>equal second... did not appear to be catered for by the good professor's table.

math(s) aside: if ties were figured in, how many p&c is that to account for?

I put Marian first, because she was willing to suffer in a worthy cause.I put John second, because he did not compromise his principles in any way, and had compassion for Marian. I put Robin third because he was unwilling to accept Marian's sacrifice on his behalf and made her suffering worse by rejecting her. I put the Sheriff last for dishonoring his oath of office and using his power to violate Marian.

My result: Maid (sacrificed for another), John (defended another), Sheriff (kept his bargain, although nothing in the circumstance suggests he could have been made to), and Robin (judgmental prig who hurt the one who sacrificed for him)

The test says:
You are essentially a contented person, even if you consider yourself a little superior. You are moral by your own standards, for you believe that morality is what best suits the occasion.
(Men) You are sexually uninhibited, more romantic than you may appear, and more dependent on the approval of others than you care to admit.
(Women) You like being a woman, you understand what love is, and frankly enjoy sex.

It doth appear you are a worthy judge;
You know the law; your exposition
Hath been most sound; I charge you by the law,
Wherof you are a well-deserving pillar,
Proceed to judgment.

I love the idea, and it was a fun exercise, but some of the estimates seem perhaps a bit too critical, and I sympathize with shanks -- I was torn between LJ-S-M-R and LJ-M-S-R.

Also, for those who felt Little John was not behaving morally, what do you base that on? If we are to disregard what we know of the story, John has no reason to be loyal to Robin. Is it the fact that he took advantage of Marian when she was "on the rebound"?

On the positive side my choices indicated I am truthfull, so rather than lie about my order of choices I will leave now.
wow

I came back to edit this post because I discovered there was more to paragraph one than showed up on my screen ... ooops. Off again to re-take the test. (To anyone who cares : stand by.)
wow

Did anyone else see this???

----------- TEST ------------
"The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon. Maid

Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her, calling her a slut, and saying that he never wanted to see her again. At this, Little John defended her, inviting her to leave Sherwood with him and promising long devotion. She accepted and they rode away together.

I was ready to post a scathing reply that y'all were assuming a reason for their release.

Something wrong with my download... but when I copied it to quote it, the rest of your "assumptions" were proven

yes... i saw even less of it; mine ended in "maximum sec" and i had to copy it to wordpad to read it at all. glad to know i wasn't alone.

for another interesting personality test, check out http://passionup.com/fun/fun430.htm

I scored Little John first, Robin and Marion equal second, and the Sherriff fourth.

I was rather flummoxed by the lack of data given upon which to make any judgment. What did she confess? That aside, shanks' ranking is basically mine own. The one thing I did learn from the exercise is the extent to which shrinks hate the idea that someone might be reasonably well-adjusted.

With the full first graph of the anecdote in hand, I re-took the test.
The test maintains I am :
happy, well-balanced ..like people .. question if many conventional views on morality are valid under all circumstances.
(Women) You will expect high standards form the men to whom you give your love.

You betcha' boots ... and not just the form, the substance and application as well!
wow

I tried editing my post, but got an "internal server error." Here is what I wanted to add:


I ranked them only on the snippet that tsuwm posted. After reading the whole test, I was more confused than ever. If personal morality is important, it seems that only Little John followed Shakespeare's advice, "to thine own self be true." Robin comes across as an unforgiving, overly judgmental B'stard, while Marion's behaviour suggests morality is subordinate to expediency, and so I would score them LJ 1st, all others last equal.

is there something missing or malformatted in the "test" as pasted? if so, I can go back and try to fix....

Tsuwm, what I believe to be the entire text of the story appears in your first post about it, and has since you first posted it. The problem is somewhere along network lines, and seems to be limited to certain users.

Max, can you explain to me how your view of Marion's behavior is different than Robin's?

Would you "forgive her?" (but not forget?) Or do you agree with Robin-- only you wouldn't have called her a slut to her face (just behind her back?)

Marion had a chance to make a difference-- at personal cost--she put her companions comfort and freedom above herself-- she didn't sleep with the sheriff to get herself out -- but to get Robin and John out too.

If i could save the world by lieing down with the devil-- what would be the right thing to do? Value myself more than the world? -- Is that moral?

Personally, I think that Marion's lack of morality lies (lays) in the fact that she was willing to sleep with the Sheriff despite her love for Robin. To my way of thinking, she has violated their trust, even if she has no feelings for the Sheriff. It's like the argument posed in that movie with Demi Moore and Robert Redford for a few years back: is it OK to sleep with someone for a million dollars as long as you don't "mean it"? Of course Robin's reaction makes him even less "morally correct" than Marion in the end.

Flatlander

i vaguely remember the movie--

and as i recall the offer was made to the husband-- in which case he is selling something he doesn't "own" -- that is use of his wifes body--- and even if it was made to Demi-- she again is selling something-- Either the husband was a pimp, or she was a whore-- the transaction was exclusively about money for sex--

Marion was sacrificing something for a greater good-- (Robin and John freedom)

So i see i difference between just selling something, and making an effort for a better good-.
Schindler (of Schinders List) made money using jewish slave labor-- but what redeemed his behavior was his real effort to save the live of the jews who had been made into slaves.

He could have taken a "high" road--- and never used the slaves (and many more might have been killed) he could have taken the "low" road-- and just use the jews as slaves... He did his best to save lifes-- which meant he used slaves.. but he also worked to save the live of everyone who worked for him.

I think Marion's decision was similar.. Not perfect-- but the best she (or anyone) could do, in the circumstances.

It would be interesting to know how the evaluations of the different choices were arrived at, and this is not a gripe at the interpretation offered for my rankings.

My assessment is based on an assumption, but one that is unconnected with gender. I am assuming that Marion's own code of morality included a belief that sleeping with someone other than her life partner was wrong. On that basis, Marion violated her own morality, albeit for the noblest of reasons. If the tables had been turned, I would have concluded the same thing about Robin.
My own personal code of morality makes no allowance for judging the actions of others, but to the core of my being I hope that if ever I were presented with a choice like Marion's I would not violate that personal morality, whatever the cost. You asked
If i could save the world by lieing down with the devil-- what would be the right thing to do? Value myself more than the world? -- Is that moral? and I would never presume to answer that question for anyone other than myself. For myself, lying down with the devil is out of the question, under any circumstances.

