Shades of Black

So, Fifty Shades of Grey is a thing.  The movie version of the initial novel of a trilogy (the other titles being Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed) will open today.  Reportedly over 100 million copies of the novel have been sold in 52 languages.  The first book was published in 2011, but the movie's release has renewed discussion of the book and inevitably of what I gather to be one of its central themes: sex entwined with bondage, sadism and masochism.

I have not read the book nor do I intend to; I will not see the movie.  Those facts by themselves do not insulate me from exposure to and having to think about sex entwined with bondage, sadism and masochism.  This state of affairs distresses me and gives lie to claims that others' personal sexual proclivities don't affect me and are, therefore, none of my business.  Like a particularly noxious form of moral pollution the toxic waste products from these supposedly private practices spread through the culture.  What can I, or anyone, who wants to avoid exposure to these poisons do but enclose ourselves in increasingly smaller circles of friends and acquaintances, increasingly more limited lists of programs, movies, plays, websites and publications free from obnoxious and objectionable material and discussion?  In today's culture that is impossible as evidenced by fact that I am writing this post today.  But that is a rant for another time.

Today's screed was prompted by commentary on the Fifty Shades phenomenon: Fifty Shades of America's New Dark Ages: why are middle aged-women funding the BDSM industry.  I was struck by the second sentence of this quote (I included the first for context):

 While one hand slaps us into a concussive state with false campus rape statistics, the other holds women down in classrooms, brainwashing them into believing that sexual abuse is a cultural norm. In the real world this translates into mom and dad bringing violence into the bedroom in an attempt to spice up what they’ve been led to believe must be a boring sex life. (emphasis added)

 together with this observation by one of participants on The View:

[Jenny] McCarthy said men should take notice of how the best-selling book, and now movie, makes women feel. “After you’ve been married for a long, which I was married for seven years, missionary style gets really boring,” she admitted. “Sometimes you want to be thrown around a little bit.”

As someone who has been married five times (and counting) as long as Ms. McCarthy was, I can personally state on behalf of my wife and myself that we have no need to bring violence into our bedroom whether in the form of being "thrown around a little bit" or otherwise.  If anyone feels the need for violence in a relationship something is wrong with the person or the relationship.  What loving husband or wife would willingly inflict pain or discomfort on the other?  In response to a request to receive or to be able to perpetrate such violence a truly loving partner would seek to help the other discover where that need came from.

For many it appears (at least from the two quotes above, an admittedly small sample) that such requests may derive from the notion of alleviating boredom in the relationship.  In my view this idea of boredom results from either 1) being in a relationship with sex itself rather than being in a relationship with a person; or 2) allowing others' expectations becoming ours.  This latter concern folds into my mini rant above because the pervasiveness of discussion and depictions of sex can engender discontent when our reality fails to correspond to expectations based on others' fantasies.

The solution is relatively simple.  Stop thinking about sex so much.  If life is boring because your sex life is not as exciting as you think it should be get a life outside of the bedroom.  Cultivate your mind and your spirit.  The author of the PJ Media piece cited above linked to and quoted from an article by Camila La Paglia reviewing three books about sado masochism.  A comment about one of the books struck me.  La Paglia describes some of the people profiled by one of the authors and notes of one couple:

Weiss's colorful cast of characters includes Lady Thendara and her husband, Latex Mustang, who spend virtually all their spare time and considerable income on an elaborate BDSM lifestyle.     

God has commanded us to "ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts" which Hugh Nibley interprets as not asking to consume the period of our lives in chasing our lusts.  Lusts of the flesh once aroused and nurtured are difficult to control and out of control can consume all of your spare time and income (and more).  

If the desire to inflict or receive pain or discomfort is not rooted in boredom, the answer is more difficult because it requires discovering the basis for the need and eliminating it.  The answer is not to indulge your partner because it harms both of you.  It harms the partner who indulges because by inflicting pain or discomfort you become habituated to the practice and inured to the suffering of others; and by receiving devastates your feeling of esteem and worth. 

It is wrong to inflict pain or discomfort during sex no matter the desires of the other party, notwithstanding the apparently growing popularity of the practice. 

   

God's Increase

         I notice it most in the fall with the corn.  We plant our corn from seed.  The rest of the garden we purchase as plants.  Maybe that ‘s why.  And in the fall because as we dig up the corn stalks and get rid of them (we don’t plow them back into the garden a sin for which I hope true gardeners will forgive us) I notice how large they have grown and how much mass they have.  Then it strikes me.  I’ve done nothing for these plants but put a seed in the ground and water on the seed and soil.  Well, of course I’ve spent some small amount of time clearing weeds from their bases (not much this time last summer because we were away quite a bit) and I once applied fertilizer (chemical, a sin  for which etc….) but essentially I’ve done nothing.

