Pornography, “Family Values”, and a Sexually Liberal Society

[Textcritic]

First off: I have opened this discussion thread not for the intention of posting porn-links or NSFW images and video. My intention is that this will house a thoughtful dialogue about the social conception of morality within a rapidly changing liberal culture.

Second: I am somewhat reticent to open this thread that I have been mulling over for some weeks now. The topic is a sensitive one, and in many ways a private matter, and I would ask everyone to bear this in mind before posting. If people are incapable of keeping a level head about this the subject, then I will shut it down.

In Matthew 5:27–30, Jesus is reported to have taught the following:

Originally Posted by "The Matthean Evangelist"

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (RSV).

And then in 6:22–23 we read: “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”

The interpetation of Jesus’s instructions in modern, North American culture has taken on an absolute form:

Originally Posted by New Life Ministries

Lust is a fantasy designed to do one thing-keep you completely to yourself. It is a lie. Lust tries to tell you what sex should feel like and look like. Lust will destroy the relationships around you. You will pull away from reality because of this secret. As you allow lust to consume you, it becomes your life and you will eventually lose control to addiction.

http://newlife.com/emb/first-steps/

This has become a pretty familiar refrain in evangelical circles: It is not an exaggeration to claim that the North American Church has been irrevocably impacted by increased availability and access to pornography, and statistics show that Evangelicals consider this a matter of huge concern, often citing pornography as a primary cause of the end of marriages. Sermons dedicated to the evils of internet pornography in the Sunday morning services at our last church in Canada before we moved were among the most frequent over the past five years, and I suspect that this is likely a trend across North America.

In short, the teaching in Evangelicalism is pretty straightforward:
· Premise 1: Jesus taught that all sin was equally grave.
· Premise 2: Incorporeal lust is a sin
· Conclusion: Lust is indistinguishable from actual infidelity.

My interest in this is in how closely the modern, Evangelical ethic reflects the “secular” counterpart in Western society, especially amid our modern tendencies that are increasingly more sexually liberal. Is this nothing more than a religiously motivated problem, or will our increasing sexual liberty prove to be the downfall of our society? Is legal internet pornography (as opposed to child porn or human trafficking and and sexual slavery) a danger to adults? to relationships? Is lust merely a benign fact of biology, or is it indistinguishable with infidelity and adultery?

[You Need a Thneed]

I do think it is a problem. Lust is an opposite of love, just as hate is an opposite of love.

Therefore, lust destroys loving relationships that are foundational to our society.


All may not be affected to the same extent, but speaking in general terms, it is harmful.

[Mr.Coffee]

Every time I read your posts I'm blown away (no pun intended) at your writing skills. It feels like I'm sitting in a university lecture or literally reading a textbook. You're really a talented writer / communicator.

Anyway as to the post at hand, my questions:

1) How could increased sexual liberty prove to be the downfall of society?
2) If this trend does progress towards the reduction in number of marriages, is that good or bad?

My personal opinion is the point you made regarding natural physiological responses and biology, instinct and these drivers stemming from our chemical make up, how we were created, what our upbringing was like, what our culture and values are, how our world and society perceives this topic, and how all of these factors impact decision making- because they do.

Different people are different people and will always behave differently. This is not a topic that can be stated in absolutes whatsoever, but there are probably tendencies in behaviour with exposure to pornography.

So having stated all of the above, society and people will do and behave in ways that make sense at that time, regardless of whatever a religious opinion dictates.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I do think it is a problem. Lust is an opposite of love, just as hate is an opposite of love.

Therefore, lust destroys loving relationships that are foundational to our society.


All may not be affected to the same extent, but speaking in general terms, it is harmful.

Lust is a physical desire. It can be defined as intense sexual desire for another. It is not opposite of love. In fact, if you've been in a relationship where you both love and lust the other, and they you, its pretty fantastic.

As to the OP, I fail to see how biblical passages align with modern concepts of morality. Biblical passages often approve of conduct which is currently considered immoral. For example, murder.

Again to the OP, if you want to ground your morality in the bible, sure, porn is immoral.

My undergrad included a philosophy minor, so I've read everything from Aristotle, to Thomas Aquinas, to Richard Dawkins, and much in between, including a near complete read of the bible.

