 |
| Salzburg-Facebook |
I am @ home between shifts here and so this shall be short and hopefully sweet, as opposed to sweat, but I have been pondering on this the last few days.
From 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
'Woods mentioned Playboyism, and stated of Hugh Hefner, Publisher of Playboy Magazine: "Hefner rejects any philosophy that holds a man must deny himself for others. The Playboy outlook says a man should love himself preeminently and pursue only his own pleasure." Woods (1974)(1982: 108).
Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating, this magazine brings its participants money, fame and sexual gratification, but the Playboy philosophy represented in the magazine, through mass media influence, also causes women in society to be viewed as objects by many men. This can cause many women to be overlooked for their intellect, and looked upon more for their sexual beauty.
So, in a subtle fashion, the Playboy philosophy can bring pain to many people in society because Playboy Magazine exploits sexuality when, in reality, sexuality belongs in the context of marriage/committed relationship where the inner beauty of the person is more important than their outer image. With the Playboy philosophy, the outer beauty is far more important than the inner beauty.'
April 7, 2014
Related
Consent in secular Western society in regard to intimate matters seems to often be the philosophical and moral/ethical bottom line in judging thoughts, acts and actions as permissible or not.
I understand this is how these moral/ethical issues are often dealt with in democratic, Western societies.
In this fallen world from a Biblical view, and certainly, imperfect from a secular view, where religion has been politically corrupted in the past, present and will be in the future, I am no supporter of theocracy or theonomy in this present realm.
Religious rule to govern sexual ethics.
The only theocracy I support theologically and philosophically in one ruled by God and Christ in a restored realm explained in part in Revelation and 2 Peter.
Theocracy and theonomy is this present age is bound is be in disagreement with my views and the views of other scholars on many points.
A religious scholar, as one example, could end up breaking the law.
When some segments of Western society view certain thoughts, acts and actions morally and ethically not permissible, there is often an assumption that consent is not possible or not granted by one or more parties involved.
The sex trade industry as an example.
Sometimes this will clearly be an accurate view and sometimes the issue is unclear.
With the sex trade industry, some persons very immorally are forced and/or coerced into it clearly without possibility of consent, as with underage.
I am not going to debate underage consent here philosophically, but will acknowledge and accept it morally, ethically and legally.
Some adults are within the industry, immorally without consent, by force and/or coercion.
At times the issue of consent is clouded in the case of adult professional sex trade industry workers.
The philosophical impression I receive from reading and media is that some anti-sex trade industry advocates, from the left and right, as opposed to primarily the documented writings of a certain writer or scholar per say, admittedly to be clear, reason no one in the adult sex trade industry is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients.
My view can be seen implied in the MPhil work where I stated:
'Considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating,'
And yes, I realize there is a wide-range of sex trade industry work and that Playboy is considered on the soft side on the industry.
Pornography by some, erotica by others. Or perhaps both by some.
I do not write as an expert here, but philosophically, morally and ethically, this understanding that no one in the adult sex trade is providing consent other than the proprietors and clients, seems too simplistic. I state this cautiously and in humility but I reason that the corrupt nature of humanity described in Romans and implied elsewhere in Ephesians for example, means that all persons make sinful choices via sinful nature.
A sinful choice certainly is made at times through sinful nature (Romans) to willingly consent to work within the sex industry.
There are many moral, ethical and social negatives associated with the sex trade industry.
A Biblical position, in contrast, prohibits adultery and fornication, Exodus 20: 14 and coveting Exodus 20: 17.
Adultery and fornication of the heart (mind) that can lead to sinful acts and actions is viewed as sinful in Matthew 5 and the solution is Biblical marriage from 1 Corinthians 7, if one is not content being single.
And therefore, it is philosophically, morally and ethically error to primarily judge the adult sex trade industry permissible, or not based on consent.
I am not stating Scripture does not acknowledge the need for consent in matter of sexuality or that it is not vital. In context, Biblical marriage, for example, implies the consent of man and woman in a covenantal relationship.
I also of course do not claim moral perfection in order to judge, rather by the guidance of the Holy Spirit I seek to live by Biblical concepts.
WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
 |
| From email |
