Go Rachel
It is a weird coincidence that our young adults Bible study is taking a look at the role sex, sexuality, and our faith play in our lives. The image on the cover of Vanity Fair so clearly illustrates just how backwards the social view of sex is. The irony is that society as a whole has this belief that it is so much more open and enlightened yet it's clear in the picture that the same old roles are given to men and to women. Tom Ford holds court over two beautiful naked women, whose presence and positioning illustrate their power as only erotic toys in the kingdom of Tom and any other men who gaze upon the picture. Check out this quote from Tom, who served as the artistic director for the shoot:
he hadn't planned on becoming part of his own project, but he stepped in when "Wedding Crashers" star Rachel McAdams, 29, backed out.Being honest my flesh doesn't mind seeing a bit of them, but the Holy Spirit within me can't help but see the image and be sad, angry, and frustrated.
"She did want to do it, and then when she was on the set I think she felt uncomfortable, and I didn't want to make anybody feel uncomfortable" Ford said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Other Hollywood stars weren't difficult to persuade, Ford said.
"A lot of women actually, a couple of men, too, wanted to take their clothes off," he said. "These are such beautiful people, beautiful women, and who doesn't want to see a bit of them."
If two popular, powerful, rich, successful women put themselves in this position how in God's name are teenagers, young women, and adult women expected to see themselves. This image says to women no matter what you accomplish, who you become, or what you achieve your only as good as what you look like sprawled out naked to a man.
I am FREAKING angry, because someday I have to convince my son (God help me if I have a daughter) that as enticing as this looks, it is just a fake and a distorted view of the all too important gift of sex and sensuality given to us by God.
13 comments:
Amen, well said Jason. It is a sad statement of our times. Hats off to Rachel.
This was a great post Jason. As we prepare to bring our daughter home, I am constantly thinking about things like this. I want my daughter to be proud of her body as God designed it- not what the media portrays as beauty. I am also enraged that the media DARE think they can define beauty for me and yet, somehow, they have already influenced me and I am ashamed!
Kate- I'm curious- you say you were brainwashed by the media, but aren't anymore. How??
this was a great post...i had been equally disturbed when i saw this article before i even read your post, and unfortunately wherever i read it, the cover of the magazine was folded out to reveal even more...
i have followed along reading some of your young adults discussion and think it is such an important topic...
matt chandler has preached a great three part series on sex that is available on ITunes...i am not sure how to link to podcasts, but you can look up the village church on ITunes or go to www.thevillagechurch.net
thank you for bringing this topic up...raising children in a world with such a distorted view of sexuality is a scary proposition...it is so helpful and important to talk with other couples and parents on this journey about the implications that these lies of the world have for our marriages and families
i, too, have been so guilty of allowing myself to be desensitized...i agree with you, kate that it is a conscious decision to reject the lies, and if we want our children to understand this beautiful gift of God, and fully enjoy it as he intended them to, we must model this for our children
Thanks, Kate. It's so easy to get "sucked in" by the media. My husband and I were watching American Idol last night when they played at least one Victoria's Secret commercial. My first thought, sadly, was "I wish I had a body like that." And then, I snapped out of it and thought, "This is so sad!!! This is exactly the kind of thing Jason was talking about in his blog!" As Christians, we may not be able to totally avoid these images, but you are so right when you say we need to make a conscious effort to NOT de-sensitize!!
I, too, think that the idea of the man "holding dominion" over the two nude women is offensive, but, if you don't mind, I'd like to play devil's advocate.
What if Rachel had agreed to the photoshoot, or if they'd gotten another female and Tom Ford hadn't been a part of the shoot. What, then would have been the difference in that and classic works of art that display the nude female and male body? I've been reading your blog, Jason, and others who've commented and none of you strike me as the kind who would insist on making Michaelangelo's David wear pants. I can agree that the subjegation of women is offensive, and I think that the choice to position Ford in the photo was a poor one. But, the comment's here seem to be equally or more offended by the nude females.
Kate and erinlo, I applaud you for being able to reject the hollywood and magazine covers that seem to say that women should fit this mold. I've never really bought into the idea that we all have to look like movie stars who have all the time and money to spend on looking "great", and it angers me that so many women ascribe to that mindset. But, where does pornography start and artistic beauty end?
Kyle - what a great question. I think it will be one that I will explore on my own blog in the near future. Where does pornography start and artistic beauty end... As an artist and a Christian who is equally disturbed as the ladies here by the media's portrayal of women it will be a great thinking exercise for me.
Kyle- great question. I agree with Kate that it lies in the intent of the image. I think it would be near impossible to present an image of a nude person and not expect SOMEONE to be aroused. Even if one's intentions WERE pure, I think that because of our society's portrayal of sex, the possiblity of someone being led astray is far too great.
Kenny, you can't claim a topic for you blog that my post generated! As I can read it I have exclusive rights to PORN vs ART discussion. That being said, I would like to defer to you since you have actually sat in front of nakedness in an attempt to make it art. A process that seems to be much more enticing than what it really is I am sure.
Kyle, it's a great question. I have always taken the stance that the naked female body is a much more exquisite and evocative form than the naked male. Although the most famous naked anything is Michelangelo's David, which is curious, but I digress.
Context is king here. Not just in the artists presentation, but in the viewers as well. So much of my interaction with the naked female form has been in a context that leans more towards eroticism as opposed to artistic expression. As I have gotten older both spiritually and emotionally I find that "nudity" has lost some of it's power to lie and distort as it had in the past. Nakedness however can be very powerful expressive artistically.
What's interesting I guess is that the line between "Naked" and "Nude" has as much to do with the face as it does with the other parts. Kenny, I look forward to your structuring of this discussion on your blog. Until then I will think about how I personally draw the line between Nude and Naked.
Yikes. I was just gonna blog about it, but I guess now I have to "structure a discussion..."
I agree. I think that context and intent definitely matter. Also I think one has to look at the model's intent. Or at least what they are pretending to sell. Are the model's selling sex, are they selling beauty, are they selling lust, or are they selling art?
Furthermore, who is offering the pitch in the first place? I think that nudity is in some ways inheritly sexual, especially to Americans, but not necessarily pornography. An artist may take a picture that is purely intended for art sake and then sell it to a publisher that uses it to sell magazines through the sexuality of the peice. Is the artist to blame for selling out, or is he just paying the bills?
Sorry for all the questions, but this subject really intrigues me as a husband who is constantly reasurring his wife that she is beautiful and doesn't have to look like the movie stars because she's perfect. But, I'm also an Christian artists and would like to think that some day we will be able to separate pure lust driven pornography from emotion driven art.
I thought about this cover some more. I wonder what we would all say if the two women were put in a dominating position over the man.
For one I think it would have sold more magazines.
For two I think it would have stirred some interesting discussion on how women also use sex and their sexuality to gain power over men.
The art and porn talk will be interesting.
clark
Just letting you know that I blogged a little bit about this subject if anyone is interested...
eicherdesign.com/blog
GREAT commentary, Jason. You should send it in to an official publication...
Post a Comment