as political notion is but little over 300 years old. There is nothing sacred about it. It is but a necessary evil, and a necessarily corrupt one at that--as it stems from and responds to the desires of corrupt (sinful) people. Why evangelical Americans can be both Calvinistic, and quote verses such as "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it," and yet pen hymns about their nation and say "the founding fathers, in their _infinite_wisdom_..." Infinite wisdom?

Or, what is a supposedly Christian man like George Bush doing saying "We will rid the world of evil" in a speech? What kind of pernicious, prideful, distorted theology is that? I submit that American Evangelicas have an idolatrous relationship with their nation. It is far beyond a healthy love for your community and customs.

For all the self-righteous crap I've seen from Swedes who love to prattle about how they're better than... well, just about anybody, at least they don't sanctify their myopia by believing that their country is virtually God's own chosen nation and has the right, nay, the divine mandate, to do what it wills to anybody else in the world.

Yes, you're right. Hypocrisy exists in every culture. Culture is, in many ways, partially fabricated from it. I singled American Evangelicals out in my post above partly because I'm talking to American Evangelicals (why would you care to hear about the failings of others?), and partly because I think there's something particularly dangerous about the way American Evangelicals are enmeshed in their culture and political structure that is explosively self-aggrandizing.

>Second, beliefs have consequences.
>
>For example, if someone believes that the U.S.
>is a ravenous behemoth despoiling the planet, he
>may be predisposed to discount the liberation
>and reconstruction of Iraq as an imperial
>gambit...
>
>On the other hand, if someone believes that the
>U.S. is a good (though imperfect) nation
>committed to freedom and justice, then that
>person may be predisposed to view the liberation >and reconstruction of Iraq as a reluctant
>mission to rid that country of a murderous
>dictator...

My belief about the US in regards to Iraq is not a consequence of my predisposed view about the US. In my 20 years here (more or less) I have found that Americans are, by and large, an extremely generous and kind hearted people. They deserve better government, and they need a lot more information about the world outside their fortress, because the lack of an informed citizenry has allowed this country, in part because of its unbridled economic, cultural, and military might, and in part because of its legacy of believing in a divine mandate, to do incredible amounts of harm to an incredible amount of people. If more Americans had access to in-depth reporting, and more geographical and historical knowledge, I believe they would be greatly saddened by their leadership, because, as I have said, I believe most American's intentions are good, but their misplaced faith in the hallowedness of their nation blinds them to the results of the excesses of their power. Of course, if you've never been on the receiving end of it, you'll never understand. Systematic oppression (as opposed to directly willful oppression) is structurally invisible to the oppressor.

As an aside, I do not mean, in my critique here, to diminish the good the US has also done, but since I'm addressing my response to Matthew, who appears to believe in the goodness of his country (it's a painful thing to give that up, just like it's hard when you begin to see the deep fissures within your parents' lives.), I will lean on the negative. As a double aside, I would also like to point out that I believe that ANY nation, given the amount of economic, political, and military might the US has, and knowing that power corrupts, would do equal or more amounts of harm.

Now, if you'd like my perspective on Iraq, I think it's a tragedy for all involved. For the more than 40,000 civilian Iraqis who have died without a say in the matter, for the more than 3,000 US troops who have died as well as their families here, and for the future generation of Iraqis who will have to deal with this mess. First, nation-building was not the reason we went to war. Remember? The 1st reason was to protect ourselves from imminent threat of a massively destructive attack on our soil, and the administration leaned hard on the CIA to make that seem plausible--even threatening to fire George Tenet if he didn't come back with reports that would support the administration's view.

Only after it became painfully obvious that this was, in fact, a fabrication (which was laughably obvious on the eve of the invasion when one of the US generals said on television that he was not much worried about the Iraqi army as "we know it has been drastically reduced in its offensive capabilities since the Gulf War."), did the administration start to talk about liberating Iraq.