Your post suggests that morality and the bible somehow go hand-in-hand. I disagree, coming from a catholic and lutheran upbringing.

Edit: I see you've asked specifically about the "evangelical ethic". I don't know anything about that, nor do I care. It would only matter to other evangelicals. I probably should not have posted as I'm off topic.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Lust is a physical desire.

I don't think that's correct, though I think many see it that way. I would define lust as SELFISH physical desire. It is the selfishness that is the opposite of love.


Obviously, that's a key distinction, though there are those that think that physical desire by itself is wrong, and those who beleive that there is nothing wrong with selfish physical desire.



I think, obviously, that the "lust" talked about in those Biblical passages implies selfish desire. I see no reason why the Bible would condemn mere physical desire, especially when there's an entire book of the Bible that's mostly a description of physical desire between a man and a woman.

[Kipperriffic]

I thought some new adult movie called "family values" was out and is causing some controversy. I guess not

[K1LLswitch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is legal internet pornography (as opposed to child porn or human trafficking and and sexual slavery) a danger to adults? to relationships? Is lust merely a benign fact of biology, or is it indistinguishable with infidelity and adultery?

Is it a danger? It certainly has the potential....
- Does it modify your expectations of a sexual relationship with your spouse? Probably (the degree of course would vary on the individual). Could this reduce your enjoyment of sex or damage the sexual relationship with your partner? Possibly
- Could it damage the relationship between wife and husband (or other forms of union) if one party was "caught in the act" of getting off on internet porn? Probably (again - depending on the couple and their previous experiences with porn as a couple and as individuals)
- Porn (like booze, drugs, failblog, lolcats, gangnam flash mobs and all other vices) is definitely addictive, forming habits that are hard to break and leading to modified behavior to hide/feed the addiction
- Would I like my kids to be exposed to it? Not really, although that is pretty unrealistic. I know my first playboy was experienced in elementary school (some classmate with an older brother) and I know that over the years an exposure to port did give me some unrealistic expectations of sex within marriage
- Would I like my kids to be acting in it? Absolutely not, and I shudder to think of the damage (mental, physical and spiritual) done to the actors / actresses throughout their careers). Does that change your impression of porn, realizing that those are people as well and that by you encouraging their trade you are further encouraging this damage.

Is it a benign fact of biology? Challenging...
- Is there a problem with rubbing one out in the shower (in the total absence of porn or other mental images)? Is this lust? Is it a problem?
- What if you rub one out with a mental image of your spouse in your mind? Is this lust? Is it a problem?
- What if you and the spouse film your own sex video? Is this now considered porn? Is it infidelity if you watch this and rub one out while the wife is out of town?

Is it infidelity? Also challenging, particularly with the lust = infidelity conclusion that biblical interpretation & teachings indicate that it is....
- Is it lust (infidelity) when watching Game of Thrones or any movie / show with nudity and you admire the body of the nude actress?
- Is it infidelity when having sex with your spouse you think of someone else (ex, porn star, neighbor)? What if you are thinking of your wife in her 20's from 40 years ago and your now in your 60's still happily married?
- Is it infidelity if you are a widow (but remarried) and you think of your previous husband (now deceased)?

At the end of the day, this is a VERY grey area in anyone's relationship with both their spouse (and God if you are spiritual) and I don't think there are any right answers. There are things that will hurt one spouse and not another. There are substances or experiences that are addictive and will destroy one person yet have no impact on another.

Wow - that post went on & on. Good topic - I hope that people don't just bash it or ignore it for the biblical references you have quoted, as I think it is a relevant topic for people of multiple faiths as well as those without any spiritual beliefs to think about and make some conclusions on.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

1) How could increased sexual liberty prove to be the downfall of society?

It is mythically driven, I believe, and stems from the incorrect notion that sexual liberty as a component of general "moral decay" destroyed the Roman empire. The argument from social conservatives is that sexual liberty erodes trust and commitment in stable, monogamous sexual relationships. Whether or not we are ideally a monogamously inclined species or society is another issue that probably needs to be addressed in this discussion. However, if expectations within a sexual relationship are altered because of the inundation of sexually explicit media, then that does raise serious questions about its affect on families. Social conservatives will argue for the family as the foundational institution in our civilisation, and that any threats to the healthy state of the family are to be vociferously challenged.

