Skip to main content

The Shape of Water and the #MeToo Movement

Now, I like Guillermo Del Toro--at least I used to--as he has traditionally made original and interesting movies, but while The Shape of Water may very well be both of those things, I think it illustrates Del Toro's slide deeper and deeper into depravity, as well as many of our culture's problems.  In case you missed it (you're probably better off if you did), The Shape of Water contains some pretty indecent sexual material.  To be clear, I did not watch this film as the "Parent's Guide" section over at IMDB was enough to dissuade me from seeing it.  I warn you, that section reads like a pornographic fantasy novel (not that I've ever read one).  As if his last film's incestuous material, disturbing though not quite graphic, was not enough, he had to push the envelope to include interspecies sexuality, to say nothing of the graphic nudity, this time around.

Now, in past years a feature film featuring interspecies intercourse probably would have caused quite the stir in this country.  Can you imagine what America would have done in the 50's?  The 70's?  Even the 90's or 2000's?  There would have been uproars and boycotts and all that good stuff, and rightfully so.  This year?  It won best film!

Now, Hollywood has had a pretty rough year, given all the scandals and allegations of sexual misconduct.  The #metoo movement arose as a response to the eternal lack of accountability for the Hollywood elites who have been sexually abusing their pawns for generations.  Though this movement has had its issues, it is a noble cause.  So what does the Academy do?  As they have commonly done in recent years, they gave the Oscar for best film to a movie that contains aberrant sexuality!  How fitting!

Hollywood, you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot say that you support women and simultaneously reward their objectification.  You cannot claim to respect women while monetizing their oversexualization.  You cannot assert your moral superiority regarding the treatment of the fairer sex while plastering their naked bodies all over the silver screen.  You cannot profess to honor, respect, and value women while immortalizing their shame.  You can't do it.  Your true colors are showing.

Further, you cannot claim to support healthy sexuality while glorifying monstrosities.  The slope is slippery, as they say.  Our culture has increasingly become desensitized to sexual content in movies and on TV.  Sexuality led to nudity.  Nudity led to graphic nudity.  Graphic nudity led to incest and other aberrant sexuality.  What's next?  Pedophilia?  If Hollywood's true colors are fully seen, that is unavoidable. 

This is that state of our country, whether we like it or not.  We are no longer shockable.  We are no longer offended by the degradation of the human body and the abuse of human sexuality.  We no longer boycott aberrant sexuality.  We give it an Oscar.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...