Saturday, October 18, 2008

You should trust Mad Priest's judgement..........

......the dragon isn't me. While I can be provocative I do baulk at publishing pictures of my own genitalia on the INTERNET.

However, I note Neil's comment on the previous post and so would like to know what it is about the image that people might find intrinsically offensive. I chose the picture very carefully and it is a non-sexual image of a penis, held, not erect, for the benefit of the camara's view of its artwork. Although I can see that it is not a conventional image I think it is an amazing work of art and I am not convinced that of itself it is offensive. In this day and age we should be able to value and celebrate the human body in all its forms and because it is a non-sexual image I would include that tattoo.

Or is it that because it is the male sexual organ it is automatically seen as a sexual image? If so I think that is a great shame and perhaps as a society we still have a long way to go in developing a sense of maturity about nakedness and a need to deal with any residual senses of shame that attatch to images of nudity. The church has a lot to answer for for that shame and for some of our very conservative attitudes to human nakedness and so I don't apologise that the image has appeared on a Christian's blog. One thing that has struck me again in this discussion is the significant difference between giving offence and taking it. They are both very active positions but you can have one without the other. I didn't give offence because that would have had to have been a conscious and deliberate decision. Nevertheless, others have chosen to take it. Interesting.

I'd like to hear your views.