"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27)

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

SafeEyes: The Pornification of Culture

Our culture fluctuates between emphasizing the sexually explicit to complete censorship, depending on the popularity of the issue.   Culture can create terms like "wardrobe malfunction", claiming moral high ground and chastising Janet Jackson in the process yet, the same time, continue to encourage themes of sexual exploration.  (Even this week's episode of Glee took a decidedly open attitude towards sex, portraying the 'Abstinence Club' as a ridiculous suggestion, even calling those in support of it as 'prudes' and 'unrealistic'.)  Nevertheless, this post is not to debate that particular issue.  Today, I'd like to focus on the issue of pornography itself.

Much has been made over the last 10 years about pornography, especially that on the internet.  Personally, I feel like this is a justified concern.  Pornography destroys lives, cripples marriages and fully reshapes the way in which one views the opposite sex (whether male or female).  I have heard statistics that as many as 50% of men and women in an average church are involved in viewing pornography in some way.  However, there's just one question that I'm concerned with at this time...

What exactly is pornography anyways?

I have a theory that no one in the church really knows what it is.  You see, our culture really defines pornography as to "pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."  (In fact, I've even heard the definition that something is not porn until you can view penetration on screen)  Yet, there really are no standards to what that is.  The MPAA basically makes their judgment on a case by case basis, creating wild inconsistencies between films.  (If you're interested in hearing more about the inconsistencies of the MPAA, check out the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated.)  Sexuality can easily be cited as art by some while the same (or similar) scene will be judged as vile. What's more, citing the words of Jesus in Matthew 5, I have heard the church issue countless warnings about pornography, using similar principles to the MPAA yet with far more conservative boundaries.

This is pornography.  This isn't.

Enjoy Peter Wier's Witness but beware of the nudity in Titanic.

So where is the boundary?  What makes something pornographic vs. art?

Personally, I believe the line needs to be drawn with 'intent'.    And I believe that this is relevant in two primary ways.

First, intent of the artist.  This one is usually the most obvious.  When nudity or sexuality are involved in a film, you can more often than not tell if it's there to sell tickets.  I believe that Love and Other Drugs is the most recent example of this.  Rather than emphasize the narrative themes, I would argue that the nudity is the only thing people talk about when they've seen the film.  In fact, it was what was primarily spoken of during the press tours, complete with 3 different covers of a nude Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal on Entertainment Weekly.  The nudity doesn't really add to the narrative per se but becomes a gimmick.  (Although, it could be argued that it has to do with vulnerability... but I would argue that the prevalence of it would probably work against this theory.)  However, in Brokeback Mountain, ironically also starring Hathaway and Gyllenhaal, one could argue that the nudity actually fits their scene together as they rabidly try to save their failing marriage.  This is a key distinction in that, in one case, the nudity is merely presented in a manner to titilate the viewership and, in the other, the nudity is included to reinforce film theme-related discussion.

Second, and in many ways, most important is the intent of the viewer.  There is no doubt in my mind that the viewer must take responsibility for, not just what they watch, but how they watch it.  Jesus spoke very clearly that lust occurs when "anyone... looks at a woman lustfully".  In fact, I would argue that we all--male or female--have the ability take anything from Blue Valentine to a car commercial and reframe it in a way that drives us to lust.  The fact that our gaze shapes how we understand everything from media to the opposite sex is what makes it so important.  I don't necessarily agree that nudity in and of itself is what drives us to mistreat, misuse or reimagine the human body for our own sexual needs.  Rather, I do feel that the manner in which we allow ourselves to interpret the images we're presented that shapes our interactions with others.  (Perhaps that's why Paul calls us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds in Romans 12:1-2?)  Our manner of thinking is what establishes our lifestyle.  As such, I believe that the way in which we view a film or other artistic expressions can easily be changed by the way in which we allow ourselves to see them (and that may reshape our understanding of sexuality in reality).

Some will read this post to be a wishy-washy position but I do not believe this to be the case.  I believe we all bear the responsibility to what we view and how.  Nevertheless, I also maintain that there are times when controversial content can be justified in order to build thematic structure or context.

But that doesn't mean you need to watch.