In addition, I do not think that Marion's actions made her a slut. Assuming that she had violated her own code of ethics, she would need support, loyalty and consolation, not abuse or condemnation. Her noble motives also must be taken into account. I know of people who have betrayed their own morality under immense pressure and who were helped to recover from doing so by the compassion and understanding of those around them.

I am a lazy sod, and I like living my life by a simple set of values. I have no interest in expecting others to live by my values, or in condemning them for not doing so. I also know that I have never yet been placed in the sort of situation under discussion, where personal morality would be sorely tried. I am, however, proud to know several people who have had their personal morality grievously tested, and who passed those tests. I can but hope that I would do as they did.

>is there something missing or malformatted in the "test" as pasted? if so, I can go back and try to fix....

Yes some crucial parts were missing for me, I recaptured them all by highlighting the whole post and copying into Word. The missing bits magically re-appeared!

>I put Marian first ...

Bill, I'm with you on this one. I think the Sheriff has to be at the bottom, he abused his power. Marion, did her best in the circumstances, I'd throw Robin to the lions!

I think we should be setting aside funding for Marion and Little John to receive post tramuatic counselling, can't imagine how anyone got by without it! Perhaps we could have a chat with Father Steve about the legal case, it would have to be worth a bob or two.

Helen - the film Robert Redford, Demi Moore was called "Indecent Proposal" (I'm still not convinced that any woman could have turned down Robert Redford in his earlier years, unless you had to choose between him and Paul Newman!)

Marion, did her best in the circumstances, I'd throw Robin to the lions!

Marion did make a difficult choice for reasons that seemed best to her. The issue of whether the Sheriff had done anything wrong in arresting a known thief and his accomplices seems relevant here. Robin would have had no right to criticise Marion's flexible ethics, given that he justified actions that were illegal, and no doubt considered immoral by some, on the basis of "the greater good." Where does one draw the line? I have heard that good intentions can make dangerous paving stones.

I found a whole separate site by typing into Yahoo search box just "Robin Hood, Maid Marion" and scrolling down a bit.
Easier to read also.
Forgive repetition, I would like to know how the thing was judged by the people that set it up.

I put Little John, the Sheriff and the newly made Marian on a par with LJ just a smidgeon ahead. Not catered for in the evaluation. I just love opportunists and idealists, especially when they meet!

I ranked them the same as Sparteye. As the header to the story says, you must forget any prejudgment of the characters in order to be able to see their actions in an objective way and assign moral worth to them. This may be done with characters who are only names on a screen (though we do know just how much of the stories we know about them we must forget). But, as I see it, it's impossible to take such an objective view of real people's actions, especially when they are people we care about...

math(s) aside: if ties were figured in, how many p&c is that to account for?

57?

Helen

I suspect that each of us approach this test differently. Here's one take (and not even my first, or second).

1. Why has the Sherriff imprisoned R and LJ? Since we are only to assume what's in the anecdote (rather than our sentimental appreciation of the many Robin-the-Yorkshireman stories), we need to assume that it was legitimately done. So the Sherriff is twice-damned - for bargaining for sex, and for letting out presumably dangerous criminals.

2. What is Robin's moral universe? He appears to be priggish, this is true, but if he values sexual fidelity highly - and has he or has he not communicated this to Marion? - then perhaps he would rather have languished in the dungeon than have Marion use her body to provide the Sherriff with sexual favours. So his language may have been intemperate, but his actions may have been perfectly consistent with his morality.

3. Would LJ have wanted to be set free if he knew that Marion would have to sleep with S to do achieve this? Would Robin? Was Marion deciding to sleep with the S without reference to Robin's or LJ's feelings? How moral, or true to her relationship with Robin is that? The sacrifice was not just of her body, but also of her relationship, it seems to me. If she didn't take that into account, or thought of it then dismissed it, I do not consider her actions to be perfectly moral. Of course, we know nothing of this, but it would appear, from the fact that she didn't tell R about it in the first place, that she knew it was not something he would have wanted. Ergo, she was playing god, following her desires, to give R and LJ something they did not want at that price. Hmmmm... Self sacrificing for certain, but not very thoughtful about others' feelings?

4. About LJ, seeing as he seemed to want to make the best of a bad situation, nothing but mild praise.

That's my take.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

My result: Maid (sacrificed for another), John (defended another), Sheriff (kept his bargain, although nothing in the circumstance suggests he could have been made to), and Robin (judgmental prig who hurt the one who sacrificed for him)

Same as Sparteye. Am I alone in believing that there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution? It's the moral equivalent of doctoring, music-making or accounting -- it's all about selling your abilities. To me, the immorality (or at least hypocrisy) is that it's illegal.

I put the Sheriff last for dishonoring his oath of office and using his power to violate Marian.

Yipes! I didn't even think of this! Shows how cynical I am, I guess. Have I become a moral relativist?

As for lying down with the devil -- for how long?

Quite long, by popular rep

Am I alone in believing that there's nothing morally wrong with prostitution?

Hey Blanche

I've been there and through to the other side. Whilst I do not believe there is anything 'morally' wrong with the act of selling your body/sexual favours, I have two reservations about it:

1. Like the porn industry, it seems to be inevitably exploitative, primarily of women.

2. In the context of this anecdote, the issue was also (IMO) the relationship she had with Robin, and the responsibility she owed it.

If there had been no indication in the anecdote that she was in a relationship with Robin then I would have scored it: 1 Marion (taking a difficult decision and sticking to it), 2 Little John (showing compassion) 3 Robin (intemperate and judgemental prig) 4 Sherriff (exploitative and corrupt)

cheer

the sunshine warrior

max- I like your answer! I don't agree-- but I don't think i could have expressed my self as clearly or concisely-- I didn't mean to but you on the spot-- In many ways the test is simplistic-- but obviously-- we have reacted to it!

I guess my own person "hot button" got pushed-- (see my post quoting the assestment-- I tend to act emotionaly, and i have been hurt by "double standards"--

2. In the context of this anecdote, the issue was also (IMO) the relationship she had with Robin, and the responsibility she owed it.

I didn't think of it from this angle (tho' my post about the immorality of prostitution had more to do, I guess, with other posters judgment about it).

Your thought about Marion's responsibility to the relationship reminds me of a Victorian era argument used to explain why men are superior to women -- because men's morals were based on absolute values but women's morals were seen to change, depending on people and circumstances. (I don't know if I am describing this very well, hope you get my gist.) In this circumstance, Marion felt her first priority was freeing Robin, but (you're saying, I think) that the higher plane would have been to consider the abstract construct of the relationship. I don't know, does it fit?