My own concern would be in how the consequences of sexual liberty affect children and their developmental stability. I am the father of three boys through adoption, and I see first hand how utterly essential a stable relationship between parents is for the emotional and social well being of children. I can see where this could be at risk as a result of sexual liberalism.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

2) If this trend does progress towards the reduction in number of marriages, is that good or bad?

That is a very good question, and one that I think needs to be explored. Furthermore, I think that the shift in the extent and function of sexuality within our culture and its place as a component of marriage should also be addressed. If the practical definition of marriage in our society has changed such that procreation is no longer the goal, then how does that affect human sexuality and its purpose within marriage?

I think in answer to your question that I would argue that fewer marriages are probably better overall, but only in combination with a dramatic increase in more responsible sexual activity. Can we all agree that unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are primary concerns in our appraisal of this issue?

More later...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't think that's correct, though I think many see it that way. I would define lust as SELFISH physical desire. It is the selfishness that is the opposite of love.

This strikes me as a bit arbitrary. Is the basic desire for sexual gratification or sexual pleasure "selfish"? You will need to unpack this a bit more and demonstrate more clearly the difference between "selfish" and "unselfish" in this context, and how to discern them.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think, obviously, that the "lust" talked about in those Biblical passages implies selfish desire. I see no reason why the Bible would condemn mere physical desire, especially when there's an entire book of the Bible that's mostly a description of physical desire between a man and a woman.

I think you are correct in that the Bible defines lust in terms of selfish desire, but I want to be more clear about why scripture arrives at this definition before adhering to it.

Let's be clear in the first place that I think Song of Songs is only in the canon because of its antiquity, and not because the framers of the Bible had any interest in the value of its sexual imagery.

Second, there are several places in which the Bible does condemn mere physical desire, or at minimum it treats it as an unavoidable nuisance. The Apostle Paul's teaching on marriage comes to mind here. From an historical and social perspective, the Biblical equation of "list" with "selfishness" is directly tied to ancient notions of the purpose of marriage for procreation, the need for ethnic purity, and the marriage relationship as a sacred reflection of religious institutions. Any study of the topic of lust in the Bible must contend with passages from Jeremiah 2, Ezekiel 18, Proverbs 8, the prophecies of Hosea, and the xenophobic edicts of Nehemiah.

But even beyond this—and I am speaking here as a Christian—I don't believe that the Bible constitutes a reliable source of instruction about human sexuality entirely because it is so ancient. Virtually everything written in the Bible presumes a world of tightly, religiously controlled sexuality, and the primacy of a very narrow definition of family and society that in no way even remotely accurately reflects the modern world. Put more simply, the Bible fails in this regard because it simply cannot contend with levels of access and extent of sexuality in our culture. The Bible fails because the social requirement of sex for ensuring the survival of the tribe or the nation is obsolete, and it has now been replaced by sexuality as primarily a recreational activity.

[JohnnyB]

http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge.html

This TED talk is a favourite of mine on this topic. Without needing to refer to a moral framework I'm fairly confident that porn is harmful to people for the fact that it inhibits us from experiencing other important joys in our life.

It is arguably bad in the same way junk food is. Not because it is immoral, but because it's counter productive to longterm health and happiness.

[Regulator75]

Does CP need a separate religion sub-forum?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge.html

This TED talk is a favourite of mine on this topic. Without needing to refer to a moral framework I'm fairly confident that porn is harmful to people for the fact that it inhibits us from experiencing other important joys in our life.

It is arguably bad in the same way junk food is. Not because it is immoral, but because it's counter productive to longterm health and happiness.

And also like with junkfood, there's nothing harmful about sometimes just filling a need.

Also like with junkfood, the border to art is really hazy. Sometimes what we call "junkfood" can actually be nutritionally quite alright and even tasty, and sometimes what we call "porn" helps people relax and process their thoughts and fantasies in a safe and comfortable way. (Like art.)

(Also, there is some evidence that the availibility of porn has a decreasing effect on the number of rapes, although I don't think the data is conclusive yet.)

