The information in this article, as with any other aspect of truth, is highly controversial in the right circumstances, so read part one [1] and any other posts needed to understand premises which these conclusions follow from if you need a fuller comprehension of why this information is true. In part one I defined erotic media and pornography (the latter being only a subcategory within the former) and proved that sexuality and sexual energy is inherently good unless misused according to the Bible. I also explained how nothing is sexual in itself besides actual sex acts, and why viewing these other things as sexual is to misrepresent reality. Read part one if you need to read about those things first, and do not straw man anything I say here. With all of this said, I will resume where I left off.
Sexual Morality
Before explaining what Biblical sexual morality is I must explain some crucial details about moral knowledge. If there is no God there is no such thing as morality [2]. In an atheistic world there is no moral authority, for there is no metaphysical anchor for any moral standard at all--not just the Christian standard or the Muslim standard, but any standard whatsoever. If God is a being other than myself, then, since I am not a telepath, he must reveal morality to me or I will never know it. A person's conscience, just like the consciences of all other beings with human limitations, is purely subjective and can only tell that person how he or she feels about an act or attitude, not if that thing really is right or wrong.
Conscience is malleable and subject to change and can be conditioned by others or altered by experiences. Its sensitivity and triggers differ from person to person, and people as a whole do not truly agree on the specifics of morality when pressed for details. In short, no preference, feeling, or social standard reveals or determines what is morally right or wrong. God must reveal moral truths for people to know them, and the Bible acknowledges this (Romans 3:20, 7:7, 1 John 3:4). Deuteronomy 4:2 says to not add to God's moral revelation in Mosaic Law, and to know if a moral claim is an extra-Biblical one, it is logically necessary to know the Bible. A Christian cannot know if he or she is adding to the Law except by knowing the Law itself.
The Bible does condemn premarital sex without commitment or that does not lead to commitment (Exodus 22:16-17 [3]), prostitution (Leviticus 19:29, Deuteronomy 23:17-18), adultery (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), homosexual behaviors (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27), incest (see Leviticus 18 in general), sex with someone who is engaged to another person (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), sex trafficking (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5). It doesn't condemn masturbation, public sex, sexual arousal of the genitals, or erotic media.
As for attitudes, the Bible does condemn coveting someone else's spouse (see the Greek word for lust in Matthew 5:28), and wanting to commit an act that is evil is itself evil, so wanting to commit an act of sexual immorality is clearly sinful. It doesn't condemn sexual attraction or mental sexual arousal. Additionally, the very metaphysical value and nature of humans beings condemns objectification, which is reducing someone to just one aspect of their personhood (an object of one type), for we are creatures made in God's image with many more components to our personhood besides sexuality. People ignore reality when they treat sexuality as something to fear, avoid, suppress, and demonize, and they also ignore reality when they view nonsexual things like friendship, physical affection, and the human body as sexual. Many people either worship or fear sexuality, yet rationalist Christians will do neither.
What of the pathetic charge that use of erotic media is tantamount to adultery? Adultery is clearly sinful according to the Bible--but adultery is the act of having sex with someone who is married to another person, and the lust, or adultery of the heart, that Jesus condemns in Matthew 5:28 is the sin of coveting the spouse of someone else (as I've explained in part one). Coveting is the desire to take for yourself what belongs to another person. This is lust, not judging someone to be beautiful (or even sexy), not experiencing sexual attraction, not experiencing genital arousal upon seeing or thinking about someone. It is not adulterous in any way to do something that does not involve lust or a married person having extramarital sex.
There is a plethora of things that are not sexual or adulterous in any way that some Christians may erroneously call sexual or adulterous or both, although logic proves that neither charge is true. These things include deep friendship between a married man or woman and someone of the opposite gender besides his or her spouse, a married person seeing the nude body of someone of the opposite gender besides his or her spouse, and a married person admiring the body of someone of the opposite gender besides his or her spouse. None of these things are adulterous (much less sexual) or sinful and only an irrational, insecure, emotionalistic legalist would ever judge them to be so. But it is also true that viewing morally legitimate erotic media without sinful motives, despite the intrinsically sexual nature of erotic media, is in no way adulterous on a mental level as well (and only a highly irrational person would ever pretend it is adultery on a physical level).
Erotic Media Is Not Sinful
So then, is erotic media sinful? Not at all, unless it is pornographic (see part one for the definition of terms)! Actually, the Bible contains erotic media in the form of sexual poetry in Song of Songs. Since masturbation is not sinful [4], sexual arousal is not sinful, sexual attraction is not sinful, and erotic media is not sinful, it inescapably logically follows that combining them is not sinful as well. The truth is that men and women--and it is so utterly stupid when Americans sometimes act as if men are driven only/primarily by sexual impulses and women are not "visual" or sexual beings (both are enormous errors)--can view or read legitimate erotic media (or view legitimate sexual activity in person) with the explicit intent of sexually arousing their bodies and minds, experiencing sexual energy, and stimulating and playing with their own genitals for personal sexual pleasure. As long as they do not 1) sexually objectify anyone in the process (Genesis 1:26-27), 2) want to take someone else's spouse or significant other for themselves (coveting/lust--Matthew 5:28, Exodus 20:17), or 3) commit or want to commit an actual sexual sin, they are not sinning.
There is also nothing sinful about using erotic media in the presence of other people of either gender besides one's spouse, alone or in a group. This follows logically from other truths. Being naked in front of members of the opposite gender is not sinful--and there is nothing inherently sexual at all about full public nudity, but even if it was sexual in a particular case that would not mean that any party will experience sexual arousal or attraction to the other party/parties. Performing sex acts (morally legitimate ones) in the presence of and using erotic media in the presence of members of the opposite gender, even with opposite gender friends, is not sinful, just as performing legitimate sex acts and using erotic media in the presence of same gender friends is not sinful.
Yes, just as men and women can watch erotic media without objectifying other people or committing sexual sins, men and women, even separately married ones, can use erotic media, masturbate, and perform morally legitimate sex acts in each other's presences and still be friends. Even if there was sexual attraction between them at some point (and this is not an inevitable, unavoidable outcome; cross-gender friendships themselves are not in any way romantic or sexual), sexual attraction is not sinful and is therefore not something to demonize or fear--or something that erases rationality, free will, and self-control. As I explained in part one of The Truth About Erotic Media, sexual energy is not itself objectifying, dangerous, or lustful, and in no way means that men and women who experience it towards each other cannot remain strong, close, and committed friends. And just as it is dehumanizing to mentally reduce someone to only his or her sexuality, it is also dehumanizing to ignore someone else's sexuality. People are sexual beings, and to neglect this is to neglect a major part of the way God intentionally designed humans. Sexuality can be admired in people of the same gender and the opposite gender without sin.
If people were to truly absorb the information I have put forth so far in this series on erotic media, they would likely be far more relaxed about sexuality, far more comfortable with their bodies and bodily functions, and free from so much potential or actual false guilt. They would also recognize that most activities and experiences are not sexual but that many things can still be appreciated in a sexual way or sexualized without objectification. A society of rationalistic Christians who understand logic and Scripture would not find the conclusions mentioned here shocking or terrifying.
In part three I will refute objections to the truths addressed here and will conclude this series.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
No comments:
Post a Comment