DCP in Interpreter: "No real woman...would ever really, lastingly, satisfy."

[Doctor Scratch]

Greetings, Friends and Colleagues.

Sometimes there are moments in Mopologetics that really make you scratch your head in bafflement. I don't know about you, but I didn't think I would see the day that an article in "Mormon Interpreter" used the pornographic magazine Playboy to make an apologetic point. And yet, here it is, in Daniel C. Peterson's "Signals of Trancendence." Granted, the reference is buried in an endnote, but still. DCP makes this point in the main text:

Yet there is a natural human tendency to try, over and over and over again and quite in vain, to find lasting satisfaction in such things. They cannot and do not satisfy. We are never fully content, and never content for long. There is always a bigger house, greater power to be had, more money, a more desirable mate, some more intense pleasure to be sought, a faster car, more status, more prestige.

Like doing Mopologetics over and over and over, making sure that a new article is posted very single week for over a decade straight? Like that? But the passage has an endnote--Dr. Peterson evidently felt that he needed to further elaborate on his point--and it leads to this:

At the risk of offending some of my readers: I think that the monthly Playboy [sic] magazine “Playmate” illustrates this very well. The woman in the photograph is perfect. Also air-brushed, posed, and professionally photographed. No real woman — including the one in the photograph — would ever really, lastingly, satisfy. The magazine’s impresario, Hugh Hefner, had hundreds if not thousands of sexual partners.

It's hard to avoid reading between the lines here, and I can't help but wonder about Dr. Peterson's logic. For example: has Dr. Peterson eaten hundreds if not thousands of cheeseburgers? Did any of them "satisfy"? And does the fact that he ate more than one prove the point that "No burger would ever really, lastingly, satisfy"? And then there is the apparent assumption here that the point of women is to "satisfy." Quite gauche, no? There is something bothersome, too, about the "really, lastingly, satisfy" part--it's as if he's saying, "Well, okay--I'd probably have a great time banging a Playboy Playmate or two, but I'd get tired of it eventually." What to say about this? And is this really meant to support the overall point about "transcendence" and thinking about God?

Quite a bizarre and interesting entry into the annals of Mopologetics, in any case.

[IWMP]

Greetings, Friends and Colleagues.

Sometimes there are moments in Mopologetics that really make you scratch your head in bafflement. I don't know about you, but I didn't think I would see the day that an article in "Mormon Interpreter" used the pornographic magazine Playboy to make an apologetic point. And yet, here it is, in Daniel C. Peterson's "Signals of Trancendence." Granted, the reference is buried in an endnote, but still. DCP makes this point in the main text:

Yet there is a natural human tendency to try, over and over and over again and quite in vain, to find lasting satisfaction in such things. They cannot and do not satisfy. We are never fully content, and never content for long. There is always a bigger house, greater power to be had, more money, a more desirable mate, some more intense pleasure to be sought, a faster car, more status, more prestige.

Like doing Mopologetics over and over and over, making sure that a new article is posted very single week for over a decade straight? Like that? But the passage has an endnote--Dr. Peterson evidently felt that he needed to further elaborate on his point--and it leads to this:

At the risk of offending some of my readers: I think that the monthly Playboy [sic] magazine “Playmate” illustrates this very well. The woman in the photograph is perfect. Also air-brushed, posed, and professionally photographed. No real woman — including the one in the photograph — would ever really, lastingly, satisfy. The magazine’s impresario, Hugh Hefner, had hundreds if not thousands of sexual partners.

It's hard to avoid reading between the lines here, and I can't help but wonder about Dr. Peterson's logic. For example: has Dr. Peterson eaten hundreds if not thousands of cheeseburgers? Did any of them "satisfy"? And does the fact that he ate more than one prove the point that "No burger would ever really, lastingly, satisfy"? And then there is the apparent assumption here that the point of women is to "satisfy." Quite gauche, no? There is something bothersome, too, about the "really, lastingly, satisfy" part--it's as if he's saying, "Well, okay--I'd probably have a great time banging a Playboy Playmate or two, but I'd get tired of it eventually." What to say about this? And is this really meant to support the overall point about "transcendence" and thinking about God?

Quite a bizarre and interesting entry into the annals of Mopologetics, in any case.

I don't think it is natural for humans to want more more more. At last not from my perspective. It's not really nice to tar everyone with that same stick. I think there is a point in there some where that is like relative to someone with addiction, who is never satisfied and needs more. But we don't all crave more and so are happy with our airbrushed playboy cover. Jokes Obviously, I've never seen a play boy magazine in real life. But has DCP? he writes it like he knows what is in those magazines. I think Hugh Hefner was satisfied with the pleasure the women could give him he just wasn't satisfied that the women aged. Just a guess.

[drumdude]

Daniel Peterson’s heaven is a very hedonistic one. Because Mormon heaven is a materialistic worldly place.

The doctrine of eternal progression is the very thing DCP is claiming is so empty.

Multiple wives, endless sex, and all the sodashop treats you can eat. DCP is welcome to enjoy his endless celestial Carnival cruise. I’m hoping for something a bit higher.