            Here I am digging up stalks taller than I am.  I can grab them and shake them to remove dirt from their substantial root systems.  These are tangible material living things that simply appeared from the ground.  The ground is still there.  I see no indentation or sinking around the plants to show where the stalks and leaves and roots came from built atom by atom and molecule by molecule higher and higher.   And I marvel at God’s increase because what little effort I have made for these plants God has returned to me a million fold.  If I had eyes, I would see this same miracle a thousand times a day: no matter how much we contribute some work, (of which we are capable because of the bodies we’ve been given) some ideas (which we receive from God and which we are able to consider because of the brains God has given us) but God gives the increase.  I don’t have such eyes.  My poor little brain and shriveled spirit see only what I lack and take the rest for granted.  But sometimes as today, I stop and begin to see if only briefly and in small measure the glories of God’s creation.

Why Are We Here?

One of the luxuries of being retired is that I can take time in the morning to read Interesting Things.  Often, I find the interesting by visiting blogs or commentary I've visited in the past and following promising looking links.  If I think the linked post worthwhile, I'll see what else looks promising on the site. 

Today, I ran across Social Matter and found two posts very intriguing.  One argues that political philosophies fundamentally misunderstand the concept of value.  The other argues that modern economic theory inappropriately treats the economy as separate from larger goals of society which the economy should be made to support.  Both posts, although focused on different aspects of economic life, shared a concern for blind pursuit of a strategy without considering whether the strategies support appropriate ends.

The post on value I found particularly helpful.  The author argues logically and consistently in support of a position I have held up to now only based on  inchoate feelings.  The author advances the principal that appropriate limits exist on individual action and that those limits should be established based on whether the limits will increase or decrease value to broader society.   I am not sufficiently conversant with philosophy to know whether the exposition of this particular line of reasoning advances the state of the art (if one can use such terms for philosophy), but as I say it certainly aided my thinking on the matter.  It seems to me, however, that the conclusion is inarguable and, I would posit, is in fact not argued by any political philosophy as actually implemented.  No extant or former polity (as far as I am aware, conceding that my knowledge is limited) permits individual action without any limit.  Even extreme libertarians and anarchists impose some limits.  In fact it makes no sense to speak of a collection of individuals without limits on their actions as a group of any sort.  Yes, I understand that we are talking about philosophy here uncontaminated by reference to the real. So the question is how as a theoretical matter does one support limits on individual behavior.  It seems though that because a political philosophy is meaningless divorced from its effects in the real world those effects are fair game.  (I think of criticisms of Communism or Socialism which are often not theoretical but grounded in the real world effects of implementing that philosophy).

But back to value.  As the author demonstrates limits on individual actions can be justified based on what increases societal good.  Here we hit the wall erected by modern scientific materialism.  We have two choices: either we are created and have a purpose or we are accidental accretions of chemicals without one.  If we assume the former a basis exists for determining what increases societal good--that which assists us with achieving the purpose for which we were created.  If we assume the latter, no basis exists for determining what increases societal good because there is no basis for deciding that one course of action is better than another.

The second article arrives at a similar conclusion: the economy should be considered to be an adjunct to achieving broader societal goals.  It should not be managed as an end in itself without considering its effects on achieving the purpose of society.  Now it happens that the author, using the Greek root of the word economy ( Oikonomia, which he translates as meaning “'order of the household'"), argues that the economy should be managed to the end of guiding "the formation and maintenance of families" a goal I heartily agree with.  But the determination that increasing the formation and maintenance of families is the aim of society depends once again on the assumption that our existence has some meaning or purpose.

All of these discussions, as indeed the discussion of any but the most trivial matters of our lives, leads us back to God--whom no matter how hard we try and no matter how desperately we may want to we cannot avoid and whose overwhelming presence in our lives everyone (even those who most wish to deny his existence and escape his influence) will bend the knee and acknowledge and confess it as the consequence of His perfect love for all of His children.             

My Privilege

Checking your privilege seems to be the latest meme.  It is a question posed, I gather, to white people and appears to me to be an assertion rather than a request to perform any sort of soul searching.  I understand that I am accused of being privileged because of my family background.  That is, because of my ancestors I have had a leg up on other members of society in competing for jobs and material things.  I freely admit that my ancestors by dint of their hard work, dedication to God and their families have bestowed an incalculable benefit on me; I am privileged to be one of their descendants. 

All of my great grandparents immigrated from England, Denmark and Sweden in the 1800's after they joined the LDS Church.  None of them was rich,  They were all of the lower classes in their native countries and all of them made the decision to sell everything they had and travel from their native lands to Deseret which at the time was not part of the United States.  All of my great grandparents traveled a thousand miles across the plains of what is now the Western United States by wagon and by handcart carrying with them only what they could carry and what would fit in a wagon, or in some cases a handcart.  None of them arrived in Deseret with more than a few cents to their name.  When they arrived in the mid 1800's, they found a community barely scratching an existence from the ground in almost desert conditions.  They lived at first in mud huts or holes in the ground until they could build by themselves with some neighborly help more suitable shelter.  Some were sent to outlying areas to colonize.  Those were required to start from scratch yet again after arriving and becoming somewhat established in Salt Lake City.

All of them worked hard and sacrifice for their posterity and taught their children who taught their children who taught me to work hard and sacrifice.  Slowly over the generations their material circumstances improved.  I still recall hearing from a cousin at my Uncle's funeral recalling his father's story about finding my Grandmother prostrate in tears on the floor because there was nothing to eat in the house and she did not know how she was going to feed her family.  But as I say, my family's fortunes improved with time and effort along with those of the rest of the Country.

