A Very Special Kind of Stupid
This week’s “very special kind of stupid” award goes to Kathleen Roberson, of Dove Creek, Colorado. Her letter in the Trib has a special mix of “bumpkin” and pearl-clutching, “Get me my smellin’ salts, Vern, I’ve got the vapors” kind of stupid and moral indignation:
During a visit to Salt Lake City, just blocks from Temple Square at the Gateway Mall, I was aghast to see in the Victoria Secret’s display window a sexually positioned mannequin dressed in skimpy black underwear with garters and black stockings. I credit them for not including whips and chains, but the implication was surely there for the world to see - including small children and teenagers. A nice little Mormon family outing turned into a lesson on immorality with an explanation to my kids why they should wear their temple garments after they are endowed in the temple . . . It is sad to see that Babylon prospers so well in Zion, and that apparently no one cares enough to protest the perils of pornography. Well, I’m standing up to protect children from exposure to it.
It’s nigh on impossible to adequately mock Ms. Roberson.
How empty does your life have to be that a store mannequin causes you some sort of crisis? Are you kidding me? This - THIS! - is what gets you upset enough to write the Trib? I feel like Stewie Griffin:
“Yes Meg, this is what’s going to ruin you socially. Not your years of awkward social graces, not your grotesque appearance or the Felix Ungerish way you clear your sinuses, this is going to ruin you socially.”
May 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Kathleen Roberson has a secret, I don’t even want to know what it is.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Thanks for the dose of humor today! What a prudish sack of useless flesh!
PS. I wonder if the prude is coaching her children what an honor it will be for them to fight in Bush’s awesome little adventure in Iraq. Surely, their missionary experiences can wait until they return from the war.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
That you mock her so, in her own opinion Glendon, speaks far more of you, than her own sentiments have spoken of her.
I have to wonder what kind of life you have between watching TV and movies, and making fun of those that find this unseemly. They are entitled to their opinions, and you are entitled to yours.
Best part, we get see, your rather sad “unsecret” enjoyment of it.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Your gloating in this post reminds me of the comment/post you made in months gone by how much fun you have at occasionally shouting obscenities in public just to see how the “prudish” Mormons react.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Hey, I’m all for mocking self-righteousness, but this (and some of the previous comments) seemed a little mean-spirited.
And yes, I know there’s some irony in the above sentence.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:48 am
You remind me of the Salt Lake City Witch that was interviewed by Art Bell a few years back where she said she took pleasure in seducing young innocent Mormon men. Just like her, you cannot bear to be in the presence of goodness and wholesomeness that you seek to take from others what you no longer possess.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Oh get off it Ken, you self righteous hypocrite.
Personally, I have to agree with you Glenden. If a mannequin in a store gets your “panties in a wad” so to speak, you probably either need to get out more, or stop coming out entirely.
My advice to Ms. Roberson? Raise your children the best you can. Keep yourself where you feel comfortable, spiritually and emotionally. And leave it at that. Letting the local display in the Macy’s storefront glass upset your personal utopia speaks of a fragility in principle that only the morally weak and spiritually unsound would fall to as a helpless victim.
It’s stitched cloth on a piece of plastic. Grow up.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I agree with Glenden – if this woman has nothing better to do than send a letter to our paper touting her self righteousness than she needs to be hung up to dry! Why did the Trip publish such a piece of dribble? And…the bigger question – what do garments have to do with the whole thing? What is the purpose of mentioning the sacred jammies other than to make her even more of a freak? If the mannequin had been wearing them underneath the outfit would that have been okay? I think there’s an opening at the YFZ ranch.
Ken – I bet your sex life is out of this world. Get over it – you’re hiding something as well.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Wow! You guys are so right! The way I made fun of this woman is totally a shame! I mean, I went totally easy on her! I mean, seriously, what is a “Mormon family outing” and how does it compare to say Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Baptist, and Unitarian family outings? Do those families eat babies and throw orgies? Do they wear Victoria’s Secret undergarments? Are they proud of it? And come right down to it, if she gets so excited about a piece of plastic, maybe we should feel sorry for her vibrator. And how exactly is this woman having a hissy fit about a Victoria’s secret window display actually protecting anyone from the “perils of pornography?” And while I’m at it, what kind of person defines a WINDOW MANNEQUIN as porn? That so broadens the definition of pornography as to make it utterly and completely meaningless.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:33 am
It is about respect, and it is all too apparent, that many people, and without a doubt you Glendon, have none.
I don’t think I’d let kids know you. You don’t have much positive to impart to them if this and the other writings you produce are indicative of your character. What lies beneath the surface has been revealed by yourself, as such things often are, and it sure isn’t pretty, and serves no positive example.
It is the kind of cretinous behavior teens engage in, and have to be taught out of. Guess you missed it. Your reply is that of a teen to cover yourself for what is a glaring embarrassment for an adult that claims to be so concerned about the development of childrens’ attitudes towards adult life.