As for the rest of the topic, as a polyamoric atheist I am so far removed from the OP's worldview that I just don't know what to say.

However, I think the polyamory FAQ might be an interesting read for people interested in this topic, because it looks at the issue from a very different angle.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I don't think that's correct, though I think many see it that way. I would define lust as SELFISH physical desire. It is the selfishness that is the opposite of love.


Obviously, that's a key distinction, though there are those that think that physical desire by itself is wrong, and those who beleive that there is nothing wrong with selfish physical desire.



I think, obviously, that the "lust" talked about in those Biblical passages implies selfish desire. I see no reason why the Bible would condemn mere physical desire, especially when there's an entire book of the Bible that's mostly a description of physical desire between a man and a woman.

Isnt ALL desire..."selfish"?

I mean what desire really is...is something that pleases the one having those feelings, regardless of whether or not it also benefits someone/something else.

Fascinating topic Text....well done.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Itse

And also like with junkfood, there's nothing harmful about sometimes just filling a need.

Also like with junkfood, the border to art is really hazy. Sometimes what we call "junkfood" can actually be nutritionally quite alright and even tasty, and sometimes what we call "porn" helps people relax and process their thoughts and fantasies in a safe and comfortable way. (Like art.)

(Also, there is some evidence that the availibility of porn has a decreasing effect on the number of rapes, although I don't think the data is conclusive yet.)

As for the rest of the topic, as a polyamoric atheist I am so far removed from the OP's worldview that I just don't know what to say.

However, I think the polyamory FAQ might be an interesting read for people interested in this topic, because it looks at the issue from a very different angle.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/

Way to make swinging sound classier!!!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

Way to make swinging sound classier!!!

Polyamory really isnt swinging though...at least as far as its definition.

I knew some polyamorists in the states when i lived there, and though it wasnt my cup of tea, it made sense on an intelectual level. Pragmatically however, not so much.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I do think it is a problem. Lust is an opposite of love, just as hate is an opposite of love.

Therefore, lust destroys loving relationships that are foundational to our society.


All may not be affected to the same extent, but speaking in general terms, it is harmful.

Lust and love are just biological mechanisms to trick us into reproducing as often as possible.

It's only been in the past few hundred years that love has been a factor in coupling in most human societies, and many still don't put a lot of value on it.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Polyamory really isnt swinging though...at least as far as its definition.

I knew some polyamorists in the states when i lived there, and though it wasnt my cup of tea, it made sense on an intelectual level. Pragmatically however, not so much.

I was joking anyways. I didn't really read much of the FAQ, but what little I did read there were some obvious differences, although swinging might fall under the umbrella of polyamorism. I hope Itse's not a swinger, as I have yet to meet swingers who haven't creeped me out. Polyamorism sounds interesting, but like you said not really practical unless you luck out and find a group of like minded people.

[MRCboicgy]

Taking the Biblical discussion out of it - there was a recent study in the UK (not going to Google it here at work...ha) that found that most kids <15 have easy access to hardcore stuff and the researchers found that once they reached the 18-21 stage, they were having more trouble performing.

My personal opinion is that it is too easy to access, can lead to true addictions and creates unrealistic expectations. Hitting on the second point, I think it does hurt families. Again, without a religious view my mother always taught me to work on controlling my thoughts, because no action or desire just happens, there's always a thought first. I think that aligns with the lust aspect you mention in a way.

[Itse]

Hmm, there's actually a lot of questions in the OP I think I can say something to...

Is this nothing more than a religiously motivated problem...

Religion obviously plays a part here, but I don't think the concerns over these issues are something only religious people have. (Atheists can be conservative prudes too )

...or will our increasing sexual liberty prove to be the downfall of our society?

Only if you define "our society" as "society as we know it". Societies change and people change over time. Societies will never be destroyed as long as there are people. Personally I believe sexual liberation is generally a good trend simply because it makes it easier for people to fit their lives to their unique situations without the judgment of others.

I believe each relationship is unique, and trying to treat them as if they were the same only leads to trouble.

If there is something bad that religions bring to the equation it is the idea of a monolithic, uniform type of relationship that should work for every couple and every committed relationship everywhere and in every situation. This is sometimes called marriage.