"Nation-building" is almost the ultimate expression of hubris, and it has only worked twice, and that was in the context of the aftermath of total war: Japan, and Germany. Even George W. Bush's father had the foresight to know that if he tried to topple Saddam Hussein he would essentially be consigning American troops to 10 or more years of being an occupying force, and unleashing a completely unpredictable firestorm of violence. (You can read about his in his presidential memoir.) Too bad his son is not as responsible a man.

But this is not the right thread for lengthy political discussion. Here, for your perusal, should you wish it, is perhaps the best analysis I've seen of the situation yet.
http://www.markdanner.com/nyt/091105_taking.htm

"And what does the Lord require of you? But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

64

Kaimond:

You responded to part of my post as shown below,

" By Tim:
It is so unfortunate that you confuse fear of sex and the Christian with the real issue of the fact that sex is a beautiful blessing that is to be treated with honor. In other words it is to be sanctified.

Our objection is when it is treated otherwise.

The real problem is with the church's continual misperception that they should be regulating the rest of world's morality. Joe's post may not say this explicitly, but the idea has certainly been conveyed in the comments. It isn't the church's function to do this. Moral self-righteousness doesn't help the cause. Maybe you guys should work some more on your biblical literacy."

Who here is saying that it is the church's function to regulate morality? Certainly not me and certainly no one that has posted here.

It is true that the Bible, especially the New Testament is much more concerned with the sins of pride and self-righteousness. How western society and the church became focused on sex-based sin is debatable (though we can start with Augustine as part of the problem).

However, that is not what you are saying. What you are saying is that I (and Joe Carter, etc) should shut up about "our" view. Expressing our concern, expressing what we think is wrong, and even strongly expressing these concerns is not regulating the rest of the worlds morality.

What it is is caring, concern and love. It is knowing that objectified sex is not the ideal sexual relationship (and in fact is the polar opposite). The first thing we should be doing (as a church) is celebrate sex by knowing and enjoying good Godly sex. Sex is created by God and it is good. The sex in these commercials, porn, etc is an ugly lie. It is a lie about responsibilities and consequences and what the church (as in the group of Christians) should do is expose this lie by proclaiming a beautiful truth (which is that sex is created by God and it is good).

Regarding biblical literacy, your self-righteousness does little to justify your own literacy.

65

But thanks for your concern regarding my access to quality porn. Any concern is appreciated.

I guess I thought you were comparing the ads for erectile dysfunction to porn when you wrote:

I do wonder what you would think if we get to a point when XXX billboards are approved media. What then, does regulation apply? They won't even allow whiskey adds on TV, but try watching a football game with your kids... Whether your ready or not, your going to have a conversation about erectile dysfunction. What son?;

I was just thinking if erectile dysfunction ads are porn in your world then you are certainly lacking. Perhaps since the Katrina victims are getting back into shape we can take up a collection for you and your son. No one should have to grow up getting their porn from Bob Dole viagra commercials!!!!

Seriously though why is it a problem? If you don't want to discuss it you can just say its a medical problem old men have. It's quite unlikely your son will take up a fascination with geriatric medicine anytime soon.

The Family Guy is hilarious. If more families watched The Family Guy, we wouldn't have all these problems.

It's pretty funny but it often goes over the top. It's latest reincarnation on Fox is especially raunchy for children. IMO Futrama was the best, most intelligent animated sit-com.

I wasn't trying to prove a point of logic by raising the extreme XXX billboard example. I was trying to make an exaggerated illustration that "ministering" to the secular will have no effect the first time Larry Flynt decides he'd like to push the envelope and put something vile on a billboard.

Flynt's pushed the envelope pretty far in his time yet I wasn't aware that he made the efforts of evangelicals totally impotent! What a weak religion you have if a putting up a Hustler picture will destroy it!

Or, what is a supposedly Christian man like George Bush doing saying "We will rid the world of evil" in a speech? What kind of pernicious, prideful, distorted theology is that? I submit that American Evangelicas have an idolatrous relationship with their nation. It is far beyond a healthy love for your community and customs.

Can you also please tell the evengalicals to stop the GOP from demanding an anti-flag burning amendment. A more blantent example of idoltry I can't imagine in our political culture.