Perino del Vaga, The Marriage Bed of Jupiter and Juno, 1501-47
As I pointed out in Pt. 1, a healthy prerequisite to a discussion about sex and nudity in cinema requires evangelicals to avoid rhetorical caricatures of “opponents” (as either prudes or pervs) and their motives and intentions (“So you’re championing sex and nudity???”). Having said that, let me engage the actual objections used by Gregory Shane Morris in his recent article No Buts About It. I’m focusing on Morris’ points as they are largely representative of the evangelical position on sex and nudity in cinema. Let me distill those arguments this way:
- “Would you let your mother, spouse, or child do that?” — The Golden Rule argument
- “But the images on the screen are REAL.” — The Nudity Isn’t Fake argument
- “Seeing naked people on screen causes people to sin.” — The Seeing is Sin argument
- “Nudity is not required to make the story better.” — The Cleaner the Better argument
Of course, there’s other arguments and layers of argument which intersect. But allow me to proffer some brief rebuttals to those points. (Being that I’m on a writing deadline, and to keep this from becoming a 10,000 word essay, I’ll address each of these in single posts.)
I.) The Golden Rule argument — “Would you let your wife or daughter do that?” This has become one of the go-to arguments recently. Morris quotes Tim Challies before making his conclusion:
“What would it take for you? What would it take for you, husband, to be okay with your wife baring her breasts and body in front of a movie camera? What would it take for you to allow another man to strip off her clothes, to kiss her, to fall into bed with her, and to pantomime having sex with her? . . . What would it take for you to be okay with the rest of us watching this as entertainment? Would you be okay if she tells you she want to go in for boob surgery? or would you rather have her use The Bust Boosters? And you, wife, would you be okay if your husband was the one acting it all out, holding her in his arms, mimicking ecstasy?”
Challies concludes with a simple appeal to the Golden Rule. If we wouldn’t accept our spouses aping sex on camera with a Hollywood star, why do we think it’s okay for someone else’s spouse to do it?
Okay, so there’s two things going on here — nudity and simulated sex — which tend to get conflated and muddy the discussion. Are we talking about a woman “baring her breasts and body in front of a movie camera” AND THEN simulating sex with a similarly nude actor? Or are we condemning both separately — nudity AND simulated sex? My sense is that Morris, Challies, and Piper are conveniently meshing both together. For example, Challies in his article Sex on the Silver Screen writes,
I believe the Bible makes it very clear that sex and the nakedness that goes with it are sacred, matters to be shared only between a husband and wife. What is good and appropriate within marriage—unashamed nakedness and uninhibited sex—are matters of exclusivity and privacy. (Emphasis mine)
Challies proceeds to argue against both cinematic nakedness and sexuality, as if the two are inseparable.
Such arguments often assume that nudity is intrinsically sexual. (We’ll discuss this issue later down the road.) Not to mention, it also assumes that all nudity and sex scenes are the same, that the nudity in Children of Men is the same as nudity in American Pie, or that the sex scene in Scorcese’s Age of Innocence or Atonement is the same as the sex scenes in Monster’s Ball or 9 and 1/2 Weeks. While it may seem like hair-splitting, I think it’s important to separate those two issues — a person baring their body for a camera and a person that bares their body and then jumps into another’s arms are two different things.
The problem for advocates of a NO NUDITY / NO SEX SCENES stance is this: If there’s a justification for SOME nudity in film, then the Golden Rule argument is not hard and fast. In fact, I’d suggest that the reason that proponents of a prohibition against watching nudity is just that — the moment they say that SOME might be tolerable, their argument breaks down. Which is why nudity and sex are typically lumped together in this argument.