Let's think of it another way.
We have four characters : Sheriff, The Maiden, Robin, and Little John.

Now suppose the Sheriff is a woman and Marion is a man and it is Marion's two friends in the dungeon.

The Sheriff says SHE will let them all go if Male Marion has sex with her.

How does that affect your morality perceptions of the tale?
wow

>Now suppose the Sheriff is a woman and Marion is a man and it is Marion's two friends in the dungeon.... How does that affect your morality perceptions of the tale?

or, suppose they're *all men....

The Sheriff says SHE will let them all go if Male Marion has sex with her.

Excellent suggestion. Were I Male Marion, in a relationship with Robyn, I would be very, very wary of sleeping with the Sherriff. Why would Robyn feel sympathetic towards my "but darling, it didn't mean anything to me" argument? How do I know Robyn would rather I slept with the Sherriff than spend another night in gaol?

These, for me, are the issue. So responding to Blanche at the same time I say: Marion might be considered to be demonstrating a form of selfishness, inasmuch as she didn't consider what Robin's feelings would be, but only her desire to have him back with her. Of course, given the sketchy nature of the anecdote, all of this is speculation, but I based my judgement on the idea of making what seemed like the most reasonable assumptions.

Am still, as always, on the side of people's rights to be paid for sex if they so choose.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

You are all truly and deeply warped (That why I love y'all?)

I should have worded it this way:
Female Sheriff, Male Marion, Robin-a female, and Little John is the pal.

I was going to write "Robin a female bird" and "Little John keeps same gender" BUT you perverts would have had waaaaay too much fun with that!
wow

I didn't mean to but you on the spot

Aah, but you didn't. I was happy to explain my take on it, especially because the way test assumed that one's opinion would altered by the gender of the protagonists annoyed me. Besides our divergence of opinions had shanks salivating with delight, and that was nice, 'cos he's gunner need something to spur him on to happiness soon.

Like the porn industry, it seems to be inevitably exploitative, primarily of women

I know what you mean by this reservation, shanks. But it often seems to me that this sort of discussion takes place in a moral vacuum. If viewed relatively against the actual texture of our daily lives, how many of us are not party to some sort of contract of exploitation? When I employ a factory hand for £x per hour and they sell their time to me so that I can make £xx from the results, to pay my £xxx salary, after which the company’s principals draw their profit of £xxxx… We surely, every single member of this forum, engage on a daily basis with these relativistic exchanges of power and freedom. Is prostitution different in some way I am failing to understand? Convince me!

Maverick asks: Is prostitution different in some way I am failing to understand?

I would say prostitution is different because usually there are no protection or buffer measures set up for prostitutes within the "exploitation" structure. Workers who have grievances against their boss or their company are backed up by committees, unions and what-not, so that anything that goes over the "accepted" levels of exploitation can be dealt with quickly and (hopefully) satisfactorily. In contrast, prostitutes are more often than not marginalised, discriminated, persecuted, in frequent danger of physical harm, and can only resolve "grievances" by going to the police (and in many places that would land them in jail). The fact that their trade is secretive and taboo prevents them from acquiring basic rights that other people who work for money expect.

I guess what I want to say is that selling sex for money is not itself any more exploitative than selling your work to the company you work for, but the conditions that these women (and men, too) do it in are exploitative.

Yes, I entirely agree with you, Marianna. If as a society we could examine the moral arguments with a little greater clarity, then we might be better able to address these civil rights issues.

Marianna, I think you're absolutely right. The way a person chooses to exploit their abilities is their own, unless it violates another's rights. It's the lack of safeguards that's the problem -- both for the prostitutes, their customers, and even for the larger society (safe sex is not required, for instance).

Mav

I think Marianna and others make the points quite well. Me, I'll stick to matters linguistic and query the phrase you have used: ...some sort of contract of exploitation...

This, to my mind, is Marxist language. Which is not necessarily bad in itself, but seems distinct from 'natural' language. In this terminology, all work for wages is exploitation, thereby depriving the natural use of the word of any meaning. I may be entering a contract which earns money for the company that pays me, that cycles over into bigger profits/pay for the people who own the company and so on - but I have made a pretty free, informed choice in this matter. Now if prostitution were habitually like that (and the set up in the Netherlands, I believe, commonly approaches that standard) then it would simply be paid work, or rather, freelance work. That's fair enough.

My problem is that exploitation, in its natural sense, occurs when, for instance, underage people, who cannot make an informed decision, are involved in the industry. Whether its the running shoe manufacturer's factory in a developing country, or the runaway teenager pumping up her courage with a cigarette as she hangs around King's Cross looking for her next 'trick', there is exploitation.

Similarly, even a grown up can be exploited if no credible options are provided that she/he can use. Again, I am not a bonded worker, and far from being a slave. I have the choice of a variety of jobs I can perform, with varying grades of commitment to the jobs, and proportional pay from them. I am aware of these options, and qualified to take advantage of them. A number of people (again, as I say, primarily women) in the sex industry (let's lump prostitution and pornography together) do not have these options, or the awareness of them, or the ability/qualifications to take them up. That, for me, is exploitation, and I haven't yet spoken of the seedier side of prostitution - the pimping, the deliberate drug addictions, the beatings, the breaking of the spirit rituals that those who make money out of it perform.

It may well be that if prostitutes were properly organised in unions, with recognition of the legitimacy of their trade, that a lot of this would be ameliorated. I don't know. What I do know is that, in our currently far from ideal world, I'd be loath to recommend it as a profession to a person I cared about - particularly if that person happened to be female. I would, as a corollary, feel no moral repugnance towards one who is a prostitute, though if I felt she was being exploited in that profession, I would certainly feel pity for her. I doubt if we've really become a mature enough society for completely well adjusted young people to take up prostitution as a legitimate career - there's a long way to go before we get there, if we ever do.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

informed decision... I am aware of these options, and qualified to take advantage...

I think our beliefs probably only differ in detail of interpretation , shanks. I certainly agree with almost everything you say here.

The only point I might cavil at is the kind of phrases highlighted above, which I feel can be a slippery slope. After all, the young men and women who leave school quite young and go into the local clothing factory in the town in which I live have very circumscribed choices in practice. Yet still, within the limits of their education, competence and general experience, they can be said to exercise a measure of free will in contracting their services. That really was all I wanted to draw attention to in that analogy, since I expect there are some amongst us who may have very different perspectives on the basic 'absolute morality' issue of prostitution.

