Just saw this except from a BLM social post.
"George Floyd was human.
His body was glory..."
Obviously no disagreement with the first, George was human from the day he was conceived.
It's the second one the raises questions, not just for Floyd, but for us all. If our bodies "are glory". whatever that means to each of us, then...
Why do we we use them for such un-glorius purposes?
Why do we fill them with so many harmful things?
Why do we use our bodies to inflict negative things on others?
Why do we put our bodies out for sexual objectification, or sexually objectify the bodies of others?
Why do we not use our bodies for their best and highest purpose?
Lest there be any confusion, I fail in all of these areas.
5 comments:
This overlapped with something I saw this morning. There was a story being reported that a 13 year old was being teased/bullied because his mother had chosen to post nude pictures on her OF page, and had done so without any attempt to obscure her identity. This particular woman pointed out the obvious. That if 13 year old boys find nude pictures of a classmates mother or sister on their OF or Patreon page, there is a strong likelihood that there will be negative social repercussions for the son/brother.
The fact that stating this reality about 13 year old boys and matters that touch on sex was even remotely controversial shocked me. The fact that there were men telling the woman who expressed this view that she was wrong was even more so.
This is a situation where multiple things are true, yet there are still going to be negative consequences.
1. The mother is completely within her rights to use OF or Patreon to exploit her body, her sexuality, and her sex life, and to place herself in a position where she will be sexually objectified by others. She is 100% within hers rights to do so, and I fully support her in her exercise of these rights.
2. Teen aged boys are not fully mature, are not fully formed in how they deal with things of a sexual nature (I can't speak for girls, but I assume something similar), and are certainly not mature enough to reason through a situation like this as an adult would.
3. While the behavior of the boys was wrong and should be condemned, I'd also argue that it is pretty natural for boys of this age and should be an outcome that can reasonably be predicted by adults.
4. The woman could have taken precautions to shield her identity on her OF or Patreon page. The fact that she didn't certainly increased the chances that people who knew her or her family would come across these images. If she posted the links of FB, IG, Or Twitter, then she's not very smart.
5. This situation is, to some degree, tragic. But to absolve the mom of any responsibility for the repercussions because sexually objectivefying herself was her right, seems to be sending the wrong message.
6. Just in general the increased access to sexual material on the internet, while legal and within people's right to engage in is going to have ramifications (and already is) on how generations of boys, and young men treat girls and young women sexually.
This woman's attitude is wrong on many levels as you've explained. While she might have a "right" to do as she pleases, it's an act with moral connotations. Speaking of it will certainly provoke scolding by those who feign concern for women that it’s none of your business what she does with her (I hope very attractive) body.
Obviously, those who find such behavior problematic have at the very least an equal right to express our opposition. Quite clearly you've met the "requirement" for pointing out the harm some will surely demand of you.
Art,
I think that's what mystifies me the most about this. The notion that people's exercise of their rights comes with no consequences or repercussions. This notion that it's perfectly fine for a woman to objectify herself to make money, yet those who pay her for her product/service are not supposed to objectify her or reduce her to her physical attractiveness.
I'm amazed by the number of women on IG who emphasize their physical attributes to get noticed, yet pretend that people follow them for their other content.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they should be prevented from doing so, or that it's wrong for them to do so. I am saying that they need to be realistic about what they are really putting out there, and how people are going to respond.
Absolutely, and that includes comments referencing the morality and/or wisdom of how one acts on one's liberty. Those who would insist it one of my business pretend expressing my opinion on any behavior means I intend to outlaw it. And while that may be appropriate action for some behaviors not currently prohibited by law, it is my business when behaviors negatively impact the culture of which I am a part.
I agree. This new notion that expressing disapproval of something automatically means that you want to abolish it is one more absurd narrative we have to deal with.
Post a Comment