Despite people defending you, and that would be obvious on a blog like this, it would be better that you apologize… to yourself, for letting your prejudices boil to the surface and abusing the sensibilities of so many people. Fortunately for you, not too many read this blog.
BTW not from u, the word is drivel.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
John,
Isn’t it amazing that the crowd that celebrates diversity is so quick to laugh at and criticize those that are different from them?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
John, John, John - I thought you might not get sarcasm but it was worth a try.
If you think it’s about respect, you might want to ask what kind of respect someone like Kathleen Roberson has for people. What kind of person declares that the whole city of Salt Lake is some sort of whorish Babylon? What kind of respect does that show for the people of this city? What kind of respect are you showing with your pathetic attempts at insults and your afternoon TV psychobabble?
You think Ms. Roberson’s letter deserves to be treated seriously? Then treat it seriously - defend her ideas. Make the case that having a fit over a mannequin makes sense in a world beset with homelessness, despair, hunger, war, abuse, sexual violence, and bigotry. Defend her description of Salt Lake as some sort of modern day Babylon of licentiousness and sin. Explain how her actions do a single thing to keep a child from being abused, harmed, hungry, and hopeless. Go ahead. I’m looking forward to it.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well Glendon, the woman is attempting to raise her kids in a world that fits into her religious views which are allowed. I cannot tell, but perhaps in Babylon she is referring to the spiritual sense of what has become to her a degraded society. Babylon lives in its parts all around us to her, even in what is sacred. I am of the mind of Jesus when his own Temple was degraded by money lenders, that the area was not the place for it. She is misguided and can have her opinion. Yet for the moment, let’s focus on your abusive drivel.
The words “whorish” are not in her letter.
Her letter needs to be treated seriously to the extent that a great many people share her views of a morally degraded society. Perhaps someday we can view the cheapening of morality, human worth contributing to all those social ills you describe. To respect people in beliefs you do not like, is to grant them the leeway someday, to respect yours. I’m no Christian but that seems to be the gist of it.
I don’t insult you Glendon, I simply describe the behavior and my view of it. I’m sure you are a fine person that has simply lost perspective in what you believe to be persecution of your own values. Sadly, in your insults of the woman, you really reveal yourself afflicted with the same fears and ills. Like I said, sad. It is a cover, and you only speak as you do, to make yourself feel better in my opinion.
I don’t even know you, but I do know what you said, and since you posted it, I have to assume it with intent. Honestly, after reading what you write, I am often struck by the content of a person that spends a great deal of time in the fantasy land of television and movies.
For want of the very least things, common courtesy, kingdoms have been lost. If you want the fight, be sure, out your mouth, the battle will come.
As people like yourself that should know better isolate themselves from others in society with their views, the cheapening of life that begins with non acceptance of others views carries forward to encompass their isolation in a host of means, many of them spiritual. The access to work, education, food, all the things that lead to the ills you mentioned. Is it your place to contribute to this to satisfy a brief moment of superiority?
Well sarcasm, and I use it, is the means of those people to participate, when they have really nothing to offer of value to a conversation, and as such it is simply a means misdirecting and casting aspersions on a different class of people. It does not lead to understanding, and is simply an amusement for oneself and camp followers.
Mrs. Robertson surely is to be taken seriously, as she is raising her children in a way she sees fit that is hardly irregular, and has that right despite your own worries that it may place you in a less than positive light. She represents a pretty wide swath of parents, that of every denomination and even irreligious would like to protect their children from the knowledge of certain aspects of the world until they see fit. Who else should, or are you of the mind that you know her children better, and would take that responsibility from her?
Just remember Glendon, that when you throw stones at large groups of people, don’t be surprised if they return the favor and build a cairn on your head.
At the risk of being interpreted as sarcastic, grow up.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Wow John!
Nice reprimand. I agree, children are so stupid, they need to be protected from reality for as long as possible. ONLY good moral parents do that.
Sex and sexuality should be hidden as much as possible from children until they are old enough to understand how to be fully ashamed of it and very discreet, after marriage. OH! And NO MASTURBATING. Otherwise, God only knows how we will end up.
Seriously, in Glen’s defense, I should point out that the Trib LOVES to print letters like that for this very reason. If you think they weren’t all getting a chuckle out of Mrs Prud…ence, you are not of this world.
If you really want to assign blame for this reaction, look no further than the trib.
Peace Out!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:08 am
John - I never said the word whorish was in her letter. The phrase “whore of Babylon” is a powerful one in Christianity and condemnations of Babylon invoke it - having grown up in Utah, I’ve heard more than one Mormon tell me that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon so the phrase is part of Mormon awareness. Calling something Babylon in a culture discussion invokes the whore of Babylon. Might as well make explicit the full nature of the attack being made by Ms. Roberson on the rest of us because surely we inhabit the Babylon she is fleeing when she returns to the country.