I generally agree with my conservative friends about simulated sex. Unmarried couples engaging in “pretend” copulation is not just uncomfortable to watch, but often requires actors to put their bodies and themselves in morally compromising positions (as actress Jennifer Lawrence confessed about her uncomfortable sex scene with Chris Pratt). Mind you, I’m referring to graphic sex scenes which involve nudity, the touching of unclothed body parts, and acting out of sexual contact. (Interestingly enough, Lawrence later admitted in an interview with Chris Pratt’s wife that she felt no such discomfort kissing unmarried actors; her guilty feelings stemmed from the fact that Pratt was married.) Even if the artistic aim of the director is to convey something troubling, abusive, or even redemptive, such scenes still require actual people to place their nude bodies in uncomfortable proximity to an actual act of illicit intercourse. In this sense, drawing a line at not watching nude simulated sex scenes is not just a matter of your own chastity, but out of respect for the actors involved in those scenes.
However, it must also be acknowledged that “sex scenes” come in lots of different forms. Not all of them involving stripping someone of their clothes and “mimicking ecstasy” in wild full-frontal gyrations. Some are implied, done off-screen, involve cut-aways, or suggestive lead-ups. But every sex scene does not necessarily involve naked bodies grinding on each other. However, using the Golden Rule logic — Would you want your spouse or parent doing that? — even various gradations of “sexual” relationships being portrayed by non-married actors and actresses could be seen as too risque. Things like caressing skin, embracing, unbuttoning a piece of clothing, or kissing, could be construed as out-of-bounds to some. Even the obligatory kiss, cut-away, couple laying side-by-side in bed could appear uncomfortably compromising for some. I mean, would you want your spouse to be seen laying next to someone not her spouse in bed with even the insinuation that they just had sex? Even though nothing is actually shown! If the same Golden Rule principle, as applied by proponents, is teased out, watching someone else’s husband or wife (or spouse, child, etc.) lie in bed with an actor not their spouse, kiss, caress, or lay their head on that actor’s chest could — perhaps should — evoke similar condemnation. In fact, ALL bodily contact between actors who are not married to each other involving actions meant to convey a relational or sexual gesture, should be reasonably avoided. It’s easy to frame “sex scenes” in the most explicit terms. But is there any cinematic expression of love, attraction, or sensuality between two non-married actors that the conservative critic will concede? If so, then the Golden Rule argument breaks down.
Novelist Cap Stewart sees the objectification and dehumanization of actors as central to applying the Golden Rule principle. Cap outlines the uncomfortable symmetry between Hollywood sex scenes, the porn industry, and the individuals left in their wake. Although he is clear to acknowledge that not every sex scene leaves actors feeling like pieces of meat, a good portion of them do. Which is why in his post Dehumanizing Actors for Our Entertainment Cap challenges those who might defend watching sex scenes on the grounds that not all actors feel exploited.
“…when you argue that ‘not everyone feels this way,’ what does that say about you? Do you mean that treating actors like pieces of meat isn’t a real problem unless it’s done 100% of the time? That dehumanizing actors is acceptable in Hollywood so long as it’s practiced in moderation? That actors should just accept sexual objectification as a normal hardship of stardom? I don’t see how such a stance can be anything but a form of moral negligence. It’s irresponsible—at best.
God created humans in His own image. Objectifying and dehumanizing them is bad enough, but doing so for our entertainment is sick and sinful. It shows a disregard for the second greatest commandment of all time: to love our neighbor as ourselves.”
As I mentioned in part one, in this debate, there is a real temptation to call into question the morals and motives of those on the opposite side rather than engage their argument. They’re either prudes or they’re perverts, depending on where you land. Cap doesn’t go so far as call someone like me a perv, however, he’s clear that he believes such a defense is egregious. “What does that say about you?” he asks. “I don’t see how such a stance can be anything but a form of moral negligence. It’s irresponsible—at best.”
So from the outset, in Cap’s eyes, I’m punching up because my stance says something about me, is a form of moral negligence, at least irresponsible. Frankly, this is what makes the discussion of this subject so difficult (and heated) in Christian circles — to defend a more libertine approach to film in evangelical circles is often seen as moral negligence.
I think Cap makes a good and fair point about the objectification and dehumanization of artists in Hollywood. This is a reality I find difficult to dispute. It goes hand in hand with our cultural slide into moral relativism and ever-expanded sexual license. That Hollywood and the entertainment industry has played a part in this is no question. But is it fair to say that because this happens that, therefore, all Hollywood is culpable, all films that contain nudity or sexual elements are shameful, and all those evangelicals who view films containing elements of nudity or some form of sex scene are irresposible and complicit?
