The Truth About Erotic Media (Part 3)

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html


Now comes the third and final entry in my series The Truth About Erotic Media.  For the previous parts, see the links above.  In this installment I will address objections I've heard raised against erotic media and will elaborate a little on some of the benefits that erotic media can offer to some people.


Refuting Objections

I already addressed some aspects of several of these objections in parts one and two of this series and/or in other posts.  Here are the main objections to erotic media that I can think of and why they are entirely fallacious and contra-Biblical.

1).  Causes human trafficking

Erotic media cannot actually make someone participate in human trafficking.  In itself, erotic media has nothing at all to do with human trafficking, though some specific, sinful forms of it might aim at trivializing or normalizing nonconsensual sex or sexual slavey.  This does not represent erotic media as a concept whatsoever.  Besides, when some Christians condemn erotic media, their condemnations are broad enough to include everything from portrayals of masturbation to videos or images of committed, married couples engaging in sex acts--things that only a deeply fallacious mind would mistake as media that supports human trafficking.  Kidnapping is a capital crime in the Bible (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), as is rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), but erotic media itself is not sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2).

2).  Causes objectification and lust

Thinking that someone is sexy, becoming aroused by his or her body, and experiencing sexual attraction towards him or her are not objectification and are not what the Bible means by sexual lust (the two are distinct).  In part one of this series I wrote the following (the link is above):

"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."

Just like a man does not and cannot make a woman objectify or lust after him if he walks around shirtless or naked (the asinine idea that women aren't sexual, visual beings is utter nonsense), and just like a woman does not and cannot make a man objectify or lust after her by wearing a bikini [1], so too erotic media cannot make anyone objectify or lust after the men and women in it.  There is nothing sexual about shirtless guys, nudity, or bikinis, of course; I only use these as examples to show the stupidity of claiming that a person, image, or video could make another person objectify him or her.

3).  Causes assault

To say that erotic media can cause sexual assault is analogous to saying that video games cause violence, which logic reveals is objectively and demonstrably untrue [2].  Erotic media cannot cause objectification, nor can it cause someone to kidnap, rape, or otherwise sexually assault another person.  This is true even if someone is using erotic media that presented nonconsensual sexual activities in a positive light--which would not fall into the category of morally legitimate erotic media, as explained in part one.  Making erotic media that glorifies an act of sexual immorality is wrong, as is intending to get aroused from erotic media that presents a sin as good or morally neutral.  But no form of media or entertainment can actually make someone carry out any act, whether good or evil.

4).  Spousal indignation

Indignation over something is subjective.  It varies in extent from person to person, or does not even exist with regards to certain things in the cases of some people.  I know that I wouldn't care at all if my wife uses erotic media (I am not married, I mean if I was), as long as she 1) is not using erotic media that celebrates defined sexual sins and 2) she does not objectify any of the people shown in the media or want to commit a sexual sin with them.  Even if it did upset me, my feelings have nothing to do with the morality of an action, and I cannot have a right to demand that another person cease engaging a nonsinful activity.  Just as no government has the right to demand that I not use playing cards or eat peanuts because such acts are not sinful, and just as no one has the right to demand that I not use profanity in private because profanity is not sinful, no person has a right to demand that another person not use erotic media as long as the motives are not sinful (no lust or objectification) and the media is not glorifying an act of sexual immorality (not because seeing sexual immorality is evil but because viewing it to intentionally become aroused by it is sinful).

5).  Conscience

Conscience, like spousal indignation, is a purely subjective thing and is of no use in determining if something is right or wrong.  If someone doesn't feel comfortable with personally using erotic media, that person does not have to!  No one has to use it, it is just that someone can use morally legitimate erotic media for a variety of purposes, ranging from masturbation aid [3] to sexual education to spousal foreplay, without sinning.  Everyone is permitted by Scripture to have personal convictions or preferences about how they will live their own lives as long as their convictions/preferences do not contradict the Bible.  But demanding that another person abide by one's subjective, extra-Biblical preferences is not only irrational, it is sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 15:3-9, etc).  And people need to realize that any feelings of discomfort that they might have at the thought of or use of morally legitimate erotic media do not mean that erotic media is itself dehumanizing, immoral, or destructive.  Their feelings just mean that they do not want to participate in use of it.

6).  Makes everything seem sexual

People who don't use erotic media can still view nonsexual activities and interactions as sexual.  Whether or not someone reads erotic stories or views erotic images and videos has nothing to do with whether or not that person perceives or treats nonsexual relationships or actions as sexual.  Rational people will realize, like I said in part one and emphasized again in part two, that nothing whatsoever is sexual except for actual sex acts or sexual feelings.  Friendship, emotional intimacy, nudity, the human body, six packs, males going shirtless, bikinis, physical beauty, admiration of beauty, and so on are not in any way sexual in themselves.  Regardless of whether a person uses erotic media, he or she will not view every interpersonal interaction or relationship as sexual as long as he or she has a right understanding of logic and metaphysical reality and as long as his or her subjective feelings are aligned with reality.


Benefits

Other than simply liberating people from unbiblical traditions (Matthew 15:3-9) and rationally affirming the theological goodness of legitimate sexuality (1 Thessalonians 5:21), what practical uses could erotic media serve?  Sex education is one area where it could be useful.  Images or videos of morally legitimate sex acts could help teach sexual anatomy and physiology and satisfy a curiosity natural to many people.  Erotic media also holds potential for aiding arousal.  For instance, it may help physically arouse asexuals who cannot be easily aroused for sex with their spouses, or non-asexual spouses when they want to have sex with their partners but their bodies, minds, or both aren't yet ready.


Conclusion

I don't care if my wife, if I get married in the future, uses erotic media legitimately.  No one's feelings make something right or wrong, regardless.  Even if I did, the act in question isn't sinful, and that's all that ultimately matters.

This is, in my experience, a highly uncommon attitude for someone to have towards a spouse using erotic media.  I don't watch erotic videos or view erotic images.  In this series I have simply been defending highly controversial and largely unspoken truths.  Although many of the facts explained in this series are logically obvious in hindsight, one needs to realize many smaller things to see how the conclusions follow.  Truth is true even if nobody recognizes it.  But it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Bible is certainly not opposed to erotic media for being erotic (1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, Deuteronomy 4:2).


[1].  See here:
A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-cause-of-sexual-objectification.html
B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-clothing-objectify.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/can-video-games-cause-violence.html

[3].  See here:
A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/more-myths-about-masturbation.html
D.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/masturbation-and-self-knowledge.html