I feel exactly the same way in practice about sympathy for those suffering the exploitation of an unfair 'contract' of sexual abuse; just as I do for those suffering unfair abuse at other occupations (like any good Marxist business manager should!)

Thee was a book about thirty years ago by a famous madam who said there was a time in many a girl's life when she realized she had given away a million dollars.
That might be amusing if the consequences were not so grim. I hope that the increasing acceptance of women in the professions and in many occupations formerly closed to them will keep more and more women from having to make such a horrible choice,especially now that AIDS has been added to all the other "social"(a vile euphemism) diseases.
At least we have come a long way from the conditions that made the Roman "meretrix" mean "prostitute".

i think "sex industry" jobs are often a poor choice of career-- especially today-- with so many new and deadly diseases-- but the morality of it-- all lot of that is social-- and related to patriarchies--. As jewish law points out, a child of jewish mother is always jewish-- but a child of non- jewish mother and jewish father is not-- (i suspect the same held true when cultures, like india, had a "caste" systems-- or cultures where you get "born into" the society-- it is not true with all societies-- but many)

A lot of is about making sure the children your wife/spouse/partner bears are your children-- in days long before blood test or dna!

It is these cultures that create the Madonna/whore dicotomy-- they are fearful of "loose women"

in culture that have matriarchies-- where it doesn't really matter who your father is-- your family, status, inheritance is all through your mother-- prostitution is not much of an issue-- but its also much less of a choice-- since women tend to have "inherited" status-- and don't need a man to get status--or material assets!

I tend to think prostitution is exploitive-- it exist because men have "visible sign of power" (ie, money) and women have limited means of getting it-- They can use their appearance -- and trade it for a good marriage-- or they can use their families (male members of the family) to arrainge a marriage (the "groom" doesn't so much marry the bride, as he creates an alliance with the bride's family)-- but still, the women only has status as it relates to the men in her life-- and since they want to be "sure" the children are theirs-- they want to control a women sexual life-- and a woman with an uncontrolled sexual life is held in contempt.

So sexual purity becomes a value-- and sexual looseness a sin--or worse! In many cultures -- a woman can be killed for having sex outside of marriage- but the man who has sex with her is held blameless-- and even "modern" civilized cultures-- US or England-- there still remain an attitude that a woman did something "wrong" if she get raped-- and it is very hard to convict rapist-- a woman testimony isn't enough! (thank god for DNA testing-- it has become a "co-operating witness" to the crime!) and in the same societies-- prostitutes get arrested-- but "John's" go free.. two parties to the transaction, but only one is wrong. (do i see a double standard?)

There are some "sex industry" jobs-- that women enter into freely-- "exotic dancers" in many cities work as independant contractors-- and can earn very good incomes-- and prohibbit physical contact from "customers". but in most places-- prostitution is exploitive.. not morally wrong-- (but pimping is!) but a societal wrong--
It doesn't have to be exploitive--or wrong-- but it has become so...

An other point--she is called "Maid Marion"--Not Mrs (madam, mistress)-- which implies she is not married or "troth" to Robin-- so her actions are hard to define as "unfaithful". Should/does Robin have the right to deside what Marion gets to do with her body--just because he is a man?
If one gets married-- and make a promise to be "faithful"-- and "foreswears all others"-- okay, then she is breaking a vow-- but is she is Maid Marion? (the story is unclear as to whether Marion and Robin are just a "couple" or if they are "husband & wife"-- )

"thank god for DNA testing" I fully agree! This may be the "only context" in which I agree with the use of this technology for identification (crimes of violence)...

and even "modern" civilized cultures-- US or England-- there still remain an attitude that a woman did something "wrong" if she get raped I find this very difficult to believe... that anyone with any sense (except for lawyers and investigators attempting to extract their respective "truths"(talk about exploitation)) truly brings this thought process forward immediately... and anyone who does won't last long in this town...

rant/ It amazes me that people ignore a sense of a whole person, yet are quick to reduce that definition (somehow) into the combination of the smallest pieces possible, and expect this to be "knowledge". (as Steely Dan says "the things that pass for knowledge - I don't understand). Notwithstanding the medical "benefits" of identifying disease causes, it is equivalent to ripping apart a Bach piece down to the notes (or better yet, some thing by Holdsworth) and "proving" to us all that either of those two are better music's.

Of course, one could just listen, hear, and know! /rant

ps. The US doesn't have a culture...

Dear Helen

Since I agree with just about everything you say, this post would be redundant, if not for one contrary opinion I hold - regarding your on-topic comment! You said:

An other point--she is called "Maid Marion"--Not Mrs (madam, mistress)-- which implies she is not married or "troth" to Robin-- so her actions are hard to define as "unfaithful". Should/does Robin have the right to deside what Marion gets to do with her body--just because he is a man?
If one gets married-- and make a promise to be "faithful"-- and "foreswears all others"-- okay, then she is breaking a vow-- but is she is Maid Marion? (the story is unclear as to whether Marion and Robin are just a "couple" or if they are "husband & wife"-- )

1. I do not lay great store by formal marriage - a relationship, with mutual acceptance of responsibilities towards it, is a relationship whether or not it has been formally contracted to.

2. If we claim that Marion had the simple right to do what she wanted with her body - without regard to the feelings of her notional partner in the relationship - then surely Robin had the right to reject her without regard to her feelings too? My point has been (from the start of this extended discussion) that Marion's actions are not necessarily blameworthy in isolation, but in the context of a relationship with Robin she seems to have either:

a. ignored his feelings
b. been unable to predict them (which appears unlikely, since she was reluctant to tell him about what she had done).

To that extent, I feel that she is guilty - she took upon herself control of an issue that affected both of them, and while she had the absolute right to do so, she has no right, thereafter, to claim that the relationship should continue, or continue as before.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

I hope that the increasing acceptance of women in the professions and in many occupations formerly closed to them will keep more and more women from having to make such a horrible choice,

An interest sidelight to this -- last week I had dinner with a woman who, for ten years, had been a "hooker booker." She worked at a up-scale bordello, scheduling appointments. She said that the majority of the prostitutes were women who were quite intellegent and that many, in fact, were using their earnings to pay for higher education--I presume to enter occupations formerly closed to them. Ironic, eh?

I think of troys analysis is fascinating (being a member of Veblen's fan club). It is amazing how complex and deep the dynamics of this kind of interchange are.

To that extent, I feel that she is guilty - she took upon herself control of an issue that affected both of them, and while she had the absolute right to do so, she has no right, thereafter, to claim that the relationship should continue, or continue as before.

