First, "cognitive dissonance" is when a person holds two contradictory views, one in each hand, and embraces them both. The resulting mental collision is called cognitive dissonance. Moving on, then.
Perhaps you've heard the rumbles about Netflix's new offering, Cuties. If not, I'll tell you that it's a story of an 11-year-old girl that rebels against her family's conservative values and joins a "free-spirited dance crew." It first caught some heat from the public in its initial advertisement that depicted sexualized preteen girls in skimpy clothing and sexy poses. Netflix apologized … for the ad, not the movie. It hasn't gotten better. People have been dropping Netflix over it. Christians and non-Christians alike are screaming, "Pedophilia!" Someone said that if it had been shot with a camcorder instead of a film crew it would have resulted in jail time. It's not good … not good at all.
I'm heartened that non-Christian voices are complaining. Too many these days have surrendered too much morality on sexual matters, so it's nice to know they still have lines. And, of course, Christian voices should be complaining, too, as is right and moral. But sometimes it seems a bit hypocritical from Christians when we see church youth groups doing dance performances in church with their pretty young girls using the exact same clothing and sexualized movements. It almost looks like, "It's not okay for them!!! Oh, but we can do it in church. That's okay."
We (the modern church) are so far from biblical sexual morality these days that we can barely see it through the covers of our closed (physically or mentally) Bibles. Isn't it odd, then, that both the secular and the sacred world can still see that that is wrong while we're embracing so much other sexual sin (and more) as acceptable? Does this hint at an underlying objective morality?
10 comments:
Sorta on topic:
Sent a message to several representatives over this film. Got a response from Sen. Dick Durbin, who seems to believe that the 1st Amendment covers child pornography such as "Cuties". It seems to me that people in government should understand the Constitution at least a little bit before being allowed to run for office. Perhaps some sort of Constitution test, perhaps.
That's just disturbing. What is not protected under the 1st Amendment? Well, black face, obviously. That isn't "free speech." Oh, and the free exercise of religion. That's clearly not covered under the "free exercise of religion" clause in the 1st amendment. It feels at times as if our nation -- especially its leaders -- is losing its collective mind.
It does hint at an objective morality, yet too many want to maintain some things as essentially objectively moral, while actually denying objective morality.
I think that suggesting that anything related to sexualizing children is accepted as universally immoral, is probably not the best example. Clearly the pro pedophilia PR machine is following in the footsteps of the various other sexualities and pushing for normalization pretty hard.
It was universally immoral "yesterday" without question. I think that it is questioned today proves the relative nature of today's morality. But that I've seen this kind of objectifying of preteens in churches is most disturbing.
At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire, some of this goes back to parents choices in who their children are influenced by in terms of fashion. While some of it is the prevailing attitude that women empower themselves by dressing provocatively or immodestly (obviously this includes not dressing at all).
An ongoing deep concern of mine -- modern parents, especially Christian parents.
I've never understood how dressing provocatively is meant to be empowering. Anyone know? All it tells me is that either they have no understanding about how the male mind works, or they wish to encourage being objectified.
I was further baffled by an interview with the woman that made the movie. "I made it to show how young girls are sexually objectified at a young age." Wait … you objectified young girls in your movie to complain about young girls being objectified? You made the hero of the movie a young girl that left her home where her parents sought not to have her objectified so she could be?
As to your question, I've become convinced that most of our sexual notions these days are power based, not pleasure. Or, more accurately, not sexual pleasure. So dressing provocatively would give girls power over guys.
David,
I believe the argument is that women are in control of their own selves by dressing as they see fit. It doesn't indicate intelligent control, just that they can do what they like, as if that's the most important thing in the world, and the most important and effective way to break away from male control...to whatever extent it actually exists anymore.
I also would agree that to dress provocatively provides a means of manipulation with regard to men who naturally enjoy seeing more of an attractive woman. To draw such attention, despite the risks of doing so, gives women with lesser talent a "leg up", so to speak, over other more qualified but less attractive women. Some men will do anything to be close to and considered favorably by attractive women. I believe all men like attention from attractive women, but some are corrupted by it beyond reason.
This is it! This is the word I needed to explain why I can't bring myself, as a Christian, to care about politics, or who is president. Because of our two party system, cognitive dissonance is the name of the game. Both sides of politicians are equally guilty of foregoing their ideology for their party line. It was most recently brought to my mind with this whole Justice nomination. Republicans are pushing it, Democrats are delaying it. But when the same thing was happening at the end of Obama's term, the roles were reversed. Because they believed it was best for the nation? No! Because it was best for their Party. When Clinton was caught in adultery, Republicans argued that we didn't want such an immoral man as president, but Democrats said his personal life doesn't matter compared to what he's done for this country. Now, the roles are reversed. Trump is immoral, full stop. Nobody is arguing that he is an even halfway decent man. But now, Republicans say his morality doesn't matter, look at what he's done for the country. Our individual political beliefs may push us to vote our conscience, but career politicians have lost that ability and only vote their party. Compromise is one thing, but cognitive dissonance makes me unwilling to participate. It's not fatalism or apathy that makes me not want to vote (not that I haven't yet), it's disgust.
Post a Comment