To See Or Not To See

I came across this intriguing post written by a Christian girl/woman, whom I gather is fairly young (probably in her teens or early twenties at the most) and, apparently, very sexually inexperienced:

Over the last couple months, my best friend and I have been planning to see that play Equus, with Daniel Radcliffe. For those who don’t know, the show is infamous not only because of his talent, but because of his big naked scene. I knew this, but didn’t realize how uncomfortable I was about it until now. And I can’t take back the tickets since they are pretty expensive, and our parents practically bent over backwards to get them. And the scene is apparently short anyway.

My friends who know about my issue with this have been telling me to “get over it”. My best friend said “You’re going to have to get over the male anatomy”, telling me he’s not that bad. I even had another friend’s mom tell me to “Sneak a peek while you can!” But it’s a fact that he will be full on naked, and it’s also a fact that if I did “sneak a peek”, my mind would be haunted for more than just that day. Why is there something wrong with not wanting to see a naked male body? Once I do, I won’t just think of him, but all other guys because I know what’s under their clothes. Why is there something wrong with trying to keep the innocence of not knowing?!

It is not my intention to sneer at this particular young lady’s innocence and inexperience. I just want to point out that her distress over the mere possibility of seeing a nude male body in a non-sexual context indicates what I believe is a serious discomfort with certain natural facets of human life, a discomfort that is frequently fostered by conservative, often religious, ideologies.

First, the human race is comprised of male and female members. We all come with different anatomical equipment, all of which has distinct and necessary purposes. There is nothing distasteful about this. The friends who advised her to “get over it,” pretty much got it right. All they were saying, basically, is that a nude human body should not embarrass anybody. Now, if she doesn’t want to see a nude man at this point in her life, that’s her business. And, frankly, given what she’s written, she’s probably not ready for the experience and should, therefore, sell or give away her ticket.

But, I can’t help wondering why she thinks she would be “haunted” for days by the image of a naked man? And why is she so concerned about “keeping the innocence” of not knowing “what’s under their clothes?” Am I supposed to infer that she honestly has no idea what men look like under their blue jeans? Has she seriously never changed a baby boy’s diaper, inadvertently seen a guy pissing by the roadside, glimpsed Michael Phelps in his speedo swimsuit, or even seen a line diagram in a biology textbook? I find all of that hard to believe. If it’s true, then this girl’s education has been grossly neglected and her upbringing has been far too sheltered. Moreover, I can’t help wondering if her extreme discomfort about “losing her innocence” simply by briefly seeing a nude man from afar indicates a deep level of unawareness of, and discomfort with, her own body and her own sexuality.

Second, the mother who advised the girl to “sneak a peek” trivialized the girl’s distress and emphasized a sexual overtone in a situation in which sex is not relevant. The girl was already in unnecessary despair because she imagined that seeing a nude man in a play would ipso facto be a sexual experience; the mother’s flippant advice only enhanced that impression. This Western (and conservative religious) tendency to equate nudity with sex is unhealthy, and, frankly, perverted. It renders people unable to handle either routine physical experiences (such as a pelvic exam) or explicitly sexual situations in mature manners. It’s the sort of attitude that leads people to believe that Michelangelo’s David is pornographic and other similar tommyrot. It’s warped thinking and it’s got to stop. We, as a society, simply must grow up.

Sadly, I must report that this girl is not alone in her discomfort with the human anatomy. Some of the comments at her site, including those written by married women, are equally pathetic:

I wouldn’t feel comfortable with it. And I’ve been married for more than 10 years! No thanks.

Don’t look! In a way, it’s like porn. Once that image is in your mind, you will never, never, never get it out of your head. No matter how badly you wish you could erase it. And of course there’s nothing wrong with the male anatomy. Our bodies are wonderful things. But we shouldn’t go around displaying it for the world. I’ve been married for 11 years and even though I’m very familiar with what male anatomy looks like, I still wouldn’t want another man’s naked image burned into my mind.

Your unease is a normal, natural reaction. What is not normal or natural is removing one’s clothing before hundreds of people. Don’t let anyone make you feel as though your response is the odd one. There is a reason we wear clothing, and it’s a very good one!