That's it! Thank you shanks, for doing such a fine job of expressing one of the main reasons I felt that Marion was not guiltless.

I think that there is a difference between being wrong and being guilty.
Marion had to choose between two evil deeds, and made her choice.
Probably she was wrong in hoping that Robin could accept it, but for judging deeply her behaviour we should know her feelings and her intentions.
I want to say that the same deed can be guilty or not , depending on the intentions of the person who did it.

Anyway, I feel that the story has an happy end, since Robin was not worth being married - not since he left her, but since he abused and offended her.

Ciao
Emanuela

"Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for those ideas and comments,"said Professor Scribbler, quietly arrogating to himself that worthiest of titles in order that he may ASK and not be required to ANSWER the Qs he proposes to propound. "I have, for your convenience, divided the class into groups based upon your previous answers, placing the Absolutists on my right and the group representing Situational Ethics on my left. In the middle of our Electronic Forum, I have placed, appropriately enough, those contemplating meditatively (or meditating contemplatively) together with the uncertain and the confused. Now we are ready to proceed to the Next Level. Would your answers still be the same," he asked, with the hint of a twinkle in his eyes, "if we changed the facts just a bit?" His eyes darted quickly to the Absolutist quarter, then back just as quickly to the neutral middle. "Let's start with just two changes."

#1. Same facts EXCEPT THAT, instead of "merely" languishing in the relative comfort of a dreary dungeon, Robin and LJ are to be hanged at dawn, day after tomorrow, UNLESS, of course, MM acquiesces to the 13th Century plea bargaing offer, as aforesaid, in which instance, the High Shire Reeve of Nottingham would, on his word of honor as a Christian (Pardon me, Mr. Shanks) gentleman, arrange a jail break to freedom, success guaranteed. All right, Class, same answers as before? Discuss?

Now for #2 - Same set of facts as in #1, supra, EXCEPT THAT, The Shire Reeve has, in aid of his nefarious scheme, advised Robin of his "offer" to MM and permitted Robin to send a note to MM, pleading for her "cooperation" in order that his (Robin's and their friend's (LJ's) lives might be spared. MM receives the note. There is no mistaking Robin's hand (such as it is). She knows it well. The reply comes back from MM. "Robin, my dearest, I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved not I honor more." (Anticipating, by some... but that is another class) "Sorry, Robin, my Eternal Love. I shall get me to a nunnery and we shall meet, someday, in Heaven!). In the great tradition of Hollywood, Will Scarlet and the Merry Men mount a valiant effort to free the prisoners, but, alas, Hollywood having,for once, surrendered to Reality, the effort fails and the terrible sentence is (in Hollywood's exquisite detail) carried out, with Will Scarlet and a few more merry Men hanged for good measure. (Rated R for cruelty and violence, as well as for the lurid sexual scenes between MM and the High SR. Parental Discretion advised. Tickets: Adults $8.50; Seniors, $6.50; Children 12 and under $5.00 - Children are not permitted to bring firearms into the theatre except w/ the written permission of a parent or guardian)

"Same answers, Class? Please don't forget to sign the Honor Pledge. Leave your bluebooks on my desk," says Professor Scribbler, preparing to leave the room.

"Same answers, Class? Please don't forget to sign the Honor Pledge. Leave your bluebooks on my desk,"

Huh? This left-leaning moral absolutist is now utterly confused. You describe the situation as "changed just a bit." To me, the additions change the scenario entirely. Robin's giving his blessing to Marion means that no betrayal of a personal trust is involved, and Marion's refusal to comply with the Sheriff appears to be in harmony with her internal moral code, as opposed to the initial scenario, where she appeared to breach her own ethics. In this scenario, I would score Marion first for sticking to her own values, Robin lagging behind for asking her to compromise those values for his sake, and LJ neutral. "the lurid sexual scenes between MM and the High SR" had me confused, I thought she declined the Sheriff's proposal - are we talking about rape here?

(Before you ask, here is an) Explanatory Note from Scribbler re:" Lurid sexual scenes between MM and the High SR." I thought MM REFUSED the offer!. Answer: #1. Of course she did, but since when has Hollywood stuck to "the facts" the "book" or whatever, especially if there is an opportunity to present sexual .... #2. Perhaps it was a dream sequence, the SR imagining the success of his scheme, etc, or #3. Perhaps Scribbler erred in the original Post and has invented these rather lame "explanations" in self-defense to a Board w/ sharp eyes for errors. Choose any one or more.

To Max -- re "Lurid sexual scenes" As I privately acknowledged to you, you caught me- almost instantly- before I could correct my own error. but see my Explanatory Note. That (as they say) is my story and I'm sticking to it.
re "Changed it a little bit" Of course it is CHANGED. CHANGED A LOT- That is why it is called Phase II. It seemed to me that 1) we had flogged the poor horsey enough on the original issues, but that 2) the Board, judging by the number, length, and rapidity of the posts, was quite interested in the subject matter. "A" solution (not necessarily "the" solution is to change the facts ("a bit' or "a lot") and see, what,if any, difference it makes. To Abolutists, it might ... Or to those who hold by "situational ethics' or to others... What say we see what, if anything, any of those have to say. Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing to prohibit (is there?) further discussion, ad libitum, on the original set of facts? If I have given the Thread an untimely twist, someone please straighten it out.

Bring it on, urges Max in a post that serves no purpose except to bring him closer to veteran .

[Sparteye, having read of the slight change in facts, experiences a flashback to her law school days of some twenty-odd years ago. Throwing her hand across her brow, she cries, "Beat me, whip me, teach me law!" and swoons, reviving only just enough to whisper, "where did Blackacre go?" before fainting dead away.

Bow to wow emoticon.]

Checked your bio and you have well over 1,000 posts.
Thought veteran was "over 1,000 posts"
How much over oh great and powerful Anu?
Hang in there Max. I'm a'rootin' for ye.
wow

Sparteye, was that a bow-wow in your last post?

Scribbler, I'm picking that you are also a lawyer if only because of your use of legal terminology, although there is nothing to be gleaned from your profile to support the view.

The first scenario was a bit of fun, but you've raised the bar a bit too high here for my liking!

Nothing in your recasting of the facts of the situation changes the morality of anyone's actions in absolute terms. It may, however, change the actions themselves. Someone under duress, unless he/she is a fanatic or a would-be martyr, may well do something immoral to circumvent what he/she sees as a greater immoral act.

