Comments on: The Most Infamous Whipping

By: Dr. Whiplash

Dr. Whiplash — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:17:33 +0000

I believe the major problem here is merely one of semantics. I’m guessing that some of your readers think that labeling something with the term “erotic” must mean that the so-termed subject in question must give the viewer (or reader, listener, etc.) either a boner or wet panties. Not true. It must merely give the thought, however so small and fleeting, that it is of a sexual nature. I find it difficult to believe that any Spanking Blog reader would view this image without such a thought, whether approving or disapproving. They may very well not APPROVE of the depiction that they presume to be the Christ central to Christian theology, but if this were an image without the stereotypical Jesus of Nazareth imagery, and without the title, and in a more modern-day time period for instance, I think it’s fair to say it would be understood as erotic. Imagine for instance that it were the Marquis DeSade fastened to the pillar. Therefore, to me, it is unquestioningly erotic, and I believe fairly obviously painted to be so, even though it does not give me a “woody”. Bouguereau has gone out of his way to use well-known painterly devices to bring attention to the action of the man in the red turban (who is binding his firmly-gripped rod), which is being pointed to by the Christ figure’s dramatically curved lower body and toe.
It would be more fair to call it blasphemous, which could be argued as a valid matter of personal opinion, though even that is arguable. Perhaps the painter’s intent was to show that the flaggelators were “evildoers” who beat Christ not for his acts, but because they had an opportunity to get their own sexual kicks out the circumstances, or maybe it was to show that we the viewer, in recognizing any sexuality at all in the depiction (particularly if one were to actually identify with the flaggelators), are all sinners. Either of which would be arguably in support of the Church, not in opposition to it. The painting itself does not deprive Christ of his sacred character, and therefore could be argued as quite tasteful…

By: SpankBoss

SpankBoss — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:57:58 +0000

I’ll agree about the going around in circles, anyway. As for the rest, I’m not even sure we do disagree; it still feels like you took offense at things not said. But I’m certainly happy to let it drop. Last word is yours if you want it, I’m done. Happy new year yourself!

By: lucy

lucy — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:15:48 +0000

Well, SpankBoss, I am afraid we are going round in circles and Graeme is right. It is time to agree to disagree. What we are disagreeing about may be murky, but I am afraid it is not going to get any clearer. Happy New Year!

By: SpankBoss

SpankBoss — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:58:38 +0000

Lucy, where did I attribute any of those things to you? My exact words: “To be sure, I was aware that some Christians — perhaps those of the more repressed variety, the ones who give greater Christianity an only-partially-deserved reputation for narrow-mindedness and anti-sexual values — might take offense. But frankly, I don’t expect many such to be reading this blog.”

I was saying “since you’re reading here, you must not be one of the anti-sex Christians, who are the only ones I thought might take offense.” How do you get me calling you one of those anti-sex Christians from that? You have it exactly backwards. I was extremely careful not to lump you in that camp. For all the good it did me.

Also, where did I attribute any sentences to you? Note the phrases “for you to say, in effect” and “has a strong subtext of”. These are not attributions or direct quotes.

I’m really at a loss as to how to argue with someone who wants to argue about things I never said. And I still don’t understand how it’s offensive to say, on a kinky sex blog, at a season devoted to the birth of a religious figure, that a particular painting of that religious figure has sexual overtones. Joking or not — and I wasn’t — I still don’t understand why anybody’s knickers are in a twist. (Anybody except, of course, the folks who are uptight about sex, the folks everybody agrees probably aren’t reading this blog.)

By: lucy

lucy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:22:15 +0000

Thank you, Graeme, for your helpful comment. Now SpankBoss and I do have common ground. He says: “Words are important to me, so when folks accuse me of positions I never articulated, I get passionate about refusing to have those positions attributed to me.”

Exactly! SpankBoss, leaving aside your earlier mistaken attributions of positions I do not hold (social conservative, repressed, anti-sex, etc.), you now attribute whole sentences to me in direct quotes that could not be farther from my own positions or feelings. I complimented your blog. I enjoy it and am grateful for your work in maintaining it and making it available. To say that some things, say sexual jokes, may be entirely appropriate (and fun) in some contexts but not others (say, a job interview) is not to denounce those things. (And, btw, I took your posting of that painting together with the Merry Christmas greeting to be a joke.) I also support your right of freedom of expression–as also my own right to say I was offended while understanding that that was not your intent. That’s what I said and what I meant, not that you do not have the right to say whatever you like on your own blog. You invited comments and I gave some.

I do now have a livelier appreciation of how easy it is to draw unwarranted inferences. And also a clearer understanding of the traditional Catholic position articulated by Aquinas and Dante that pride is the most serious of the deadly sins…and lust the least serious.