I’m not sure if Cap would go this far. Is he suggesting we strictly avoid all films with sex scenes and/or nudity? Is he cautioning us to be more discerning or simply issuing a blanket prohibition? I’m not sure. But the conclusion drawn by many evangelicals definitely falls along the more cautionary lines. For example, John Piper’s Seven Questions to Ask Before You Watch ‘Deadpool’ seems fairly unambiguous about its aim. Some of the reasons we should not watch Deadpool, according to Piper, are that watching naked people causes us to sin, defiles our heart and mind, shows disregard for the souls of the nudes, violates the Golden Rule, and supports an exploitative industry. Clearly implicit in Piper’s conclusion is that ‘Good Christians don’t watch Deadpool.’
Again, this is where I think the Golden Rule argument, at least as it’s being used by proponents, fails. The Golden Rule also means giving directors, actors and actresses, and movie-goers freedom and the benefit of the doubt; it means not incriminating an entire industry, its varied players, and those who make choices contrary to yours. It goes without saying that films, filmmakers, actors and actresses, and the hearts of movie-goers exist within a very broad spectrum. It’s far easier to broadbrush the industry and make absolutist statements — Hollywood objectifies and dehumanizes actors; Nudity is evil; Seeing nudity leads to sin — than it is to admit that there may be far more gray than we’d like. Two things can be simultaneously true here. It is entirely possible to admit that dehumanization and objectification of actors is a problem AND that there’s plenty of films and filmmakers who do not exploit actors and plenty of filmgoers who can make responsible decisions. There are a lot of cars and Matratze Multivan out in the set.
In his post Nudity in Film, Joshua Gibbs addresses the charge Would you let your daughter do that? this way:
…plenty of Christians who get up in arms about a lady’s nipples tend to not talk much about the latex cat suits Marvel greases Scarlet Johansson into every summer, though I doubt many fathers would let their daughters do that either. I wouldn’t let my daughter don a chainmail bikini and lounge on a leash as Jabba’s sex slave, either. I wouldn’t let my daughter wear blue paint and scales to do an X-Men movie, either. Many Christians tend to write those cat suits and bikinis and blue paint off as “the price of being entertained today,” which has always struck me as more than a little opportunistic, but there are also plenty of Christians who simply aren’t taking their sons to Avengers or X-Men flicks because of those cat suits. If a man is willing to subsidize an X-Men movie which he wouldn’t allow his daughter to act in, his righteous indignation over nudity in films is at very least inconsistent. If refusing to take a boy to an X-Men movie seems prudish, we should at least be willing to admit that what an adult would be willing to let his or her daughter do on film is a profoundly imprecise way of determining what is allowable for other people. (bold, mine)
On the surface, the Golden Rule argument seems compelling. But upon deeper inspection, there’s still lots of gray. Just because you wouldn’t watch your spouse or child strip for the camera, wear chainmail and pretend to be a sex slave, or dress like Black Widow, does not justify passing a decree that anyone who creates or watches such enactments are categorically sinning. The Golden Rule goes both ways. We can acknowledge that problems DO exist in Hollywood and that performing some sex or nude scenes DOES require moral compromise and leaves terrible emotional scars on some of those who perform them. We can acknowledge that our culture is in steep moral decline and that Hollywood, and the entertainment industry in general, fuels much of that decline. Yet we should also acknowledge the many films and filmmakers who do not seek to objectivize and dehumanize others, the many thoughtful actors and actresses who struggle with difficult career and artistic decisions, and be willing to give discerning filmgoers the benefit of the doubt in their viewing choices.
The connection to “X = inherently immodest!” doesn’t even make sense. There are cultures wherein a woman showing her hair is immodest, so are we “sinfully desensitized” because we show our hair? If our line for what to wear or show is dependent on cultural definitions of modest, why don’t we all walk around in niqab or burqa? Surely there’s some line where holding ourselves accountable for others’ lust is ridiculous.
But by that same token, if a culture considers something modest, how is it innately sinful to wear or show?