"Situational Ethics" is really nothing more than the study of what people will do given particular scenarios. From the point of view of theoretical philosophy morals are absolute, although having said that they are only absolute in the face of the societal norms against which they are formed. (Note that I am totally ignoring overweening moral codes such as the totally confused and self-contradictory Judeo-Christian "ethic" here).

If you want to use scenarios to determine people's ability to perform moral judgements, then I suggest that you acquire (for dosh) James Rest's "Defining Issues Test", because that is recognised as the leading instrument for testing the ability to form moral judgements around the world. I've used it myself on several sample populations. It doesn't work well across divergent cultures, but that's life.

In your scenario (and the original one as well), there are too many actors to determine the real morality of the actions of any one of the people, because if you have four people you have four different sets of moral codes interacting with each other. You also have way too many influences to determine which particular "moral rule" was used in the formulation of the decisions made by any one of the actors. Maid Marion may well have elected to become made Marion for any one of a number of reasons thrown up in your extended scenario. An example: Maid Marion may well have been a hedonist, just looking for a good reason to justify having sexual relations with the Sheriff. To her, saving Robin Hood's neck under those circumstances may have just been a minor, if self-justifying and slightly beneficial, outcome of the action.

And all of this is why I distrust judges. Judges are supposed to apply the law impersonally, but of course they don't. They are prey to their own moral backgrounds (or lack of them). If you are indeed a lawyer, how many times have you tried to get a particular type of case heard by this or that judge because you know that the judge will use a particular set of moral judgments to determine his/her verdict?
[/rant]

Thanks, wow. The mark for veteran is 1200. I find that interesting, because of the fact that moving from old hand to veteran requires 500 posts, while veteran to Pooh-Bah requires 400. Does this mean that the next stage requires fewer still?

old hand to veteran requires 500 posts, while veteran to Pooh-Bah requires 400. Does this mean that the next stage requires fewer still?

Could time aBoard be a factor?
Or is it a whim of the Great and Powerful Anu's ?
Keep posting!
wow

>Or is it a whim of the Great and Powerful Anu's ?

pooh-bahs have whims; wordsmiths have whigmaleeries! (but few practitioners of pooh-bahism understand this.)

few practitioners of pooh-bahism understand this

Given that there are only two Pooh-Bahs at present, and given that few implies "less than the whole number", that means only one, nicht wahr?

pooh-bahs have whims; wordsmiths have whigmaleeries! (but few practitioners of pooh-bahism understand this.)

Someone, I think Inselpeter, was asking whether God assumed attributes or simply had them (presumably devinely), in another thread. Could this discussion be widened slightly to include WordSmiths and Pooh-Bahs?

Could this discussion be widened slightly to include WordSmiths and Pooh-Bahs

There is only one Wordsmith, and he is...exalted.
Tsuwm is most certainly Pooh-Bah of the first water. And I?
I'd consider myself lucky to be...exonerated.[Golly I wish Jo would hurry up and get back emoticon]

>Given that there are only two Pooh-Bahs at present...

you are thinking much too insularly (as would be your wont, I suppose) -- I was thinking of the guy in The Mikado and his ilk (see picture).

http://pinafore.www3.50megs.com/ppym01.html

Late to pipe up, I know, but isn't this the plot of a play (Shakespear?)? Can anyone help out?

That picture of the Mikado pooh-bah looks like the Orphanage keeper who wouldn`t give Oliver any more gruel.

Measure for Measure, I think, else - All's well that ends well. Both rather grim, amoral (or morally dubious) pieces, where Shakespeare, world-weary I presume, sends his charcaters through hoops only to arrive at prgamatic resolutions (marriage for money et al). And yes, the Duke's regent asks wossname to sleep with him in exchange for her brother's (?) life. Oh dear, I can't seem to remember this too well. Anyhow - nasty bloke gets something of a comeuppance, thereby justifying the classification of the play as a 'comedy'.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Shakespeare, world-weary I presume

Yes, but Shakespeare's plot devices were probably never meant to be better than 'formal' affairs, as opposed to a naturalistic device that could pass for something in real life. … Shakespeare used these devices in order to set up the action - and it is upon the action, the language, the emotional interaction between the characters, and the use of plot/sub-plot parallels that gives Shakespearian drama so much of its power….

Oh, hang on…. http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=7622

Mainly I dug up this thread because some of the newer folks might enjoy stuff like Jo’s tips from Wollogong Pig Breeders' Gazette

Mav

Not denying the glory of complexity that is the Shakespearian canon - just pointing out that certain plays (Measure for measure, Coriolanus, and Troilus and Cressida spring to mind) are problematic in that the over-riding theme appears to be less one of reconciliation (a Shakespearian favourite) and more that of Machiavellian moral barter (more Jacobean than Elizabethan, if you know what I mean). Lear is a bloody play, and so is Julius Caesar, but neither has the life-sapping cynicism that seems to permeate some of the other plays I have mentioned.

[off-thread digression/rant emoticon]
And, of course, some of the earlier comedies seem inchoate (!!!! I knew I'd use that word someday!!!!) - The Comedy of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, while one, though masterly, can disgust - The Taming of the Shrew (and yes, I've read innumerable apologetics - how it's supposed to be about true love and so on, but for me it is still brutally misogynistic).

To be honest, now that I've started on my rant, I think the only Shakespearian comedies I think of as trule 'life-affirming' are Much ado..., As you like it, The Tempest (hardly a comedy, though) and A Midsummer Night's Dream (reddemed primarily by the character of Bottom). Even The Merchant of Venice seems soiled to me because of the arrogant nastiness of Antonio towards Shylock - the easy acceptance by all the play's 'positive' characters of the 'naturally' lower place of the Jewish money-man.

I suppose this is what comes of bringing a mind brought up in the late twentieth century into contact with an oeuvre from the late sixteenth...[glum emoticon - indicating end of off-thread digression/rant]

cheer

the sunshine warrior

<<A Midsummer Night's Dream (reddemed primarily by the character of Bottom)>>

Yes, and by the *probability*--the farce--of true love.

I wrote 'reddemed'? Oh dear. Remind me to check three times! Each time.

The eye has not heard, the ear has not seen, the last of this!!!

As always your post was a pleasure to read, shanks, and I can only largely agree.

I think you have particularly hit the nail on the head with your final suggestion. It seems to me better that we should acknowledge such differences caused by our very different cultural standpoints - state them openly (and not make feeble apologies of the kind you mention about Shrew), so that like any position our assumptions are laid open to subsequent inspection and challenge. I've no worries that the material of the plays is rich enough to support many divergent views; probably none of which will ever be The TRUTH!

