Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT
stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less
mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then
you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For
years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular
to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society.
Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult.
As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are
icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future
career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential
employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other
subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any
other backlash that may come up.
Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is
probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians
about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first,
to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the
other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the
matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to
people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be
disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry
about legality or other arguments.
To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points.
First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And
does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it
actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet,
etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?
Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re
bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are
Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects
as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the
list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language,
and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three
women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of
which something porn offers an infinite supply.
Compare this to something more clinical. I
distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my
father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite
the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the
product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the
latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a
demonstration.
The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal
and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the
product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical
commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to
sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product.
Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on
that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of
product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion
to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.
Even more revealing, pun
intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no
sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women
aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet
there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out
there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster
defines it as “movies, pictures,
magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and
direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”
Let’s be real here. The
VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d
argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably
does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual
arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn
galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still
porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the
other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake
shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If
a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man
is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence
my broad definition.
This is why Sports
Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking
out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women
involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are
just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography,
thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and
becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on
their own still.
To make a quick
disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while
I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m
not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus
would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like,
but that’s a different issue.
Now that we have established
that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn
has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive
masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together?
This article here has technical speak
and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does
indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second
and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be
involved as well.
Anyways, I think I’ve
proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us
against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is
exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it
right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular”
case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a
Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.
Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.