The notion that the country - not the city - represents virtue, purity, family and what not is offensive in a nation where the majority live in urban areas and have for decades now. Rural America is not free of the vices of urban America. Ms. Roberson is clearly attempting to argue that the city is morally bad, dangerous and sinful - an insult to every person who lives in the city.
Victoria’s Secret is an easy and cheap target to pretend at outrage over our supposedly cheapened moral state, but it is a lie to assume that the only valid moral system is one that forbids sex between unmarried people or people of the same gender, or is one that treats nudity as taboo. For example, many people pretend that the moral choice is to wait until marriage to have sex but that misdefines morality as simply following rules rather than using our moral agency to define our values and determine ways in which to live out those values. Our moral agency may hold that sex should be within marriage - but moral reasoning requires a valid purpose for that position. To declare that wearing one’s temple garments is the moral way to dress misreads the entire moral question involved - which is “How do we choose to live our values?” To put it another way, temple garments are an outward sign, but seem to me meaningless if they don’t represent a deep inward identity and faith. It seems to me that if your faith is sound, you don’t need to wear your garments - they should merely reflect the inner self. IOW, a mature faith doesn’t fear exposure to ideas at variance with itself.
Ms. Roberson is scandalized at the sight of a mannequin. It’s one of those moments that cannot be satired - who after all would believe someone would be shocked by a mannequin in a window? You want to take her seriously feel free but don’t lost sight of what her letter is - an exercise in pearl clutching, panty sniffing moral scolding. She’s sitting around wagging her finger at us and scolding us for our lack of morality just because we haven’t gotten our pitchforks and torches and stormed the Gateway.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Ah, Glenden! As always, a breath of fresh air! So used to smog are we in the Salt Lake Valley that even the most polluted of expulsions from you are ambrosia in vapor!
Long time no chat, Glenden. I see that, as usual, you are spitting the same vitriol as always. No respect. No consideration. Little understanding. These, coupled with your melodrama, mockery, and sarcasm, are the very reasons I and so many others tend to avoid these online butchershops. But, once again, I enter the foray.
And Cliff: as always, a treat! It’s nice to have a smack-down. Fortunately for me, I have John at least partially in my corner.
Reintroductions being pronounced, let me get to the point. It might help you to understand that “Babylon” is for many a metaphor for the categorical or generalized evils of this world. It is likely that Roberson is using it to state that there are elements of greater worldly evils dispersed even throughout Zion–not to say that all of Salt Lake City has become an ancient Mesopotamian civilization.
It is interesting indeed that, in mentioning the ills of this world, you include “sexual violence” and “bigotry.” The second because you are obviously bigoted against this woman’s perspective–in particular it as a religious one; the first because, in this woman’s worldview, sexual violence is caused partially by such sensual expositions. Whether you agree with her perspective or not, you must concede that she is fighting one of the evils of this world that you oppose. Inasmuch as this is true, you must respect at least her effort. So far you have shown it nothing but contempt.
Honestly, I agree that the mannequin issue is rather silly. On the other hand, which causes the greater harm: NOT having mannequins dressed as described, or having mannequins dressed as described? I would venture that the latter is less pervasive and less likely to cause harm. Everything that can be learned by displaying such a mannequin can easily be acquired elsewhere.
Once again, Glenden, we disagree on one basic point: visual stimulus. I myself see nothing particularly provocative in mannequins in general, but there are those who do. Once seen, the mannequin is in the head, and not easily removed. Perhaps you should consider having respect for those who are slightly more sensitive. After all, removing the mannequin would not be so egregious a disruption of rights considering that it isn’t even alive. It certainly isn’t in the caliber of respectfully requesting concessions on (let’s just posit this for argument’s sake), say, immodesty. The mannequin might simply slip its plastic lips into a shamed plastic frown.
I don’t remember Roberson saying a thing about the country in the way you state it. My assumption from her comment is that, living in the country, there isn’t as much to be seen, so it’s easier to avoid this kind of thing. There are just as many “bad” people in the country as the city. They’re not fewer; just farther between. She’s not insulting cities themselves; just their denser population. She’s not wrong; she just didn’t explain herself completely.
It’s also insteresting that you completely exclude the following, very reasonable part of her statement:
It seems, Glenden, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you are trying to paint her as completely closed-minded, sheltered, and fanatical. I see her as quite reasonable. She doesn’t mind having such products around but, to make a more drastic comparison, she doesn’t like the idea of advertising dildos and sex manuals to children on the streets. How was this wrong of her? And how was it not wrong of you to omit this statement?
Let me ask, Glenden: is this woman trying to stop you from shopping at Victoria’s Secret? To stop you from having sex as you see fit? To stop you from having pornography if you want it? In every case, the answer is “no.” Now consider this: are you trying to stop this woman from protecting her children from something that she considers to be evil? To ridicule a sensibility you have lost? To force her into a world you are familiar with but which she despises? In every case, the answer is “yes.” Who is imposing upon whom, Glenden? Whose rights are being trampled today? She never hurt you; but you may very well hurt her.