I've no worries that the material of the plays is rich enough to support many divergent views; probably none of which will ever be The TRUTH!

Thou speakest sooth oh Mav. I think of Coleridge's romantic Hamlet, or the deconstructionists' Marxist Shakespeare and I cannot but agree - even discussing the canon (let alone enjoying it) is rich enough hunting ground!

for me it is still brutally misogynistic).

To be honest, now that I've started on my rant, Even The Merchant of Venice seems soiled to me because of the arrogant nastiness of Antonio towards Shylock - the easy acceptance by all the play's 'positive' characters of the 'naturally' lower place of the Jewish money-man.
I suppose this is what comes of bringing a mind brought up in the late twentieth century into contact with an oeuvre from the late sixteenth..


You are not alone in this assessment, sunshine. I loathed the MoV, and railed long and hard against its Anti-Semitism to my English teacher, providing him with the sort of world-weary amusement you described earlier. The Shrew was beyond me, as I could not stomach the way that it celebrated misogyny, as if it were the only right and proper way to treat women. The first time I read it I was bewildered, unable to understand how any 20th century minds could enjoy it.

Why doesn't the anti-semitism of Merchant bother me?

***

Anyway, it's the Venicians who come off looking bad, in my opinion.

The Shrew was beyond me, as I could not stomach the way that it celebrated misogyny

Glad to hear I am not the only one. Thanks gents. That play makes my hackles rise. The breaking of a person’s spirit by a kidnapper is a well-known psychological effect. If the victim is sequestered long enough they can even come to believe that they love their captors. Sound familiar? You can bet your bottom dollar that if the play had been one involving the emotional breaking of a black person into slavery the play would have faded into obscurity long ago. I can’t imagine why it is o.k. to put on that play just because Shakespeare wrote it.

I can’t imagine why it is o.k. to put on that play just because Shakespeare wrote it.


Amen Sister!


Maxine Q.

Anyway, it's the Venetians who come off looking bad, in my opinion.

Agreed. I can't cheer for the ruthless self-serving b'stards, as they gloat in their destruction of Shylock. Even Portia seems markedly short of that which droppeth as the gentle rain. [my-work-is-done emoticon]

Maxine Q.

Every time you sign yourself as Maxine Q., an odd little song starts playing in my head:

Oh Maxine Quordlepleen,
I'm in love with you Maxine Quordlepleen...

(sung to the tune of "Oh Denise Scooby-Doo" by...um...some group or other...)
Don't-feel-like-looking-it-up e

Every time you sign yourself as Maxine Q., an odd little song starts playing in my head:

Oh Maxine Quordlepleen,
I'm in love with you Maxine Quordlepleen...


This veteran thanks you sincerely. [harrumphing-petulantly-again emoticon]

These two to that:

Maxine: I'm am puce with jealously!
Rapunzel: Thanks, I never did know how to pronounce M's name!
IP

Max, congratulations, my friend! Keep at it, keep at it...

Billy the Bard wrote it as he saw it. Mostly his plot devices are trivial (except for his historical plays). The canvas of language, the swoop and soar of the words, were what his audiences came to see and hear. They certainly weren't there for the magnificent sets or the authenticity of the actors' make-up. The plays caught their imaginations and took them out of their generally miserable existences for a space. The plots were simply devices on which to hang the oratory and it was the oratory which worked the magic. The better known the plot, the easier it was for Bill to grab the gray matter in the audience and stir it.

Oour Wullie was a child of his times. Why would he question something as self-evident as the low status of the Jews? He was a keen observer of events around him but he was not a trained anthropologist, nor was he any kind of a social evangelist. He wasn't trying to improve the human condition, he was commenting on it and even entertaining it. The hounding of Shylock may have struck him personally as vaguely unfair, but it made a good story; his audience evidently agreed. And even well-liked scribblers such as Master William got little in the way of money and had to eat.

To Elizabethan audiences, MoV was a comedy. To us, it appears prejudiced, unfair and to some (as has been stated above) just totally unacceptable. Nonetheless, as a story it MUST be judged in its historical context, in my opinion. If a modern playwright wrote it, I would think it was totally unacceptable myself, Nazi propaganda. Personally, however, even though I know that Henry V was basically a murderous brigand for whom fighting was the main object in life, and that Shakespeare was basically glorifying that, I can enjoy the play without assigning any real value to the message.

[FWIW/rant]

CapK

You've made some good points there. I could have expanded upon my earlier post to point out that, though the sentiments 'expressed' in MoV or the Shrew, seem abominable, the plays themselves have a great deal that is admirable in them too. Whilst I would not wish for anybody to apologise for the misogyny of the Shrew (and I have, alas, seen some critics try), I would equally not wish to ban the play either. That would be, IMO, similar to saying we should ban the Bible because of all the racism and misogyny permeating virtually every chapter/book in it.

Apart from the truly brutal scenes between Petruchio and Katharina, there is much that is wonderful about the Shrew - and I suspect it might make a great experimental play - with cross-dressing, or gender reversal amongst the characters.

Funnily enough, of course, Kate becomes one of my favourite Shakespearian characters precisely because of what she has to go through - and the fact that she has such sharpness of character, and retains some of it even at the end.

Similarly, MoV contains some great moments and speeches, and whilst I deplore some of the attitudes present in it, I don't mind seeing it performed on stage. Again, I suspect that a good director could subvert the anti-Jewish message by undercutting the dignity of the WASPs (judicious editing, costuming and acting should do it?)

So while I may rant and rail about certain antediluvian attitudes in Shakespeare, I would not wish to see any of the plays banned.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Surely in MOV they were WCIs (White, Catholic, Italians) rather than WASPs.

Bingley

Pre Buonaparte and pre risorgimento? Maybe WCVs (White Catholic Venetians)

One of the things that amazes me when I read Shakespeare's plays is the ability of S to create characters representing themselves and not characters representing Shakespeare. While creating a character it does not seem like he ever thought "writing this character will reflect badly on me." The characters are themselves and in his dialogues too it apparent how beautifully he lets the characters speak for themselves. Such people existed in society and the fact that they entered his plays so untarnished by his own likes and dislikes I think is part of Shakespeare's greatness. It is very difficult to do. (I see a bits of GBS in all his characters)
P.S I can well imagine Shakespeare as Shakespeare thinking "I hate this character" but not letting that affect Shakespeare as the character.

C.K. and shanks, good points, both. Avy, you said:
While creating a character it does not seem like he ever thought "writing this character will reflect badly on me."