  So yes I am privileged but not because of the color of my skin, but because of those who went before me and established a legacy of hard work and dedication that has been handed down to me through generations.  I have tried to pass these lessons to my own children and have tried to help others who are not part of my family establish the same traditions in their families so that their children and grandchildren can one day acknowledge the privilege bestowed on them by their ancestors.

Road Trip

I'm pretty excited.  My wife and I are leaving this afternoon to visit our daughter, her husband and two of our grandchildren in Tucson.  We are driving not flying on this trip; we both have the time (my wife has spring break next week and I have all the time in the world) and I like to go on long drives.

It is a perfect day to take off.  Sunny blue sky with scattered high clouds and no rain in the forecast.  I'm not sure where I get my love for taking long drives.  Maybe from my childhood.  My parents loved to travel and in that era flying was much more costly.  We traveled quite a bit from Berkeley to Southern CA to seem my paternal grandparents and to Utah and Idaho to seem my Mom's family.   Oddly enough I quite enjoyed those trips.

There's something about travel, as I noted in a previous post, that is otherworldly.  I feel suspended from the present unmoored in time and space; The box has not yet been opened and anything is possible.

T minus 3 hours on the mark. 

The Regulatory State Redux

Kevin Williamson's column at National Review today put me in mind of another thought I had about the effect of overregulation. Williamson uses the current example of a Rancher in Nevada who apparently has acted in defiance of Federal Regulations relating to the protected Desert Tortoise and now for his act of rebellion faces fines, confiscation of his property, imprisonment and perhaps death (the BLM has deployed snipers by some accounts, which is another discussion entirely: why are so many federal agencies so heavily armed?)

Focusing on the left's attempts to squelch dissent and prevent contrary views from being reflected in public policy he notes

  the Left’s attempts to restrict citizens’ ability to influence policy through things such as campaign donations, to say nothing of proposals to lock people up for unpopular political speech, are more dangerous than is appreciated: With those remedies diminished, open defiance becomes more attractive.

But, the frustration that leads to defiance need not be engendered solely by the perception that remedies have been blocked.  That frustration can also arise from the types of bureaucratic nightmares I referenced in my post this morning.  The frustration need not lead to open defiance to be dangerous either.  Because our society, as any society, depends on widespread voluntary compliance with the law anything that undermines the will to comply is dangerous to the society.  When people are faced with a daunting regulatory burden seemingly divorced from the real world they will ignore the regulations imposing the burden.  If such burdens are common the practice of ignoring them will become equally widespread.  At some point most citizens will then feel free and even justified in ignoring the law.  

That may not lead directly to open potentially violent confrontations, but it could lead to a type of  anarchy where laws exist and enforced on the books, but are in fact ignored while everyone acts in their own best interest regardless of legal niceties.    

The Regualtory State

Apparently Phillip Howard has a new book out "The Rule of Nobody"  discussed here at Had Enough Therapy.  I read his first book "The Death of Common Sense" many years ago.  In his new book he apparently returns to the theme of overregulation and its pernicious effects on regulators' ability to exercise discretion and judgment.  Preventing the exercise of judgment and discretion results in absurdities such as being unable to remove a fallen tree from a stream even though it was causing flooding without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and planning work required by regulation.

As Schneiderman notes regulators and legislators like detailed regulations for various reasons.  The trade off for the regulators is that they in turn escape responsibility.  In addition to detailed regulations furthering regulators raison d'etre such regulations also prevent regulators from having to exercise judgment and discretion.  Regulators are thus able to avoid any responsibility.  This is an advantage as well for legislators who enact broad mandates and leave the detailed implementation to regulators.

This is a common problem.  Accountability is widely seen as something to be avoided at all costs.  Most people operate by the axiom that they don't care what happens as long as it's not their fault.   So, in my view the issue of overregulation is merely a symptom of a larger problem: how do we make our "representatives" in government accountable?  It seems to me that the trend over the life of our Republic has been to diffuse accountability.  Partly this is a result of a growing population more people means paradoxically fewer people to answer to.  But it is also a result of the human tendency to want to avoid responsibility the result of which is that people alter the structures in which they operate to deflect responsibility.   Here I am thinking of the tendency to pass laws giving regulators broad discretion in implementation. 

Moreover, even when the structures cannot be altered enough to avoid responsibility people try to form a narrative which absolves them of responsibility.  Currently this is manifest in Democrats seeking to persuade people that whatever ill effects Obamacare is inflicting are either 1) not that bad really or 2) not their fault.

It has seemed to me that the this problem can only be solved by devolving more governmental power to local political units.  It is much more difficult to avoid answering your neighbor's questions than it is to avoid the questions of someone whom you have never seen before and will never see again.  This in theory is an approach liberals and conservatives should be able to support.  It would allow both to have the chance to implement their particular world views more thoroughly than would otherwise be possible.

Regardless of the approach, something must be done to make those who govern us more accountable for their actions.