You also need to avoid certain judgments. Garments are not simply to force modesty. They have many meanings, each of which is contingent upon the sanctification of the body, which they encourage. You can be sure that there are sufficient (though not necessarily sound in your judgment) moral reasons for what Roberson believes. Don’t assume that her disagreement with your sexual expositionism is erroneous, short-sighted, or shallow. And don’t assume that you know the woman’s intentions or expectations.
As you did with me, Glenden, you have created a complete image of a person in your head based on less than 200 words. It just so happens that the images you create are always intensely ugly. For one so opposed to those who (to use your own words, in describing people opposed to immodesty and pornography) “loathe the human body,” what do such images say about how you view human beings?
So, Glenden, why the big hubbub? Is what she’s saying really that bad? Or are you so hypersensitive to any sexual sensitivity that you would deny other people the right to be secure in their minds from unwanted intrusions?
And Cliff, it’s nice to see that you’re still using broad generalizations to make your points. Can you contend with this extrapolation from your most recent post: since it’s best to expose our children to those things which we consider to be evil (which is what you’re proposing Roberson should do), we should probably not only permit but encourage 1) mannequins murdering each other in horrible ways, 2) mannequins with complete sexual anatomy having raunchy sex, and 3) mannequins performing masochistic scarifications on themselves. After all, it’s part of reality!
Thanks for waking me up at 2:40, guys. You’re always good for a lau…dation or two.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
May 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Dwight Sheldon,
That’s a lot of words for such a poorly thought argument, the thrust of which is that Roberson has been imposed upon by the sexy mannequin that she didn’t “choose” to see. In defense of Glenden leaving out the passage you seem to think holds such importance, couldn’t Roberson just as easily have chosen not to go into The Gateway, where most rational people would assume some sexually suggestive advertising might be lurking?
As far as I’m concerned, Roberson’s statement is completely unreasonable being that it is illogical to assume that she had no choice in the matter. A reasonable response from her would be to contact Victoria’s Secret and The Gateway to let them know she would no longer be using their venue for her “Mormon family outings.” I’m sure if enough people did the same, and business began to suffer, then The Gateway and VS would voluntarily change their advertising standards.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Figure you would take the kids sexy underwear shopping if you needed some marital or relational spice Don?
I don’t know the place, but she clearly happened upon it. Like finding a drunk, or punk, on the bike path if you live in Holladay.
No doubt, best answer in a vast majority of cases is likely no, regardless of your politics, you wouldn’t take the kids.
As it is the shop owner knows this, and let’s it all hang out, margins being what they are in retail these days. This is self solving issue, VS will be closing a bunch of stores anyway as more of our money goes in the tank.
There is also no indication in what you have posted that this woman is from rural America. You simply assume.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
John,
Is your last comment directed to me? I see my name but I fail to see much relevance to what I said.
Most rational people would assume that a run-of-the-mill retail shopping mall would have stores displaying sexually suggestive advertising. That’s just the way things are. If Roberson didn’t realize that going in then she should treat this as a learning experience and she can now choose to keep her little darlings away from the evils of capitalism.
BTW, I didn’t say anything about Roberson being from rural America. But she did:
Apparently you haven’t even read the letter . . .
May 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I’d still like to know what the prude thinks about the Iraq war and whether she is encouraging her children to go their and fight. My guess is that she supports both GWB and the war 100%, just so long as she sees no dead bodies or seriously injured vets on TV before her nightly dinner. What a freaking c…!
May 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Didn’t see the link Don, my bad. I read what was on the page and never went back.
Yes, in the country things are little more staid, I’m sure she will stay on the West side of the temple next time with the kiddos.
It isn’t illegal until someone passes an ordinance, so shop on.
The better part was Glendons’ rake, and his own blatant advertising of his temperance.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Well, Don, I think you should note that only two paragraphs of what I said had anything to do with the supposed “thrust” of my argument (as you have seen it, anyway). Would you care to tackle any of my OTHER claims, or are you trying to discredit a host of truths by presenting your (false) perspective about a single one?
As for the “thrust” you mention–Roberson didn’t walk through any doors. There were no signs posted. There was no way a “rational” person would know what she now knows. What you’re appealing to is not rationale at all, but experience. She has acquired experience, and now knows better. But, without any prior warning (which she obviously didn’t have), there was no way for her to surmise that she might run into something that she considers to be morally degrading in a public shopping center.
And why should she have to have experience, anyway? If you want VS’s products, you know where to get them. If you don’t, it’s easy to find out where they are. Inasmuch as this is true, it falls upon VS to submit to the sensibilities of a Build-A-Bear customer when they are built right next to it, NOT upon the customers to buy eyeshades for their children. She never went into the store; she shouldn’t need to avoid the district in which it resides and all of the other commercial interests located therein.
