1. Tim Brown says:

    The question struck me while pondering this issue over the last few days: Is there *ever* a truly good reason to watch someone having sex?

  2. Good points. This is why it particularly irks me when superhero film producer think they have to throw in a moment of full or even partial nudity. I’ve had people justify it to me as “but the story-line calls for that.”

    Could the story have been fine without it? Why was it even necessary to add that?

    There are otherwise great movies that I won’t watch because of this, and franchises I’m now avoiding because they threw in a scene with little to no warning, and I resent having been inflicted with something I’d rather not have been party to.

    • Cap Stewart says:

      Yeah, the argument that “the story-line calls for it” is fairly common. The veracity (or complete lack thereof) of that statement aside, it reveals something interesting about our culture: we want stories that need blatant sexuality in them.

  3. I remember when I first saw Passengers and was struck by the nudity. It earned a laugh from others, and while I acknowledged that in that circumstance it might have been realistic, I had to wonder what it added to the story. It didn’t make me care for the characters more or enhance my understanding of what complete isolation would do to a person (the rest of the story did that). It just made me frustrated that a guy’s butt was suddenly in my face.

    • Cap Stewart says:

      That brings up an artistic problem with onscreen nudity in film and television: it takes audiences out of the moment. Donald Sutherland once said, “When I take my clothes off people are no longer looking at me as a character, they’re looking at me with no clothes on.”

  4. As a single Christian woman I have to be extra careful about what I view. Married folks can view it and not be tempted but anything even mildly arousing makes me feel the need to turn it off or leave immediately.

  5. notleia says:

    Honestly, I feel how Christians treat sex is too close to the concept of thoughtcrime for comfort.

    Fred Clark, the Slacktivist, had an article or two (that I can’t find conveniently) about how the emphasis on purity is pretty harmful. It’s not tangible, so it’s easy to abuse and manipulate people by moving the goalposts. On the flip side, the intangibility also encourages a sort of laziness, where you get to be totes righteous without lifting a single finger — or BECAUSE you don’t lift a single finger.

    I know there’s a whole faith vs works debate about this, but there’s a certain benefit to having physical evidence of your efforts to be a not-crappy person. If someone wants to create doubt about your self-worth and/or the good you contribute to the world, your response can be “look at these pics of crochet blankets I sent to charity” (personal example there).

    Also that’s my motivation for saying that purity is not really a virtue, and also why my current motto is “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

    • Autumn Grayson says:

      Anything and everything can be a problem, including having physical proof that someone has done a good thing. If someone tries to be a good person, or feels guilty for something they genuinely did wrong, they can try to soothe themselves with physical proof of their goodness. But for some people it might not be enough. ‘Did I crochet enough blankets for charity?’ ‘Did I donate enough money?’ Or ‘If I stop making donations or doing community service, am I suddenly a bad person?’

      Additionally, intangible isn’t always inferior to tangible. If a person talks a stranger out of suicide and never sees that person again, that might have a bigger impact than making a donation. Yet, that person wouldn’t be able to prove they talked that person out of suicide, if proof was demanded. Positive impact can’t always be measured, but that doesn’t make intangible things useless, harmful or irrelevant. And doing intangible good things does not prevent someone from doing tangible good things as well.

      Now, let’s say that someone doesn’t make any effort to actively hurt someone, and does tangible good things. Deep down in their mind, though, they want to hurt others, and have no qualms with fantasies about hurting. They leave those thoughts completely unchecked because they think that it’s their right. In their minds, they are indifferent about others or even look down on them, and only do good things for the sake of social status or because they know that they would be punished for following through with their malevolent fantasies. This person can’t be punished for doing anything wrong, but the way their mind is, it would be difficult to truly call them a good person. Both the tangible and intangible matter, in terms of goodness.

      Trying to be moral or pure when it comes to sex isn’t the issue, it’s when people beat themselves up over their mistakes instead of simply picking themselves up and trying to do better next time. That can exist for anyone trying to live a good life, and its a genuine struggle for many that are trying to do something as simple as be a nice person.