(I put some personal history behind the tags since some might be interested in them and some might find them distracting.)

Spoiler!

I am now married for the second time in my life, and I think a big reason why this marriage lasts and the first one didn't is because at a time of crisis we finally understood that marriage in itself is just a word. All the rest is something we have to figure out for ourselves. We needed to throw out the stereotypes. In one part this also meant that we needed to find out what fidelity and trust really mean to us. Among other things it lead to greater sexual liberties for both of us. Which for people who need to also earn a living, raise a kid, clean the house and all the rest of life propably isn't half as exciting as it sounds to outsiders (As for sex, since someone is always interested, for me it means a couple of extra times of sex per year. So not exactly a big deal in itself.)

That was kind of a long way to explain it, but I think the whole problem with the discussion of "sexual liberty" is that it's so damned adolescent, as if relationships were mostly about sex.

For example I have a very strong, long-term and in part romantic relationship with someone I never have sex. (Long story and I'm not sure there is a clear explanation, but right now I think basicly we've just gotten used to things being the way they are.) However it started long before I even met my current wife, and the lack of sex in that relationships did not stop it from bothering my wife. Not the only reason for our crisis, but related to it. Right now my wife barely remembers that there ever was a problem, even though the relationship is propably more intimate than before.

Hence polyamory, not polysexuality. And no, we don't "swing", the whole idea is really weird to me.

But yes, for us it is kind of like having our cake and eating it; we can enjoy living in a long-term happy relationship while being open to meeting other people. (With limits that are essentially figured out on a case-by-case basis. Yeah, kind of complicated, but I think trying to face life with rules set in stone will only have you bashing your head on that stone at some point.)

(BTW I avoid talking about my wife's situation because she would not like that.)

Also, historically speaking sexual liberation is not exactly an evergoing trend. There have always been more conservative and more liberal times following each other.

Is lust merely a benign fact of biology, or is it indistinguishable with infidelity and adultery?

With humans lust is never simply about biology, but way more complicated, and very often deeply connected with the emotional and psychological needs of a person. This is why lust is not simply a factor of visual or physical stimulation, as most adults propably have at some point experienced.

As to adultery and infidelity, I would say lust has about as much to do with that as money has to do with fraud. Sometimes they are connected and sometimes they are not. The key word is trust and the betrayal of it.

Affairs often happen because of emotional needs or wants, and propably very rarely only because of physical needs or wants, although it can certainly be a part of the picture.

[Textcritic]

This is an excellent response, thank you.

Originally Posted by Itse

And also like with junkfood, there's nothing harmful about sometimes just filling a need.

Also like with junkfood, the border to art is really hazy. Sometimes what we call "junkfood" can actually be nutritionally quite alright and even tasty, and sometimes what we call "porn" helps people relax and process their thoughts and fantasies in a safe and comfortable way. (Like art.)

(Also, there is some evidence that the availibility of porn has a decreasing effect on the number of rapes, although I don't think the data is conclusive yet.)

I think that you have quite clearly articulated the problem as near as I can see it from the opposite side. How far beholden are we to antiquated perceptions of sex in our contemporary definitions of human relationships, and also to issues of morality?

Originally Posted by Itse

As for the rest of the topic, as a polyamoric atheist I am so far removed from the OP's worldview that I just don't know what to say.

However, I think the polyamory FAQ might be an interesting read for people interested in this topic, because it looks at the issue from a very different angle.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/polyamory/faq/

Great. Thanks for that.

Based on a cursory read of the FAQ, it seems to me right away that there is much more an emotional issue than anything. This really is not about sex specifically, but the emotions generated within sexual relationships. Modern monogamy is founded on a long-standing tradition of fostering envy as a signifier of love and commitment, and is it any wonder why, when the Jewish / Christian God consistently and repeatedly affirms his own jealousy?

How strange... On the one hand, we are admonished as a society to restrain from harbouring and acting upon jealousy, while on the other hand we encourage it as a fundamental component of a "healthy commitment". I've never thought of this issue in these terms, but it seems to me that this adds a whole other wrinkle to the discussion:

Is envy a necessary component of humanity? How much does this emotion separate us from other animals, and to what degree—if at all—should we foster this as a speciated (is that even a word?) distinction.