While I do believe that we can pray to be cleansed or to forget those pornographic images, it’s still very, very hard to get those images out of your mind. Certainly you can visualize other things and try your best to clear you mind of those images. But it will take a lot of work and effort. It is best that those types of images are never put in your mind in the first place. Avoid all pornographic content like the plague that it is.

1 Corinthians 10:13
When we are tempted, God will help. He will provide a way out, not to avoid temptation, but to meet it successfully and to stand firm under it. This is testing as permitted and controlled by God to produce sterling character that is a reflection of His own.

God is faithful and will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear and successfully conquer. He challenges us to meet the temptations that spring up before us on the road of life, beat them down, learn the lessons, and move on to receive the crown of life. He promises to be with us every step of the way. We can be

… confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ… (Philippians 1:6),

I understand the frustration of you already having the tickets- but stand up for your heart. Protect your heart and your eyes for your HUSBAND.

If there is anything virtuous, praiseworthy, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things. Pornography is pornography whether it’s called art or not. Just say no to nudity. Who cares if you lose a little cash or even a lot of cash. Don’t compromise your values.

I can speak from experience when I say that the image WILL haunt you. You won’t easily forget your first “peek.” And it really can tempt you to dwell on what’s under other guys’ clothes. I’ve always regreted my frist “peek.”

Yes, God has brought me healing, but He hasn’t erased my memory. I’ve got to deal with what I’ve seen for the rest of my life.

Keep your innocence. Sell your tickets.

Puh-leaz! Since when does nudity equal pornography? I’m not advocating that people should roam naked in the streets, but, really, our society has got to get over its infantile views of the human body and sexuality. When we grow more comfortable with human bodies in non-sexual contexts, then we will be much better equipped to handle them in sexual situations. Surely, that would be a good thing for all of us.

– the chaplain

 

Atheist Inspiration #1: A.C. Grayling

I finished my first reading of The Portable Atheist last week and decided that I should start sharing, on occasion, some tidbits from the great writers Hitchens showcased in this anthology. You’ll note that I said this was my first reading. That’s because this lengthy tome (at 499 pages, it bends the meaning of the term, “portable,” way out of shape!) is so full of great writings that I’ll need to devour it a few more times in order to feel like I have some idea of what it contains.

This post is based on the book’s penultimate selection, an excerpt from A.C. Grayling’s book, Against All Gods (which I’ve added to my wish list). The chapter is entitled, “Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist?” You won’t be at all surprised to learn that Grayling objects to the application of the term, fundamentalist, to atheists. He asks whether a non-fundamentalist atheist would be “someone who believed only somewhat that there are no supernatural entities in the world,” or “that gods exist only some of the time – say, Wednesdays and Saturdays” (p. 473). He goes on to say,

“Or might it be that a non-fundamentalist atheist is one who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves…? (p. 473)”

Moving on from this question, Grayling says,

Christians among other things mean by “fundamentalist atheists” those who would deny people the comforts of faith…and the companionship of a benign invisible protector in the dark night of the soul” (p. 473).

Phew! We’ve already got quite a lot to think about. With regard to the question of whether atheists mind that religious believers hold false beliefs, I’ll mention that this question arose in the course of our most recent discussion at Another Goddamned Podcast. My position is this: yes, I do mind that people hold mistaken beliefs and are content to cling to them in the face of a lost of evidence and reason that should dissuade them from doing so. Having said that, however, I respect their rights to believe whatever they want to believe; my opinion is that they’d benefit immensely by discarding their religious beliefs, but I will not impose my ideas upon them. All I ask is that they extend the same courtesy to me.

This brings us to Grayling’s next statement, regarding the denial of comfort and so on. I would not dream of forcibly denying believers of any comforts they may derive from religion. If they ask for my opinion, however, I will share it freely.

A little bit later in the piece, Grayling states that “all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their “faith-based” schools know that if they do not proselytize intellectually defenseless three- and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen” (p. 474).