      A moral goal, like purity, and the way people react when they don’t achieve that goal, are two different things. Instead of treating purity as the enemy, people should focus on teaching themselves to respond constructively to the issue. Again, part of that would involve people doing their best as far as purity goes, but understanding that mistakes will still be made and to simply do better next time.

      • notleia says:

        The thing is that “purity” is so poorly defined in application. What does it look like when you get close to purity? How does that look in practice?

        • Autumn Grayson says:

          The thing people normally get wrong about purity is that, although it’s a goal, it’s not something people are truly expected to obtain, at least not in an absolutely perfect way. I mean, sheesh, the whole concept of Christianity is based on the fact that people are imperfect. So it’s not about ‘how close am I to purity?’ It’s more like ‘Am I truly doing my best to live a pure/healthy life? Am I being honest with myself about why I am watching a show with high sexual content and not skipping anything?’

          For comparison, we can’t truly be good and kind at all times, yet the average person still tries to be good and kind, or will at least define themselves as that. On the surface, defining goodness and kindness seems easy, but when we look deeper they truly aren’t that simple. So, with both kindness and purity, it’s about people doing their true, honest best, rather than their efforts only mattering when they get close to the ideal.

          As for exact definitions…as with any subject, that’s going to vary a bit based on context. Sometimes purity means avoiding sex outside marriage, but in other contexts it could mean avoiding things that we know will drag our minds into the gutter. To an extent it’s about self control, which is a very important part of being a human and thus a very healthy thing to practice. These multiple meanings don’t have to be a bad thing, though. That’s kinda how language and morals work, and dealing/coping with ambiguity is part of being human. It’s only stressful if we let it be.

          • notleia says:

            I just keep thinking about a YouTuber I watch who recently lost a lot of weight. He talks a lot about the various attitudes in the weight loss culture, about how feeling good was better than a strict number goal, but he could lie to himself about all that. He’d been lying to himself for years while he kept gaining weight. When the scale told him he’d dropped below 200 lbs, he had a huge emotional reaction (which was very cute) because he couldn’t lie to himself about the numbers that meant he was succeeding beyond what he’d hoped.

            But if he didn’t bother with the scale, it would be so easy for him to delude himself again and relapse (he’d done it before). Or some jerk purity ponies (that’s more of a political label, but the meaning translates) could end up shaming him for his schedule or his diet not being hardcore enough to suit them (especially if they have something to sell him).

            There’s also that thing about knowing them by their fruits. (look! look! Biblical allusion!) I think the fruits produced by the purity culture more often look like thoughtcrime and repression and emotional abuse than like anything healthy.

            • Autumn Grayson says:

              The bad fruits you speak of are a matter of people not knowing how to behave in a healthy manner. That is an issue with nearly everything in life. That does not mean that trying to be moral/have self control when it comes to sex is bad. I’m saying keep the goal, but modify the behaviors around it into healthy ones.

              Let’s look at it this way. Weightloss is a good goal, provided someone is overweight. But there are many unhealthy or ineffective ways to attempt weight loss. Someone could become anorexic, for instance. Does that mean weightloss is immediately a bad goal? No, people just need to be more honest with themselves and learn how to truly approach those things right.

              With weightloss, a healthy, nutritious diet would be a reasonably healthy approach. Purity is similar. (I kind of feel weird that we keep trying to say purity, since that word doesn’t entirely mirror the goal many people have.) Just like with weight loss, we can do research and work to understand and train ourselves to have a healthy approach, and be better/healthier as a result.

              Also…I’m not saying that having tangible proof, definitions, etc. is bad. Just like in your weight loss example, it’s great to have direct measurements of results. All I’m saying is that the intangible stuff isn’t INFERIOR to the tangible. We need both the tangible and intangible to be healthy. Additionally, just because something is a bit vague or hard to define doesn’t mean it automatically has to be harmful or painful.

              • notleia says:

                I guess we’re falling into the trap that we think if we explain enough, the other person will agree, when we just don’t agree in the first place.