Bottom line: some things should be restricted in their access. Children shouldn’t have access to alcohol without parental consent. Asthmatics shouldn’t be forced to sniff smoke-laden air in order to breath. Our eyes and ears should not be assaulted by that which we consider to be morally depraved when it could easily be concealed without serious harm being done. We’re not talking about what we are uncomfortable with in this case, Don. We’re discussing something that someone has a legitimate moral objection to. You can disagree with the objection, as I already stated in my last post. But her reasons and requests should be respected. She perceives publically-displayed mannequins dressed in the stated manner as equivalent to selling alcohol to minors and allowing smokers to smoke wherever they want to. Although I am not as sensitive to this as she, I sympathize with her perspective and requests. Is it really that hard for you to do the same?
Also, VS and the Gateway already have their market cornered. They don’t NEED Roberson’s money. As such, there is no efficacy in simply contacting them on an individual basis to protest. The best that Roberson could logically do is expose the practice and her objections in a public forum. What she did was entirely logical, and (although her presentation could use some work) quite reasonable.
I welcome any valid arguments against any of this, or against my previous post.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
May 9th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Welcome back Dwight,
I’ll stay out of this one (I’ve said my piece) except to remind you, you are using bad syllogisms again when you said Glen is “bigoted against the woman’s perspective.”
I sense in your writing your youth, but also you admirable struggle to sound more grown up. Take your time.
In the end, you will work as hard to simplify your language and make more simple direct statements.
Soldier on!
Cliff
May 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Claiming that children are harmed by seeing sexually suggestive images is testable hypothesis.
In Judith Levine’s book Harmful to Minors, she argues (quite persuasively) that hypothesis is demonstrably false.
For instance, while European and American teens are indistinguishable from one another in terms of sexual behaviors (both rates and acts), American teens (subjected to abstinence only miseducation and “protected” by their worried parents from sexual knowledge) have significantly higher rates of STIs and unintended pregnancies than their European peers. Americans in general deal less well with matters of sexuality than our European peers, resulting in far higher rates of STIs and unintended pregnancies among Americans than experienced by our European peers.
The inverse relationship between abortion availabilty and abortion rates is another cogent example. Countries with absolute bans on abortion actually have higher rates of abortion than countries in which it is readily available (in some cases by an order of magnitude). These illegal abortions are also significantly more dangerous than the legal ones. The legality and availiability of abortion are indicative of general attitude toward sexuality that encourages open communication, honesty, factual teaching and a no nonsense approach to encouraging young people to express their sexuality in healthy ways. Those factors combine to create a healthier attitude toward and expression of sexuality. These extremes co-exist in the US where the more religious, conservative states generally have higher rates of unintended pregnancies and STIs than the more liberal states (Utah being a slightly weird exception).
Not to put too fine a point on it, the more repressive a person’s attitude toward sexuality, the more likely that person is to express their sexuality in unhealthy ways. A healthy attitude toward sexuality broadly and the body in general benefits people; it allows them the emotional space to establish and maintain their own sexual boundaries, it allows them to feel more at ease as a sexual being and to develop and express their own morals in their lives.
By contrast, teaching that the body is shameful and must be covered and needs to be sanctified creates a culture of shame and embarrassment that divorces people from their physical selves and teaches them to be ashamed of their bodies and their sexual beings. Children who are taught it is shameful to speak about their sexual parts are children who are not going to be able to say, “My boy scout leader touched my penis and I don’t like it and I want him to stop.” These children learn shameabout their sexuality and sexual parts; they are not given the opportunity to develop and define their own boundaries; it robs them of their moral agency. Such children are more not less likely to be victims of sexual abuse since they don’t believe they can say no.
Ms. Roberson’s finger wagging letter is a perfect example of a repressive attitude toward sexuality. She would hide the Victoria’s Secret mannequins rather than act as an adult. In her attempt to “protect” her children she’s keeping them ignorant, not innocent. And that ignorance will have a price, but she’s not the one paying it, it’s her children who will pay it.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Dwight Sheldon,
In all your verbosity, I can distill but one major argument that you are making. In your own words, you claim that Roberson is offended by the mannequin and that she should have “the right to be secure in (her mind) from (such) unwanted intrusions.” You say, “Our eyes and ears should not be assaulted by that which we consider to be morally depraved when it could easily be concealed without serious harm being done.”
That’s just nonsense. Should we force all women to wear burkas based on the personal morality of Muslims? That’s a logical consequene of allowing people to be secure in their own minds of unwanted intrusions.
What this is really about, Dwight, is freedom. When there is no demonstrable harm prevalent, then people and businesses should be free to do as they please. Smoking harms innocent bystanders and therefore should be restricted. Alcohol harms minors and therefore should be restricted. I see no real harm in allowing sexy mannequins to be displayed in a shopping mall. You say she has a “legitimate moral objection” to sexy mannequins. Legitimate to whom is the question. Roberson’s personal sensibilities might be offended, but that’s not real harm.