Actually, I was wondering if such a thought even occurred to him. Perhaps in those times, it was "known" by all in his culture that he was portraying events only, not making any kind of commentary. Though it's possible that people knew the characters were in some way representative of the author, but didn't care. Plus, I think at that time, with so little to compare them with (compare them to?), audiences would have been primarily focused on the product, not how or why it was created, as C.K. said.

My point is that things were different in that time and at that place, and when we observe things from a different background but judge them based on our own values, we often come up with a skewed result. As shanks pointed out, one of the things that runs throughout the Bible is that slavery was a commonly-accepted practice. Today we think it's horrible, but I try to keep in mind that I should not
judge everything in the Bible as horrible because of that.

If these types of things can be looked at in context, I think we can get a much more objective view of their worth, or lack therof.

So while I may rant and rail about certain antediluvian attitudes in Shakespeare, I would not wish to see any of the plays banned.

Banns? We don' need no steenkin' banns! My reaction to those plays is visceral, not cerebral, but I would not wish to see either banned. I agree with BelM that just being written by the Bard does not make them acceptable, but I also acknowledge that that is my opinion, not objective fact. I have had this same discussion many times over the last twent years, and have come to recognise that I cannot impose 20th Century values on 16th Century art. Just don't ask me to like it, is all, except for the "hath not a Jew eyes" speech.

You may have belaboured the pun indeed! But no - no chance of it being seen as a typo! Myself, I prefer - "I say we shall have no mo marriage" (which last word, for some reason, I always pronounce in my mind as mari-yaaj, though only ever ion this context)!

Surely, however, you also like the quali"y of mercy speech - y'know - that bloomin' thing wot pisses down 'n is twoice blest? Because it 'elps the bleeder up there 'oo's relievin' himsel' and the poor sod down 'ere 'oo's sufferin' from the 'osepipe ban (there bein' a drought because we've only just gone and had the flippin' wettest year since records began, innit?)

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Surely, however, you also like the quali"y of mercy speech

Great speech, though how a heartless bitch like Portia could have the chutzpah to lecture Shylock on mercy is beyond me. I guess it's a bit like an atheist vainly hoping for a false Messiah to save him and his from the Wenger boys.

<<Great speech, though how a heartless bitch like Portia could have the chutzpah to lecture Shylock on mercy is beyond me.>>

Is it really impossible that Shakespeare was an ironic son-of-a-bitch?

Binky

I admire Shakespeare very much, but have never seen one of his plays, except the movie of Henry V (I think) with Sir Laurence Olivier. It was tremendous, though I have no understanding of the changes Olivier made.
But it seems to me that a lot of the criticism here expressed does not take adequately into account the constraints imposed on Shakespeare by his audiences. If he had been "politically correct" by today's standards, not only would his plays never have been performed, he would have been lynched. Surely it is no accident that so many of the people best qualified to judge have admired him so very much for so many years.

Do you think political correctness is the death of art?

Do you think political correctness is the death of art?

No, it is the death of conversation.

Do you think political correctness is the death of art?

No, it isn't and it won't ever be. What is and isn't PC changes over time. Art remains art and can ride out the vicissitudes of changing opinion with no problems at all, thank you very much.

Last year, or the year before, an exhibition of work by British women artists was shown here in Wellington which included a small plastic Virgin Mary statuette encased in a condom called, prosaically enough I guess, "Virgin in a Condom". In the same exhibition there was a fifteen foot-long photo-montage mural called "Wrecked Last Supper" which portrayed Christ as a topless woman in a parody of da Vinci's "Last Supper". Instead of the adoring disciples, the "disciples" in this picture were all totally self-absorbed and disinterested in the fate of the central figure.

"Virgin in a Condom" had little direct artistic merit - it was a statement, of course. "Wrecked Last Supper" I would love to have on my wall as a conversation piece.

The thing was, the amount of controversy it stirred up was absolutely brilliant. The Christian Heritage Party (for whom a theocracy is not only a goal but an absolute pre-requisite - they're called "the Taliban" around here) went absolutely bonkers - well, more bonkers than usual, anyway, and they're a pretty sad lot under the best of circumstances. They said that we would all face eternal damnation if these works were displayed and that they should preferably be destroyed. Several of them tried to seize the virgin and oh, joy, the fun and games. Can you imagine security guards hovering over a small piece of moulded plastic covered in latex for 24 hours a day? Believe me, the irony didn't escape me!

And the most ridiculous part of it all was that the majority of the people who were arguing for and against the works had never seen them ! Graham Capill, the leader of the CHP, makes the Grand Wizard of the KKK look as offensive as Kermit the Frog. He's somewhere to the right of Ghengiz Khan (or Dubya, but I repeat myself). He was almost foaming at the mouth on TV when he was being interviewed about the exhibition. And, at that time, he hadn't seen them either.

As a result, thousands went to the exhibition who would probably never have bothered otherwise.

PC, the death of art? Nah! Don't make me laff - it's the staff of life to art!

What is art? And what is not art? Does the passage of time truly separate the good from the bad? Why is it that artists have to be dead before their work becomes high priced?
The hospital I worked at had a patient who did murals in excrement which were more attractive than many modern paintings. But was it art? Alas, none of them would be preserved for examination by art critcs.

CapK, your story brings up something that has long bothered me. i have so much trouble understanding the uproar over the desecration of 'idols' and icons, including the American flag. i have no idea what the current status is on the legality of flag burning, but it's certainly always been an issue that garners much attention (a constitutional amendment, to the bill of rights of all things, was once narrowly avoided; the irony of this is almost humorous - adulterate a document that has remained unchanged for two centuries (an icon if there ever was one) with the hope of preserving the sanctity of another.)

while i find the concept of the Blessed Virgin wrapped in a condom more than a bit distasteful (incidently, i'm quite sure i don't agree that the painting you mention would bring me any pleasure as a dinner guest, or as a host, despite the assurance of it being a conversational catalyst) my feeling is that the icon or idol's very purpose is to take on meaning for those that believe in its sanctity. thus, the Blessed Virgin in question is nothing more than the plastic it is made of, having been defiled such. ditto for the thousands of Saint Joseph statues that so unceremoniously find themselves head-down in a mudpile under a For Sale sign, and likewise for the flags.

i suppose all this rhetoric is simply to say that i agree with your contention the negative attention afforded art of this nature serves only to buoy the public's interest, and is quite possibly the driving force behind the artists' efforts.