I will note that he is writing about the British education system, which differs substantially from that in the USA. Rather than addressing religion in public education, I want to address the issue of child evangelism. Readers who have followed this blog know that I have objections to inculcating children with religious beliefs before they are intellectually ready to consider the dogmas rationally. My objections are based on my own experience of having been indoctrinated as a child, and on my experience of having done the same to my children (which I deeply regret now).

Not all Christians believe in child evangelism. Some Mennonites, for example, believe that

all children prior to the age of accountability, being covered by the atonement of Christ, are spiritually safe, and stand in need neither of any ceremony, such as baptism, nor of conversion. Prior to the age of accountability, children are not lost, they are not responsible before God, and they are not able to make the response necessary for being converted in the New Testament sense. The New Testament calls for the Christian nurture and teaching of children.

I first became aware of this belief when I became close friends with a Mennonite college professor in Canada. I don’t know how Mennonites “nurture and teach” children anything religious without evangelizing and indoctrinating them, but I do know that my friend was very committed to the idea that children should not be compelled to convert at a young age. There also have been many views about what constitutes “the age of accountability.” These ideas differ vastly from the tradition in which I was raised, and in which I raised my sons. Frankly, I respect the Mennonite views much more than I respect the ones that have affected (or infected?) my family.

The last bit of Grayling’s piece that I’ll look at tonight is this:

“As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is “naturalist,” denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature’s laws” (p. 475).

This idea has been discussed quite a lot in the atheosphere, and it is one that I agree with, for the most part. I dislike that notion that atheists lack something (theism), when the reality is that theists have tried to add something to a nature that was not lacking anything in the first place. And yet, having been steeped in theism for so much of my life, I embrace a term that sets myself in stark contrast to what I once was. I also wonder if using a less oppositional term (naturalist seems much less in-your-face than atheist) is not a denial of who we are as atheists. On the other hand, since “naturalist” may be a softer, much less objectionable term, perhaps it would be politically astute to use it more often. Will Phillychief call me out for “end-justifies-the-means” thinking here? Is being pragmatic and diplomatic in situations that require pragmatism and diplomacy an example of such thinking? I don’t think so.

The best way to conclude this post is with Grayling’s own characterization of the only way in which atheism/naturalism is fundamentalist; according to Grayling, atheism is “fundamentally sensible” (p. 476).

And all the nonbelievers said, Ramen!

– the chaplain

 

Friday Foto #9

– the chaplain

 

Reading the Bus

An incredible new fad has swept the globe in recent months: the Atheist Bus campaign. It all began in England (home of Charles Darwin – do you think that’s a coincidence?), with this simple ad:

When that campaign opened last fall, I didn’t think about it very much: “Huh, that’s nice.” Then, the American Humanist Association followed suit with this ad, in Washington, DC:

Since this one was closer to home, geographically, for me, I thought, “Hey, that’s pretty cool.”

Now, to the best of my knowledge, there are atheist bus campaigns underway or being planned on three continents (Europe, North America and South America). Sadly, a proposed campaign has been thwarted (thus far) in Australia.

Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), some Christians have not been inspired or amused by the atheist ads. They have, in fact, been quite offended. Stephen Green protested the British buses, to no avail. Ron Heather refused to drive a godless bus. One blogger suggested that Christians should run this ad:

He may be pleased to learn that he can keep his money in his pocket: the Trinitarian Bible Society, one of several Christian groups that have launched counter-campaigns, has already run that ad. (I must say, that scripture verse is particularly well-chosen because a) atheists have never encountered it before, and b) it’s certain to strike fear into even the hardest and coldest of atheist hearts.)

Who would have thought, when this fad began a few months ago, that bus ad mania would become so amusing? Bus ads are almost as entertaining as comic books these days. So, the next time you need some light reading material, instead of traveling to the bookstore, head to the nearest bus shelter and ride read the bus.

– the chaplain

 

Whitewater

When the deacon and I have free time, we like to do some out-of-the-ordinary things, like whitewater rafting. This is a shot of us doing a Monday Marathon (24 miles in one day) during the fall dam release season on West Virginia’s Gauley River a couple of years ago. When facing rapids like these, one is too busy paddling furiously to think about being scared or tired. It’s an exhilarating (and exhausting) experience.

What say ye? Shall we gather at the river?

– the chaplain