The truth that creating and using erotic media is not intrinsically sinful is not a popular one. But almost nothing that is true is actually popular, and not many people genuinely sacrifice their assumptions, preferences, and feelings at the altar of truth. Truth alone can set us free (John 8:32), and truth is what Jesus came to affirm (John 18:37). I care nothing for the feelings or preferences of others wherever they do not align with reality. But long-time readers of my blog have seen this, and have also seen how it is not uncommon for me to write about truths that few others will. What I will prove in this series is extremely controversial--but that does not make it untrue!
I want to emphasize up front the fact that women are not less sexual than men because, although my culture will not acknowledge this, the Bible does, and reason affirms it as well [1]. I despise the American emphasis on male sexuality over female sexuality and the fact that many Americans I've met assume that men and women must have certain sexual impulses or inclinations simply because of their gender, when this has nothing to do with their gender and everything to do with their individual personalities and whatever cultural conditioning they have received. As such, I will not be fallaciously, unbiblically, and erroneously treating erotic media or sexual desire as gender-specific issues. This blog is about sharing demonstrable truths, not about acceptance of the popular fictions of the masses.
I do not watch erotic videos or view images of sexual activity. This is not out of any misguided sense of guilt or a faulty understanding of morality, but simply because I do not want to do so. I wanted to clarify this because some Christians fallaciously reject some moral claims because they think that those who affirm them are just trying to justify a sinful habit. Of course, these Christians are certainly not rationalists (or not consistent ones), much less rational. But even if I did engage in these practices, that has nothing to do with the correctness of my reasoning; logic, not my actions, determines the veracity of my claims. Realizing that erotic media is not sinful is the culmination of realizing many individual but extremely important things about God, morality, sexuality, and human nature. As such, I will reference older blog posts where I discuss in greater detail specific aspects of some of the truths I will mention.
Sexual Metaphysics
Sexual energy is not an objectifying force, but just another aspect of human nature. Sexuality, as long as it is not sinfully used, is inherently good (Genesis 1:31), just like the human body as a whole. Experiencing sexual attraction or arousal is not lust, regardless of the marital status of the person experiencing them. Matthew 5:28, which condemns lust, is often used to condemn sexual attraction, yet it only condemns coveting the spouse of another person (see the Greek word for lust), the first step in committing adultery. Objectification is reducing someone to one aspect of themselves--viewing someone as a sexual object is literally isolating his or her sexuality from all of that person's other human aspects, which could be an extremely difficult thing to do. Objectifying someone is not the same as lusting after them (coveting), as one could lust without objectifying. However, both are sins and should be thoroughly condemned as such [2]. But the Bible never condemns sexual attraction or sexual arousal. They are not the problems. Every time a man or woman experiences attraction or arousal, that person could thank God for the pleasures of sexuality and for the goodness of the human body and all of its functions. The creation story of Genesis reveals the theological truth that they are inherently good unless misused.
As I will elaborate more thoroughly on in part two, and as I have explained many times on my blog, conscience and cultural beliefs are purely arbitrary tools that are totally ineffective at revealing moral truths. Only divine revelation can establish moral knowledge. This can not only be proven entirely from logic alone, but the Bible repeatedly teaches this in verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7, and 1 John 3:4. Feelings, social norms, and preferences have no value for discovering truth of any sort, and that includes moral truth.
A person can experience sexual arousal and sexual attraction directed at a particular member of the opposite gender, even if separately married, and still respect that person as a full human being who has many more components to his or her personhood than just sexuality. Humans still possess rationality and free will, meaning that we can grasp logic and control our actions regardless of our surroundings. Sex and sexuality do not and cannot make us desire or carry out sinful things. Sexuality is not something to fear or worship [3]; it is something to acknowledge, understand, and celebrate, but not something that defines the entirety of what it means to be human and not something that is itself sinful. To demonize sexuality is to demonize something that God created and called very good--and that is sinful.