[Marcus]

Quia fecisti nos ad te, wrote St. Augustine, addressing God, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te. “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”19

Yet there is a natural human tendency to try, over and over and over again and quite in vain, to find lasting satisfaction in such things. They cannot and do not satisfy. We are never fully content, and never content for long. There is always a bigger house, greater power to be had, more money, a more desirable mate, some more intense pleasure to be sought, a faster car, more status, more prestige.20

In a very interesting essay or sermon entitled “The Weight of Glory,” Lewis contends that human desires are self-defeating. Whatever we desire, when we achieve it or obtain it, seems to leave the desire unsatisfied, wanting still more:

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have not visited.21

I find it telling that footnote 19 is Augustine addressing God, and footnote 21 is from c.s. lewis, quoted from "the weight of Glory...".

In between is Footnote 20 in Peterson's own words, about how "the monthly Playboy magazine “Playmate” illustrates this very well. The woman in the photograph is perfect. Also air-brushed, posed, and professionally photographed. No real woman — including the one in the photograph — would ever really, lastingly, satisfy."

Really? He thinks those airbrushed fakes are 'perfect'? Perfect as what? Toys? Things? Possessions? And that "real women" can't possibly compete with those things?

That would be Peterson's inability to see women as real human beings causing that failure to satisfy, not the actual, real women themselves.

Just to make sure i am interpreting this as Peterson intended, here is the text:

Yet there is a natural human tendency to try, over and over and over again and quite in vain, to find lasting satisfaction in such things. They cannot and do not satisfy. We are never fully content, and never content for long. There is always a bigger house, greater power to be had, more money, a more desirable mate, some more intense pleasure to be sought, a faster car, more status, more prestige.20

His illustration of how man (yes, "man") tries to find "lasting satisfaction in things," is to turn to the "air-brushed, posed and professionally photographed" things in Playboy Magazine. Sadly, these things don't satisfy. Why? Because there is always a better "thing" to be had.

When men stop using women as examples of "things to be had," we will reach a different understanding of living life to its fullest. Until then, men like Peterson will continue to fall behind, not understanding at all why more and more "women," as well as many other "humans," find them tedious and unnecessary.

[Dr Moore]

How does he know about the Playmate, or that the images are perfect? What is the comparative imperfect image set - Hustler centerfolds? How many were sampled and over which decades? Print, or online, or both? Boy oh boy, what a rabbit hole this is.

My old mission president used to remind us that anyone can have a bird land on their head, but no one is obligated to let it build a nest there.

[Philo Sofee]

Quite a bizarre and interesting entry into the annals anals of Mopologetics, in any case.

Fixed it for ya...

[Philo Sofee]

Daniel Peterson’s heaven is a very hedonistic one. Because Mormon heaven is a materialistic worldly place.

The doctrine of eternal progression is the very thing DCP is claiming is so empty.

Multiple wives, endless sex, and all the sodashop treats you can eat. DCP is welcome to enjoy his endless celestial Carnival cruise. I’m hoping for something a bit higher.

Very well said.

[Philo Sofee]

His illustration of how man (yes, "man") tries to find "lasting satisfaction in things," is to turn to the "air-brushed, posed and professionally photographed" things in Playboy Magazine. Sadly, these things don't satisfy. Why? Because there is always a better "thing" to be had.

When men stop using women as examples of "things to be had," we will reach a different understanding of living life to its fullest. Until then, men like Peterson will continue to fall behind, not understanding at all why more and more "women," as well as many other "humans," find them tedious and unnecessary.

It is the failure of the 1940's-50's geriatrics leadership he genuflects to that gives him his mentality. Yet another reason I am so grateful to have the blessing of seeing the further light and knowledge Father promised, and delivered, so I could move on beyond the ridiculousness of Mormon theology, doctrine, history, and leadership.

[Philo Sofee]

How does he know about the Playmate, or that the images are perfect? What is the comparative imperfect image set - Hustler centerfolds? How many were sampled and over which decades? Print, or online, or both? Boy oh boy, what a rabbit hole this is.

My old mission president used to remind us that anyone can have a bird land on their head, but no one is obligated to let it build a nest there.

Playboy apparently inspires him more than the Book of Abraham, so there is that...

[drumdude]

His illustration of how man (yes, "man") tries to find "lasting satisfaction in things," is to turn to the "air-brushed, posed and professionally photographed" things in Playboy Magazine. Sadly, these things don't satisfy. Why? Because there is always a better "thing" to be had.

When men stop using women as examples of "things to be had," we will reach a different understanding of living life to its fullest. Until then, men like Peterson will continue to fall behind, not understanding at all why more and more "women," as well as many other "humans," find them tedious and unnecessary.

It is the failure of the 1940's-50's geriatrics leadership he genuflects to that gives him his mentality. Yet another reason I am so grateful to have the blessing of seeing the further light and knowledge Father promised, and delivered, so I could move on beyond the ridiculousness of Mormon theology, doctrine, history, and leadership.

What still unsettles me is that more women are staying in the church than men. They’re choosing to stay in this religion that is openly treating women like mere things.

I hope the next generation of women walks away from it. Until then the church will not change.