What strikes me as more important is why is X worn (or not worn)? If the goal is to attract romantic or sexual attention from others, then you’ll be immodest in sweatpants and sweatshirt. (I’ve witnessed it.) But if your goal is to wear X because, well, it fits your situation, then what’s the problem?
Nudity in art strikes me as a similar situation. If the entire point of it is get viewers hot and bothered, then that’s not exactly waiting to awaken love as spoken of in Song of Songs—leastways, not per how I understand it. But I also don’t see how Black Widow’s cat suit is a case in point.
With the hourglass body type, clinginess is unavoidable, unless you’re willing to look pregnant or wear things that seriously don’t fit (and poor fit, in my own experience, screws up balance and gets in your way). V-necks are also better than high necks at drawing the eye to the face. (Again, personal experience.)
Also, guys wear similarly fit gear in comparable positions. A secure fit is practical for armor, and I haven’t heard anyone complaining when a guy runs around in Spandex or paint and cutoffs.
My gift of celibacy might be kicking in on some of this, but…wearing a miniskirt—for me—results in less demeaning treatment from guys. I have some theories as to why, but I don’t know for sure. I just know I’m more likely to get disrespected and treated badly when focus on following “the rulez” for modesty.
I agree! Now bikini “armor” bugs me, because the midsection needs to be protected! And I think there is a difference between close fitting and “how did she get into that?” But then again, if I’m honest, I like seeing shirtless guys in a movie occasionally, so it feel hypocritical to call objectification for all the tight clothes on women.
Also for real life dressing — modern fit jeans or a mini skirt and leggings don’t draw a second look from guys, but I was downright leered at the day I word a maxi skirt to college. But when I wore jeans to homeschool events, I’d get some looks. I think it comes down to what’s normal for the culture around you.
Yeah, I agree that men are drawn to look at what is revealing or alluring. But only if what it reveals is sexually connected. In some cultures, the woman’s waist (exposed belly button) is not sexual (sari, anyone?) but the legs are very alluring. So the legs are covered up and skirts must be ankle length.
You can actually teach men to be stirred by something they were “used to” before. I remember I read an article about Somalia before the state’s failure. Before the country was radicalized by Salafi Islam, young men talked about going to college and sitting with girls wearing ankle socks and knee skirts, and “thinking nothing of it.” Suddenly, it was exciting and distressing to see an exposed ankle.
I wish there was more research done on this.
Was having an interesting discussion with the hubby about this. He’s a totally-turns-his-face-away or avert-the-eyes sort of guy–whether there’s nudity or a love scene on the tv or the movie theater. He simply won’t watch. I will pick and choose what’s uncomfortable, and not watch what puts me off or feels icky.
However, in the discussio, the “nudity is real” argument came up. And I stopped for a moment and went, um, no, it’s not. I can’t reach through the tv screen as I could a window and touch that body, anymore than the body on a canvas or statue is real. It’s pixels. If a painting with nudity is okay, and a sculpture with nudity is okay, how is an arrangement of pixels fundamentally different from an arrangement of pigments or marble? Truth is, tv is not real, that image is not real, and the person is not there. But we like to think of it as real, because, “it happened.” Well, nude people posed for those paintings and sculptures. It happened then , too. And that is something to think about in this ongoing thing we got here.
Hi, Mike, and thanks for daring to speak to this subject. It’s been some time since I’ve commented since my reputation for bluntness, like Mr. Foyle of Foyle’s War, gets me in trouble and on the receiving end of comments designed to deconstruct me (not so much from you as from certain others). Let me say categorically, appreciation of beauty is not a sin. It is not a sin to appreciate beauty, whether that is the beauty of a golden sunset or the beauty of the proverbial bikinied gold-tressed woman in her prime. Christian pundits who write about this tend to fall into one of two camps — puritans like Piper or libertines like you. (That last is completely facetious, since there are people who think you’re some kind of ungodly libertine on a number of things. You’re not. ) What is important to me, and this is just me personally, is I always have to ask myself WHAT IS MY MOTIVE? Whether I am looking at something that may have nudity in it (Like The Bible film) or whether I am writing a “scene” involving sexuality. For example, my current WIP actually has a porn studio in it. But the focus is on what happens to the people who run it, not the sins committed therein. I chose to have this element not to arouse or inflame, but to show what people who sow this stuff eventually reap: destruction. My motive determined everything. And I agree with you (gasp!) that much of this subject is a lot more gray and individual than the puritan element in the church decrees. Seeing a naked woman may or may not cause someone to sin. But again, what is your motive? I ask myself this all day long. Do I do all things to please God, or myself? Let’s don’t lose our own personal motivation in the depth of this discussion. I applaud your courage for speaking up. Thanks!
