Rorschach Test
Here’s a psychology test. Look at the following inkblots. What do you see? Choose the answer that is closest to your own reaction.
Image 1
a. Two people enjoying a nice day in the backyard.
b. Two artists creating a sculpture.
c. Two drug addicts, each with a monkey on his back.
d. That’s vile, disgusting hardcore pornography! How dare you bring that filth into my home!
Image 2
a. A fat man, lying on a beach.
b. John McCain, lying in a speech.
c. A giant ant-man coming to destroy us.
d. That’s vile, disgusting hardcore pornography! How dare you bring that filth into my home!
Image 3
a. Two people about to kiss.
b. The oil stain on my garage floor.
c. Give me another minute. I’m sure if I look at it long enough, I’ll be able to see the Virgin Mary in there somewhere.
d. That’s vile, disgusting hardcore pornography! How dare you bring that filth into my home!
Image 4
a. Six young people enjoying at day by the pool.
b. I wish I could be that thin.
c. Bad 90s television coming back to terrorize us again.
d. That’s vile, disgusting hardcore pornography! How dare you bring that filth into my home!
Answer Key
If you answered a, b, or c for all of the images, congratulations! You’re normal!
If you answered d for all of them, congratulations! You’re Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association!
I’m merely guessing what his answers to images 1–3 are. However, I know for a fact what his answer to image 4 is. His answer was so important that he felt he needed to email it to me.
Yes, our old friend BJ sent me an email titled “No friend to me or you: this kind of ad”. (The email itself didn’t contain the filthy picture. I guess he doesn’t want to be accused of distributing pornography. You have to go to his website to see it. In fact, he split his diatribe into two pages on his site, with the smutty graphic only available to you by clicking the link on the first page. He doesn’t want anyone to stumble upon the picture and see it accidentally!)
He starts with:
I will place no wicked thing before my eyes.
[Psalm 101:3a]
OK. That actually sounds responsible. If you don’t want to look at anything you deem wicked, then don’t look at it. BJ is in favor of personal choice and responsibility! Oh, BJ! I never should have doubted you! You finally came to your senses!
Or maybe not. Read what he says next:
This kind of imagery below featured in this weeks [sic] Grand Rapids Press TV Guide….
It’s actually TV Week. Just once, I’d like to see a fundie bother to get his facts straight.
…is just one of the many kinds of images that are foisted in front of the faces of you and me – day in and day out.
Umm … OK … Six beautiful people showing a lot of skin. This is the softest of softcore. The only place where this picture would be considered indecent is the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan.
I’m thankful that my wife and I share the same concern regarding television in our household.
I am too. I can’t imagine how insufferable being married to you would be. Fortunately, she’s as insufferable as you!
We simply don’t use one.
What? Did I miss something? BJ doesn’t have a TV? Then why is he offended by what’s on television?! In this case, he’s whining about a print ad, but what the hell is he doing even looking at the TV listings? And why does he organize advertiser boycotts and letter-writing campaigns targeting television?
It used to be that you could say to these fundies “If you don’t like it, change the channel!” BJ doesn’t even have a TV!
It’s ironic (of course; everything about fundies is ironic). Republicans are always decrying that liberals want to impose a “nanny state”. Most fundies are Republicans. So what is BJ trying to impose here?
BJ seems to think that the above image is pornography, and that it will somehow … umm … well, it isn’t clear just what he thinks it will do. Most anti-porn fundies seem to think that hardcore pornography leads to sexual deviancy, violence, and the downfall of Western Civilization. That’s a separate topic. BJ isn’t talking about hardcore pornography here. He’s talking about what you can see at any beach in the country. The above image does not lead to sexual deviancy. It’s not even a “gateway” image that leads people to the hard stuff (such as the Sears catalog underwear pages).
The Real Obscenity
Another thing that blew my mind about BJ’s email was that he sent it out on September 3rd. That’s right. While the rest of the country was focussed on the Republican National Convention. Right after John McCain perpetrated the greatest obscenity against our democracy by selecting a thoroughly unfit candidate for VP, the only thing that BJ thinks is obscene is a picture of a few people in swimsuits. In fact, the people in this photograph that so offends BJ were showing no more skin than Sarah Palin did during the beauty pageants she was in!
The Real Damage of These Types of Images
Finally, I would like to point out that BJ is right, but for the wrong reason and the wrong tactics. BJ’s image actually does cause psychological damage in some people. The portrayal of impossibly-beautiful and impossibly-thin women in the media leads to body-image problems in girls, resulting in eating disorders, depression, and other problems. I don’t agree with BJ’s top-down imposition of his standards upon the rest of us. It’s ironic, though, that even when the fundies are right, they’re still completely off base.
BJ, if you want to actually do something constructive with your life, if you want to actually leave the world a better place, why don’t you work on educating people about the effects of media portrayals of what the ideal person looks like? By raising people’s awareness, you’ll help to reduce the effectiveness of this type of ad. These ads will end up doing less actual psychological damage (vs. the imagined damage of your twisted fantasy world).