I find your dismissal of the efficacy of personal protest disheartening. Apparently you have no faith in the capitalistic model. But you can bet, that if VS’s displays were truly offensive to a majority of people then they would hear about it and their business, as well as that of every mall they are in, would suffer. They would then have to choose whether they wanted to change or suffer the decrease in business. That’s how it should work Dwight. Your way would be to tell VS and The Gateway how to advertise their business through the force of law. Why should VS have to “submit to the sensibilities of a Build-a-Bear customer”? Apparently, BaB isn’t hearing too much from their customers and their business isn’t suffering, otherwise they could move. Do you see how it all fits together? Roberson, BaB, VS, The Gateway, you, me . . . we all have a choice in the matter. If demonstrable harm is not apparent then personal choice (freedom) should be the norm.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:32 am
To Don, Cliff, and Glenden: if you don’t want to read my arguments against each of you, simply find the heading for your name and read what I have addressed specifically to you. This may reduce your agony at reading my long posts.
Cliff–I find it interesting that you never challenged my “struggle to sound grown up” until you intentionally dug up whatever information you could find about me and found out I was young. Your inability to point out my conversational discrepancies before that point indicates to me that the “youthful Dwight” argument is specious at best. Age is not a credential. Besides, if being long-winded helps me to avoid the broad categorical generalizations that you employ (and thereby to “sound [more] grown up” than you sound), I do it gladly.
Don and Cliff–don’t criticize me for having more to say than you do. Great changes in the world are not built off of snippets; they’re built off of intelligent, enduring dialectic. Put another way: participate and FORCE me to shut up by disproving me. If you can’t, then I, by virtue of possessing more truth, deserve to say more than you do.
Don–as always the conversation degenerates into the most polarized polemic. It never fails that your side of this argument, in an attempt to debase mine, insists that asking for small concessions on the human respect level is equivalent to legally forcing women to wear burkas. This is a baseless attempt at comparing my personal modesty opinion with a custom that is rare even amongst the large Muslim population. If legally-enforced burkas is a logical consequence of following my requests, then the following is a logical consequence of yours: absolutely no respect for other people’s sensibilities, rampant public nudity, and, eventually, raunchy sex on street corners.
Now I’m not saying that this is even a realistic eventuality. But it is just as reasonable as your burka argument. If I may venture a guess, you are using the burka example either because you’ve heard someone use it before and you latched onto it, or because you’re trying to make use of a concept that is currently highly politically charged in the United States in hopes that it will throw my argument out without a serious fight.
Don, in all your terseness, I can extract only one major argument: any controls on sexual exhibitionism reduce our freedoms so significantly that they should be removed entirely. I think it is intellectually dishonest (or at least ignorant) to assume that no controls should exist on any single behavioral subject. A working society has norms that protect within reason the sensibilities of the most sensitive among us and the desires of the least sensitive among us. Both minority extremes are protected. In short, the majority can be wrong, and the minority can be right. What you are promoting is a political-economic mob rulership. Come on, Don. We’ve known that won’t work for more than two millennia.
You see no harm in this? Well, I know smokers who see no harm in smoking, even around their infant children. But, of course, you would say that there’s no “demonstrable harm” being done by sexual exhibitionism.
So, until professional research firms (which are paid to research what specific industries want them to research) provide a link between sexual exhibitionism and sexual aberrancy, we should neglect all of the cogent personal data on the issue? I happen to know of individuals who were introduced to pornographic influences at a young age by things as innocuous as VS ads, who then developed a powerful and psychologically debilitative addiction to pornography that consumed their actions and thoughts until, decades later, they admitted its existence, asked for help, and conquered it–all this after molestation and other forms of sexual aberrancy had already become part of their behavior. I would call that an example of “demonstrable harm.”
In addition, research has confirmed that prolonged exposure to pornographic material decreases negative perspective towards rape, exacerbates already-existing urges to commit forced sex acts, and decreased satisfaction for pornography users in their sex lives. Inasmuch as basic sexual exhibitionism can be a gateway into such behaviors, I would say that these are instances of “demonstrable harm.”
Finally, don’t make the mistake of thinking that psychological harm, being less overt than physical harm, is any less damaging. Verbal and visual abuse have proven to be more debilitative than physical abuse (and the two coupled are even worse) in many cases. Yet more “demonstrable harm.”
I’m sorry if I made my view seem to be linked to legislative action. I’m not trying to promote a legal recourse. I’m trying to promote forming a consensus on acceptable media so that we can promote respectful behaviors by commercial interests. I don’t contend VS’s legal right to display what they want to–I just contend that they have a human responsibility that supercedes that legal right.
As for personal protest, it hasn’t been effective for many years. Protests are held constantly around the United States, with little or no effect. Studies have been done which show that the commercial interests of the United States have found ways to circumvent the potential effectiveness of protests. These studies advise alternatives (such as forum-posting and newspaper submissions) that are more effective in our present society.