Yes, H.G., I think the “motive” issue is what makes this so frustrating for those who lean toward Law. Jesus said in Matt. 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus is obviously NOT saying that anyone who simply looks on a woman or man is committing sin. It is the way we look, how we look, and why we look that approves or disapproves us before God. Which, in theory, means it is possible to look upon a person (clothed or unclothed!) without sinful motivations. Granted, the line may be thin and it may be an open door to temptation. But it is the motive and not the simple act that makes it wrong.
All of this pearl-clutching has more to do with Victorianism than it does Christianity. There really shouldn’t even be a discussion because it doesn’t even come to that point–everyone’s own moral conscience, as connected to God, should decide. They might be wrong, but they will be right far more than a theologian or minister who knows nothing about them could decide.
Interesting subject! Well, I think that H.G. guy got it right when he asked, “What is your motive?” We know the motives of the porn industry, and we know the motives of Michelangelo when he created the David. One is for money and the other is for the sake of art/beauty. We also now that “sex sells” and that both cable and broadcast TV are pushing the envelope further and further each year because, in the TV game: sex/nudity means viewers and views mean rating and rating mean money. In today’s world it seems most forms of media are following this pattern. Moving closer to prom as the become “more daring” because of the diminishing returns principle.
So most anything that comes from the media these days feels somehow tainted and “dirty” to most Christians. This makes it harder to find a way off addressing nudity and sex in a way that feels un-sinful or “dirty.” In a novel I recently finished one character raped another (don’t worry, he paid for it later) and I described, explained, showed nothing and I feel OK about that, not sure I would if I’d been more graphic.
In my humble opinion, if a Christian writer is inserting sex and/or nudity into their novel they’d better be careful. Just because a writer described a loving encounter between husband and wife—which is completely acceptable in God’s eyes, it doesn’t mean some 13-year old boy isn’t going to read that and not be lead to sin. I don’t ever plan to include sex or nudity in any of my stories for that reason…If I were responsible for another person being lead into sin (even if I never heard about it) it would be terrible.
We can make all kinds of moral stands about free speech and artistic expressing but these and human ideals, not Godly ones. God tells us not to lead others into sin….that’s it. Case closed, at least for me.
But I am only one person and cannot tell others how or what to write. Everyone should create what they have in them…but please: Be mindful of the unintended consequences that MAY (not necessarily will) result.
Keith, I agree with you about media and entertainment in general and the pornification of culture. Christians have good reason to be especially discerning of and cautious about sex in pop culture. However, I’m not sure about the issue of stumbling others. Yes, Scripture is clear about not allowing our liberties to stumble others (I Cor. 8:9). However, there’s a potential for many things in art, even things done tastefully and non-explicitly, to become a stumbling block for someone (see my case of being stumbled by the scenes of Eve in the G-rated “The Bible” in my previous post). Like you, I pretty much stay away from explicit sex in my tales. However, in a couple instances I have have described a woman as busty, her leather skirt hugging her thighs, and a man as having a great physique. In my latest novel, I describe one character this way, “she could rock a pair of yoga pants like it was nobody’s business.” Is this going too far? (For the record, one of the reasons I used yoga pants is because there’s been vigorous debates about whether or not Christian women should wear them.) The thing is, someone COULD be stumbled by such things. Are they done tastefully? I think so. Are they gratuitous and over-the-top? I don’t think so. So at some point, the best I can do is to not be intentionally lurid about details and just trust my own readers to guard their hearts.