While on the topic of the nature of sexuality I want to emphasize again a very important point. Contrary to what some seem to believe, nothing is inherently sexual except sex acts--not emotional intimacy between men and women, deep friendships between men and women, shirtlessness (for men), toplessness (for women, although I don't know why different words get used sometimes), full public nudity, bikinis (even thong bikinis), speedos, any other kind of clothing, simple flirtation, or attraction (there are many kinds of nonsexual attraction). Any combination of these things does not have an intrinsically sexual nature. I have addressed many of these issues on other posts in great depth, so I will not revisit each of my points here. But make no mistake: very few things are actually sexual, although there is nothing sinful about sexually appreciating things like nudity.
Experiencing sexual attraction or arousal is never itself sinful and people should not feel guilty or ashamed for experiencing them. Men and women, whether single or separately married, can sexually admire each other--intentionally appreciating the sexuality of someone of the other gender--without coveting or objectifying each other or viewing every situation or interaction as sexual. The problem occurs not when people sexualize an instance of nudity or attraction or flirting or enjoy it in a sexual way, but when they treat nudity, attraction, flirting, and so on as sexual things in themselves. This is an enormous logical and Biblical error. Almost nothing is sexual in itself, and to say otherwise is to grievously lie.
What Is Erotic Media?
Erotic media is a work of any medium (sculpture, literature, painting, movie, video game, etc.) dedicated to portraying sex and inciting sexual arousal or desire. Nudity is entirely nonsexual left to itself, so the presence of nudity in a photograph, movie, sculpture, painting, book, or video game does not make the work it appears in erotic media. The Bible is very pro-nudity [4]. Besides, whether or not nudity is sinful is an issue totally separate from the morality of erotic media, a red herring--but the Bible clearly teaches that nudity is not only not sinful, but it is good. God created humans naked (Genesis 2:25), called it very good (Genesis 1:31), never condemned it in Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 4:2 condemns adding to the Law), allowed for it in Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:26-27), and commanded Isaiah to be totally nude for three years (Isaiah 20:1-6). Nudity is neither sexual nor sinful in itself! Someone could certainly create a work using a medium with the intent of portraying the nudity as sexual or sexually arousing, and the results might truly depict nudity in a sexual way (although this would likely be impossible to prove in some cases), but nudity in art and the public nudity of actual persons is inherently nonsexual left to itself.
For the sake of clarity, I will distinguish erotic media from media that simply depicts sex. A movie might have a sex scene, even a graphic one, but the movie cannot correctly be called "erotic media" if sex is not the focus of the work, whereas a video entirely about sex would qualify for that title. Although many people would simply use the word "pornography" as an interchangeable synonym for erotic media, what I mean when I use the word pornography is much more specific. I use the word to refer to its historical, etymological meaning: writings (or other media by logical extension) of forbidden/sinful sexual acts. Just as all murder is killing but not all killing is murder, all women are people but not all people are women, and all mathematics is logic but not all logic is mathematics, so too all pornography is erotic media but not all erotic media is pornography.
However, just seeing a sinful sex act is not sinful. Seeing any sin isn't sinful, whether that sin is theft, lying, blasphemy, illicit anger, bestiality, rape, murder, ungratefulness, or unbiblical forms of torture. Christians are called to be like God (Ephesians 5:1) by viewing sin properly. We can be like God in how he views sex as well. But if, say, a Christian man or woman watches a movie that has a scene showing the act of adultery, the Christian has not sinned if he or she has a bodily reaction of arousal. First of all, physical arousal of the genitals can be entirely involuntary. It is different from mental arousal and either one can exist apart from the other, so neither is an indicator that the other is present. Second of all, there is no sin in experiencing arousal (1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 4:2). This does not mean that the person derives pleasure from observing evil. It just means that his or her body is responding to external stimuli, not that his or her mind harbors sinful thoughts or motives. There is nothing wrong with writing about or visually portraying sexual immorality, but creating an erotic work about sexual immorality with the intent of arousing in viewers a desire to tolerate, engage in, or enjoy sexual sin is wrong. Likewise, viewing it with the intentions the creator wants in viewers is also sinful.
Having explained the nature of sexuality and defined erotic media, in part two I will examine sexual morality, why non-pornographic erotic media is not sinful at all, and then in part three I will refute some objections to these conclusions.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/sexuality-in-marriage-part-3-gender-lies.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-cause-of-sexual-objectification.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/sex-is-sacred-but.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/bible-on-nudity-part-2-refutation-of.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-naturalness-of-nudity.html
No comments:
Post a Comment