But if this issue is about freedom, we need to consider much more than you are willing to. Too often we take the Bill of Rights too far. It is a freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. This is a lie. Freedom of speech is intended to provide a protection from dictatorial law for those who would be legally censured for expressing their political or ethical views and, by expressing them, promote change. It is not a catch-all for every fool who wants to do whatever he wants with his voice with impunity. Every right we have is coupled with a responsibility. Freedom of speech, in the proper light, implies not only that we CAN say what we want, but that we MUST say what needs to be said, and MUST NOT say what should not be said.
I would propose another freedom, one which you ignore: the freedom FROM expression. Why is it that a business, which, I remind you, in NOT a human and the rights of which do NOT supercede human rights, is permitted to restrict Roberson’s access to an open commercial district by putting a moral and psychological wall around it? Don’t be so concerned with overt physical force that you neglect psychological restraint, which is the greatest slavery of all. I walk by VS mannequins all the time with little discomfort or objection. But Roberson is revulsed by it, and its exhibitionistic presence is removing her freedom to traverse public locations without forcing her to access powerful subconscious emotions. Simple human respect (and perhaps some charitable counseling for Roberson) could solve a lot of these problems.
My point is that this issue is more complex than you want to admit, Don. I never got on here to say that Roberson is correct; simply that she is less wrong than you or Glenden will admit, as well as to reprimand Glenden for his undeserved mockery of her and her ideals. There needs to be a unified choice that satisfies both her concerns and your ideals regarding freedom.
But I must admit, and do so vehemently, that you are right, and I quote you, for I could not say it better: “[I] have no faith in the capitalistic model.” The concept that commercial success (which is highly dynamic and can be sufficiently satisfied in most circumstances relating to our discussion) should determine ethical acceptability of a thing is one of the worst assumptions about the glory of capitalism that I have ever heard. There are so many more and better ethical imperatives than profit statistics. Capitalism is a failure and a sham. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Glenden–thank you for the data. I always appreciate it when you talk about the issue instead of hurling aspersions. I agree with the information you have provided. I also wish to add that pornographic exhibitionism, when accessible to those who seek it, can provide a practical means (if not an ethical one) of releasing one’s sexual tension, aggression, and frustration. These are valuable effects of its availability.
My main concern, Glenden, is that you have a tendency to demonize a position which, while not evidenced on a large scale (at least according to your terms of acceptable evidence), can easily be evidenced on a small one, or at least in terms of human emotional truth. It is an offense against the humanity within me when you strike out violently against an ignorant mind. You are as the scientist who mocks the person who innocently promotes their interpretation of a common perception, only providing the research that disproves that perception when pressed for the data.
Remember that ignorance is not a crime. It should be remedied, not mocked. You might try having a simple discussion about WHY you think Roberson is not correct, rather than by pandering to a captive liberal audience with such statements as “It’s nigh on impossible to adequately mock Ms. Roberson.” My question to you would be: why are you so interested in “adequately mock[ing]” a sheltered woman in the first place? Would you mock a child who is afraid of ghosts, or would you gently help them? Should personal promotion or satisfaction be your agenda, I would say that it is nigh impossible to adequately mock your anti-humanistic egotism.
It also seems, Glenden, that you are the type who, in order to promote your own agenda, would force people to be educated in the ways that you prefer, and, in the meantime, force exposure to that which they are not yet educated enough to endure. Is this sensible? Is this respectful? I agree with your motives (at least as stated) and mostly agree with your desired conclusions. But be a little more charitable for just a second. I’ve said it before: try to change the world as you see fit. But do it at a rate that the world can handle. Glenden, you need to study interpersonal and organizational change tolerance in relation to rate, degree, and desirability. Then you might understand what I’m talking about.
Finally, I don’t think that your “shameful view of the body” argument is coherent. In my view, the body is so beautiful that it should be sanctified, as some foods are so delicious that they should only be occasionally consumed, or some poems are so delightful that reading them too often will debase them. In my view, you see the body only as beautifully as one who constantly observes it can. You see it as beautiful by the prerogative of your mind and body, while I see it as beautiful by the prerogative of my spirit. If modesty makes the body shameful to you, so be it. But try seeing through my eyes before you judge what I’m seeing. In defense of my position, consider the data that indicate diminished sexual fulmillment due to overuse of sensory sexual input. Sometimes people just eat too much caviar.
Aside from that, thanks for the info, Glenden. I’ve learned a lot. It’s always a treat to hear what you have to share.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
May 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
“There needs to be a unified choice that satisfies both her concerns and your ideals regarding freedom.”
There is. She doesn’t go to malls with Victoria’s Secret in them. Her concerns about her children are met. VS’s concerns about advertising their product are met. My concerns about all parties’ freedom to choose are met.