Sorry auto correct changed “porn” to “prom”
You’re talking to the culture that produced such thought-provoking art as Christian Mingle and God’s Not Dead 2. I don’t think they would look up from reading their Joyce Meyer books and watching their ten-pack of badly animated Bible movies to consider your argument.
Might as well get used to the fact that you’ll always be between both worlds as a Christian artists, and won’t be understood by your compatriots.
Mike I was searching this article, expecting you to bring up a specific point about why sex/nudity may have a legitimate place in film art for the Christian (love the title BTW). You didn’t, so I am posing it here.
We WANT men and women (but especially men) to be sexually responsive to interactive, mutually responsive sex in the context of love, esteem, honor and commitment. I want those scenes to be imagined and depicted in all kinds of art, AND I want young people to see them. I want the imaginations and artistic passions of directors, writers and film makers to bring to life some seriously hot, poetic copulation. The best of sex and the best of love and the best of fidelity, monogamy and nobility must be celebrated by artists – or something else will.
Instead of the best revelations of sex, “erotic” moments in movies will be the “damaged hero” of 50 Shades of Grey (*BLECH, “Christian”) for girls and for boys – pornographic tricks that are painful and impossible to get consent to do with anyone sober except a hooker.
And they will find that sexy.
And we’re annoyed about some butts on screens??? MISSING THE POINT
You don’t get to make nudity and sex commonplace, and somehow expect it only to be “good” sex. When they made more realistic depiction of violence in films, they didn’t just confine it to art films that show poignantly the tragic costs of violence on people and society. They made films with a little violence, films with a lot of violence, and films that made violence and end in itself.
Once you open the box, you don’t get to control what comes out. And surprise surprise, women tend to actually LIKE people like grey, or like sexual practices that may make you shudder. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been making erotic romance probably one of the better selling genres out there for so long.
The idea that somehow you can control that primal force to positive ends in movies strikes me as laughable. Either open it up or don’t-don’t have any illusions that it can somehow be managed for good ends only.
I’m honored that you would deal directly with some of my work on this subject. Thank you! A few thoughts in response (in no particular order):
As was mentioned on Facebook, I’m actually only a freelance writer (and not a novelist…yet!).
You are absolutely right about the “would you let your wife/daughter do that?” principle being quite subjective. That’s why I like to focus on (as you mention) the objectification of actors through the use of pornified entertainment—i.e., depictions of the sex act itself (whether it involves explicit nudity or not).
Looks like your definition of “sex scene” is more comprehensive than mine. I wouldn’t consider implied or off-screen sex as a “sex scene” because…well, there’s no scene that shows the sex act. So aside from the difference in semantics, we seem to agree there as well. In fact, I’ve also blogged in defense of dealing with sexual themes in movies: http://www.capstewart.com/2014/08/in-defense-of-some-sex-in-movies.html.
I wouldn’t call people like you who disagree with me (even if only slightly) as perverts. When I ask the question, “What does this say about you?”, I don’t mean to imply intentional evil; I only mean to point others to possible blind spots (because we all have them). There are plenty of people who are strongly devoted to personal purity in their movie watching habits who, unfortunately (and even unknowingly) treat actors like whores: http://www.capstewart.com/2014/07/how-to-tell-if-youre-treating-actors.html.
I would not agree with people like Challies and Piper that seeing nudity is inherently sinful. I don’t think that case can be made.
We are in agreement, I believe, that it would be uncharitable to label all of Hollywood (and every use of sexually thematic material) as evil. That’s unfair and, as you say, doesn’t apply the golden rule to those within the Hollywood system: http://www.capstewart.com/2014/10/should-we-label-hollywood-as-evil.html.
In your effort to not come down too hard on Hollywood, though, it seems like you’re still unwilling to promote any clearly definable standards. I appreciate your desire for charity and nuance, but there’s a difference between nuance and refusing to draw any lines in the sand.
Thing is… Folks approach art in different ways.
