Playing Footsies with Porn-Infused Stories
In debating over what is and isn't pornographic, are we just quibbling over words?
To continue my train of thought from last week, let’s address some pertinent questions about hypersexualized scenes in mainstream film and television.
Put simply: why would a follower of Christ—one who ostensibly adheres to a Scriptural sex ethic—observe pornified material in film and television and yet deny its pornographic nature? Or, to put it another way, why can the pornification of entertainment be acknowledged by secular scholarship1 and yet functionally be ignored by many within our Christian subculture? Why the inconsistencies?
I won’t pretend to have a definitive answer, but I can think of at least four possible reasons.
1. Overcorrection
With genuinely artful films that are sullied by the inclusion of a scene or two of graphic sexuality, some might oversimplify the situation by reducing the film to the moral quality of those gratuitous scenes. In other words, they define an entire story by its faults: “That movie is nothing more than a piece of smut! It’s a XXX feature through and through.”
In response to this extreme position, others react negatively by going too far in the other direction—they reject most anything that even hints at condemnation. Their desire for a more balanced perspective (which, to be clear, is a good thing) nevertheless drives them to an imbalanced position themselves. For folks in this camp, any condemnation of pornified scenes is rejected as needlessly stuffy and zealously draconian. In their overreaction, they’ve traded one form of reductionism for another.
2. Semantics
Sometimes we talk past each other because we apply different (and often conflicting) meanings to various words and terms. For example, in a social media post on simulated sex, a friend of mine once pointed out that “naked bodies grinding on each other pretending to have intercourse crosses a line — both for the viewer and the actors.” I wholeheartedly agree. Those words are a succinct summary of what I’ve been attempting to drive home for years.
But then my friend adds that he thinks there’s a “vast range of ‘sex scenes’ in cinema,” expanding his definition to include acts like lying side by side in a bed, kissing, and a full-bodied (but fully clothed) embrace. I agree with him that making a blanket condemnation on all such acts is untenable (a kiss or a hug can be chaste or lascivious). I think my friend and I are in more agreement than it might appear on paper, but a disparity in our definitions gives the illusion of a greater disagreement than actually exists.2
3. Desensitization
Even staunchly purity-minded Christians can be exposed to sexualized material, as porn culture permeates our societal milieu. Without grace-enabled vigilance, it is possible to become numb to—and even affected by—the sexual immorality on display around us. (Consider the example of Lot’s family; though Lot was tormented and distressed by the immorality of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah3, his daughters seemed to be affected by the behavior they witnessed, as evidenced by Genesis 19:30-36.)
When living in the sexually saturated modern West, it’s possible to lose our capacity to recognize and respond to that which surrounds us. As such, some might see softcore porn as morally neutral (rather than inherently immoral). To them, the problem isn’t with depictions of simulated sex (since a porn aesthetic is a regular part of the cultural air we breathe), but rather the “context” in which the simulated sex takes place.
When you live in the water, your ability to define and detect that which is wet is severely limited. Similarly, when living in a pornified society, one’s ability to define and detect porn can be severely limited.
4. Lasciviousness
Some aren’t concerned with whether simulated sex counts as pornographic or not. They simply don’t care. They like watching what they want to watch, and they don’t want to be told otherwise. They may use semantics as a smokescreen, or they may hide behind the rhetoric of “free speech” and “it’s for the sake of art” and “the story demands that scene,”4 but the reality is that they relish onscreen sexual immorality and the social acceptability of watching it.
We need to be careful, however, about projecting this fourth condition on all who excuse a porn aesthetic. Sure, some are no doubt defending hypersexualized content because they don’t want to admit it’s immoral (and that they enjoy consuming it), which would require them to both examine their own hearts and be more selective with their entertainment choices. But not everyone who fits into one of the first three categories above is automatically lascivious. Such accusations require wisdom—and, in many cases, they also should probably require a certain level of familiarity with the other party. Knee-jerk, drive-by accusations of lasciviousness (whether online or in person) are both uncharitable and unhelpful.
The Proper Response
Consider this more of a “thinking out loud” concluding section, as I’m still formulating my position on the matter.
How can we best engage with those who display one or more of the approaches above? Wisdom would seem to dictate that there is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer. Even so, a good rule of thumb may be to start by asking clarifying questions. Attempting to better understand where a person is coming from can help disarm their defensiveness and clarify their position.
One additional thought that has been percolating in my mind is this: while writing on this topic, I’ve been operating on the presupposition that ours is a pornified culture, and that pornographic material has seeped into nearly all forms of visual media. I’ve been considering that a given—and since secular scholarship corroborates my findings, I’ve been assuming that professing Christians would agree with me as well—on a macro level, at least.
However, as I look back over many of the discussions I’ve participated in over the years, it appears my assumptions may be faulty. There seem to be some people—decent and upstanding followers of Christ—who would question my presupposition, to one degree or another. To them, “naked bodies grinding on each other pretending to have intercourse” does not necessarily constitute a porn aesthetic; it might just constitute Art Told for the Sake of a Story That is True to Life (and Might be a Little Too Spicy for Immature, “Weaker Brother” Individuals).
This is where reader feedback would be helpful. How do you think I could provide an even more convincing case for the pornification of our entertainment? How could I better connect the dots between what secular sources have pointed out and what some Christians seem to deny? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Examples include The Porning of America: The Rise of Porn Culture, What It Means, and Where We Go from Here (2009); The Pornification of America: How Raunch Culture Is Ruining Our Society (2021); and The Space of Sex: The Porn Aesthetic in Contemporary Film and Television (2021). Secular organizations that address the pornification of Western culture include Culture Reframed, Collective Shout, and Beauty Redefined.
This being the case, it might behoove me to write a post that defines the terms I’ve been using, so as to provide greater clarity and specificity to my meaning.
“[God] rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)” (2 Peter 2:7-8).
For clarity’s sake, not everyone who makes these arguments is lascivious in nature. I simply mean that lascivious individuals may utilize these arguments because they provide a smokescreen for the true state of their hearts.