You’ve misinterpreted my argument and in so doing created a nice little straw man to beat up on. I’m not saying there should be no controls on “sexual exhibitionism”. I’m not advocating “political-economic mob rulership.” My argument is that Roberson doesn’t have the right to be free from visual images she deplores in a place she chooses to visit. If you want to give her that right, then why not give the few Muslims who wear burkas the same right to be free from seeing things they deplore? The similarity in these circumstances is real Dwight, no matter how eloquently you try to dismiss it. Why should Roberson, who apparently is of a mindset which is relatively few in numbers as well, have the right to go to a public marketplace and not be forced to access her “powerful subconscious emotions” but the burka wearer should not be? Is it because you feel the same way about the burka wearer as I feel about Roberson? Do you feel that it would be going too far in the balancing of opposing freedoms to allow such Muslims the right to not be offended? I do.
I think the “consensus on acceptable media” has been formed Dwight. VS displays are apparently not so egregiously offensive that the masses will boycott successfully to get them changed. How else would you have the “consensus” determined then if not by legislative action?
May 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Dwight,
I know you were writing to Don, but I think it’s important to address the definition of pornography. Defining a Victoria’s Secret window display as pornographic expands the idea of pornography to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. Are underwear ads pornographic? What about pictures of people in swimming suits? Should we define any display of the body as inherently pornographic and/or obscene? There was an incident recently in Florida where a billboard the WWF or some wrestling organization was photoshopped because the town had an ordinance that said nipples couldn’t be shown in public advertising – so you had a whole role of men without nipples. It was simple application of an utterly absurd law. It reminds me of complaints a few years ago in Salt Lake about a billboard for the U’s women’s gymnastics team. The billboard showed a gymnast doing the splits or something in her gymnastics uniform; people complained it obscene. Like Ms. Roberson’s complaint, it seems to me that the real obscenity was in the eye of the beholder.
The metaphor of the town square: in our homes and churches, we are free to maintain the standards we desire; but the minute we step off our front porch into the town square, we are stepping into a realm where we have to realize there will be a multiplicity of acceptable standards. I was downtown a week or so ago and saw a group of women in full length robes and head scarves. Two women shorts and sports bras jogged past them on the sidewalk. On the other side of the street, a couple wearing their name badges from the temple (he in a dark suit and she in a calf length dress) walked past a male jogger in shorts and tank top. A couple kids in baggy pants and caps skate boarded past them. The town square is a place in which many standards of modesty and behavior are acceptable and the idea that we must cleanse the town square of anything the most sensitive might find offensive does all of us a grave disservice. In the town square, we live out our own sense of decency, knowing that it is not the only one.
You mentioned the idea of sanctifying the body. The Christian theology of embodiment (see James Nelson, Between Two Gardens) reminds us that if we are Christians we should take seriously the idea of the incarnation – namely that God lived in a human body and experienced life as a human. What’s more, when Jesus was telling the disciples what to do after he was gone, he told them he would leave them an advocate (NRSV) who will guide them in making determination of right and wrong – IOW, an indwelling of God within each of us to guide us.
Body theology teaches that the body is already sanctified, already made holy by the presence of the Divine in each of us. Traditional Christian theology has promoted a body/spirit dualism that tells us that the body is sinful and the spirit good. James Nelson’s invites us to see the body and the spirit as inseparable and holy. In this view, the body is a vessel filled to overflowing with the presence and goodness of the Divine. Sexuality, then, is an expression of the Holiness within us, an experience of Namaste in which all that is sacred within me recognizes, honors and responds to all that is sacred within you.
The sacred silence around sexuality seems to arise from the idea that the sacred is rare and difficult to obtain. We must keep a silence about sexuality in an effort to keep it holy. But when a child hears “We don’t talk about that” he/she doesn’t hear “It’s so holy” he/she hears, “It is dirty,” “It is taboo,” or “It is shameful.” As adults we may make the choice to maintain a sacred silence but in raising children, sacred silence doesn’t really work. It’s one of those instances that children don’t learn the lesson adults believe they are teaching.
To teach a child about the need for the sacred silence, ironically, requires breaking the sacred silence itself. Children will want to know about sexuality, they will ask “What is sex and why don’t we talk about it?”
To get back to cases - Ms. Roberson and Victoria’s Secret. In sexuality education, we talk a lot about “teaching” and “teachable” moments. Reading her letter, I get the impression she was actually shocked that there’s a VS in Salt Lake City. IOW, she really wasn’t prepared to be a teacher about sexuality. As I envision it, one of her kids probably saw the VS window and asked something like “Why is that mannequin wearing those funny clothes?”
The best response, IHMO: Ms. Roberson casually shrugs and says, “It’s a grown up thing. A lot of adults like to wear underwear like that when they are in the bedroom together. I think you should wear temple garments for your underwear. Once you go through the temple, you can wear temple garments too. Going through the temple was a very special experience for me. Let me tell what I thought made it special . . .”