If someone approaches something to be titillated, they can find something to get ’em going regardless of the artist’s motives or the actual content in the artwork. People make dirty jokes and get their minds down that sort of path by the sight or mention of certain foods. That doesn’t make it a sin to see or eat a banana.
So the “rule in the sand”, for artist or viewer, really has to boil down to motive—what’s on the person’s heart?
Let’s go back to the topic of the BDSM books. Folks might read them out of curiosity, enjoyment, escapism, wistfulness, voyeurism, and all sorts of other reasons—some of which have little or nothing to do with lust.
I have, quite obviously, read some BDSM titles, though not the Fifty Shades series. I personally find them interesting for the psychology. I don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction whatsoever—as in, on-page (or on-screen) sex doesn’t even trigger a physiological reaction except “Ew”. (Seriously, “How is that sanitary?” tends to be my foremost thought.)
I’ve had to essentially learn/memorize cues just to be able to notice when someone’s flirting with me. Even then…it’s still learned, not instinctual, and it gets awkward. (I’m pretty and approachable.)
Since it’s impossible for me to get titillated (insofar as I’ve experienced heretofore in my life), I may find it easier than the average person to spot the difference between something designed solely to titillate and something designed with consideration for how it can titillate. I may not be able to identify a specific rule for “This is the difference!”, but I know it when I see it.
Duh.
We’re not required by God as Christians to control what kind of art is made by everyone (if I am a Christian. For sake of argument, lets say I am).
Every artist is responsible for the work he/she puts out there. People will continue to make low art or non-art. Or just trashy art. If there’s nothing GOOD to point to, people don’t know what they’re missing.
I wasn’t even going the way of “Control the culture!” How about just making a positive contribution to it? When’s the last time you saw a truly “hot” romance depicted (In ANY medium) between two well adjusted adults in a consensual, committed, non-abusive setting?
My argument boiled down to the fact that art can reveal our true yearnings to us. Which can be a spiritual revelation for the viewer/reader/consumer. Even in sex.
Now that the snark is out of my system, on to your much more interesting comment about Christian Grey (*Blech! – yes, every time).
(This is all in good fun, by the way)
Every man’s got a theory. Heck, I think every woman’s got a different answer. But I see a trend with the BDSM billionaire.
A lot of these BDSM male protagonists have this in common in books: they are OBSESSED with not only the object of their affection (the female protagonist), but also with her response to them in bed. They’re so tuned in to what she’s feeling, and her sexual experience seems to add to his. Basically, his obsession extends to her, sexually. And even if he’s whipping her butt as foreplay, it’s about how she’s turned on by it. Call me crazy, but it seems to me we’re in an epidemic of selfish lovers in America. Get off, get off, and get out. No one MUST have THAT ONE. No one HAS to focus beyond their own pleasure in the sex act. For millions of women, I think a man obsessed with you AND your body and the woman’s desire – which turns him on, is something very attractive.*
*Ahem, albeit weirdly couched in the body of a baby faced, manipulative, controlling, seething, can-afford-to-have-you-kidnapped-or-killed, confuses-girlfriend-with-his-crackwhore-mother, obsessive-compulsive billionaire whose own fragile ego and was obvious the moment he insisted on calling her by the name he wanted to use, instead of her preference. I really hate that his name is “Christian”
What do you think?
An epidemic of selfish lovers, and perhaps an epidemic of selfishness. I’m familiar with a few subdivisions in Christianity where men are supposed to keep their wives (and children, esp. daughters) “under control” while also “loving” them and while both parties also keep in their theoretically Biblical roles. (Note that the subdivisions I’m referring to would generally consider themselves moderates, not extremists.)
These subdivisions (or at least certain cliques in them) say that such authority in a man and obedience in a woman (and in children) is how each party is supposed to show love to each other. The relationship dynamic in Fifty Shades is therefore comparable to what those particular groups idealize, even though the actual application of that dynamic in those books is generally anathema.
Toss in how BDSM books tend to have the guy focused on the woman and her body language and moods rather than only his own, and there can be a wistfulness to it, too, where the reader might wish her husband could show such attention to her body language and such without compromising his sense of self.
This is all academic to me, so perhaps I’m missing something. 🙂