September 14th, 2008 at 1:24 am
XD He should take a nice long trip to Spain…
September 14th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Ron,
You anticipated my comment in your last two paragraphs. I have no desire to watch this show when it comes out (if it doesn’t have Viper squadrons or killing machines from the future, I’m not on board), but I’ll be damned if I’m about to tell someone else they can’t watch it because some sensibility of mine is offended. Well, he probably believes that I am damned, anyway.
I can only supplement your article with this:
“Don’t be fooled by the radio,
the TV or the magazines.
They’ll show you photographs
of how your life should be,
but they’re just someone
else’s fantasy.”
September 14th, 2008 at 5:27 am
The first picture is actually a map of Europe and the Mediterranean.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
My brother is a Pentacostal and they have some wierd rule that once you get armpit hair you can’t swim with your shirt off. I suppose this is what the minister is so upset about. What’s odd I guess is that many of the girls at his church (albeit it was an inner city church) had bastard children, including my brother’s wife. If you have too many rules, all rules, even important ones to keep you safe will be pushed by the wayside. That said the picture doesn’t titilate me. I would have casually brushed it aside since the show doesn’t interest me. True pornography should cause some sort of visceral reaction.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I agree with you Ron and with you Brian.
If I don’t like a show, I just won’t watch it. That’s what you use the remote for – to change the channel.
I don’t understand how the guy can complain about what is on TV if he doesn’t even own one. Does he watch one clandestinely at some hideaway or is he just parroting what someone has told him is bad? The first is a bit more intriguing because it leads you to wonder what else he might be doing
Women are brought up to believe that what they see on TV and in ads is how they should be. It’s not fair and it’s not right.
That first picture is of two Clydesdale horses facing each other and rearing up on their hind feet.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Very right Ron. Fundies are totally off-base here, especially seeing that at least one of the cast members are very noticeably anorexic. Sheesh…he’s worried more about how much skin is showing than the health of the actresses. No surprise here…reminds me of when the HPV vaccine came out, and many fundies were opposed to having their daughter get it as it might lead to them to become loose women.
I know this isn’t everyone’s flavor, but here is a link to pics of Jessica Stroup. Very sad that this woman truly has some body image issues. She’s hardly an example for young women…note I hardly blame her but the production company as they are the ones hiring these very unhealthy actresses:
http://theskinnywebsite.com/site/2008/09/10/new-jessica-stroup-photos/#more-10989
September 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
This has been going on for a very long time. Skinny became “in” back in the 60s with Twiggy. Her name fits her profile.
http://www.twiggybits.com/pix.html
September 15th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Is it just me, or does the guy in the far right look like the love child of Elvis Presley and Bruce Lee?
September 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Yea I don’t get it. None of those women in that pic “do it” for me. They just look… unhealthy. And the guys… Can you possibly have any more of a “rebel without a clue” look on your face? I don’t think so.
I’m with Brian. No vipers, no time travelers, no mechas, no obscenely large swords, no advanced alien races, no secret government organizations, no androids…. then I’m not interested.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Oh, I forgot parallel universes! Can’t forget that…
September 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Actually , the only thing about the picture that disturbs me is how they place the only non-white person in the ad. He’s off the the left, barely visible amongst all the others, and unlike the other two males, he is not shown with any bare chest visible. Yep, they essentially neutered and disconnected that guy from any sexual imagery or connection with the females (unlike the other two guys), because, you know, that wouldn’t be okay with the majority of people (who are mostly closeted bigots). THAT IS WHAT DISGUSTS ME ABOUT THAT PICTURE…..
September 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Well, I never watched it but I don’t recall the original 90210 or Melrose Place ( wasn’t that a spin off? ) having any persons of color on the show, at least as main characters. This poor guy is obviously a token. His character is adopted by a white family. And the Elvis/Bruce guy is supposed to be Iranian but is being played by a white guy, like there are no Middle Eastern actors available?
September 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Wow, S, that’s a damn good point. Additionally, the token black guy is half OFF the picture. Sure, some of the others are not fully visible (covered by others), but he’s the only one cropped off the side.
The Elvis impersonator is supposed to be Persian? Jebus… This is worse than the original 90210.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I wonder if they removed the black guy from the crotch down on purpose? Sort of like that would make him less threatening to the white girls?
September 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I can only think of him as Elvuce now.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I can’t comment, since 90210 was before my time. Which is probably a good thing. Bleh! Campy early 90’s television.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I was a wee lad during 90210’s original run and I thought it was pretty stupid back then too. Although I think I did watch a couple episodes to “give it a shot” since so many other friends were into it. Thankfully, like Christianity, it didn’t stick.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Barbara: That’s a great observation about them cutting the guy off at the waist to seem less “threatening.”
Parrotlover77: thanks for the compliment re: my observation about race and the spatial placement of people in the ad. Guess my communication and sociology degrees were good for something.