                Buuuuut since I like arguing on the internet :), I don’t mind intangibles in of themselves, per se, but purity culture offers a very skewed ratio of tangible:intangile and also the tangibles I see are no bueno. Like, the fruits I’m observing are guilt, shame, paranoia, and more guilt, and also if you’re not feeling guilty or shamed enough for your interrogator’s liking, then you’re the one in the wrong.

                But going back to the weight loss analogue, it’s soooo easy to be unhealthy if only weight loss is your goal. But if your goal is to be healthy, that could include weight loss but preclude the pitfalls. Ergo andotherfancyLatinwords, is our goal supposed to be purity, or is it a means to an end, with our real goal being something more like righteousness? (Tho come to think of it, righteousness is another rather poorly defined and easily skewed word.) Even taken in the generous abstract, purity isn’t the same as righteousness. The ideas serve different functions. So I view purity as being only as necessary as it is useful. (spoilers it is not very useful)

                So in my practice, looking at boobs on a screen isn’t a disaster, or even a disaster in the making. Banning the boobs isn’t going to make misogyny or sexual entitlement and mistreatment go away. The boobs in of themselves are neutral (tho maybe chaotic neutral).

              • Eh, now days, even if I’d like to be able to change people’s minds, I don’t really expect that to happen most of the time, so my normal goal is just to have a fun discussion to learn more about different perspectives and maybe bring more understanding between me and the other person 🙂

                And yeah. With the weight loss example, though, we can see that even if people can easily be unhealthy with weight loss as the goal, that doesn’t actually have to be the case. Again, goals, and whatever surrounds them, are two different things. We’re probably trying to say the same thing ultimately, though, at least from the standpoint that whatever goal someone has should be pursued in a healthy manner.

                The stuff you’re saying about purity and righteousness was kind of why I was feeling a little eh about us using the word purity in this discussion. I’m not entirely sure which word I think actually fits the discussion, though, especially since we’d probably both imagine slightly different things for each term.

                I think for me personally it’s about being reasonably modest and respectful. If I accidentally see something inappropriate I don’t view it as a disaster, just something not to let my eyes linger on too long. I try to avoid seeing stuff, and skip sex scenes, but I don’t beat myself up if I accidentally see something. People’s thoughts aren’t always going to be pure, so to me the more important thing is that people put out effort to be respectful and modest. I guess in some ways it’s working toward purity but not actually expecting one’s self to obtain it, if we want to use the same terminology we started with. Not sure how to explain it exactly. Maybe part of it is the entitlement issue you brought up.

                At the very least, someone brought up to respect modesty might have an easier time comprehending why people don’t want to be eyed like a scrap of meat. That’s one benefit to modesty I’ve seen in many of the people I’ve grown up around.

    • Cap Stewart says:

      Indeed, the concept of purity is easy to abuse and manipulate (just like the sex act itself). However, we must not make the mistake of treating something as inherently abusive simply because it has the capacity to be abused.

      • notleia says:

        Well if it has the capacity to be abused, then we need to put safeguards on it. Or because denominations are about as easy to herd as cats, refigure the system so it functions better.

        I refer you to my righteousness v. purity bit just up there in the previous super-long thread.

        • Cap Stewart says:

          I’m all for safeguards, as well as personal (and corporate) course corrections. As with any other virtue/aspiration, a proper pursuit of purity requires a proper cultivation of the right motives and methods.

  6. Crystal says:

    I think that even if someone is scared because of how lax the culture has become with the subject, the issue with sexual content is simple: The Bible talks about sex but it is never explicit, it is literary/metaphorical, and nowadays literature does not write sexual situations in the style of Song of Songs and in an audiovisual medium it is impossible to recreate this.
    The issue with sex based on my study is this: It is wonderful and sacred made to be enjoyed between a husband and wife only between them it is not supposed to be used as a means of entertainment in books or movies, nor as a means of display “greatest connection” in a romance novel is not a narrative device, nor are you supposed to see other people having sex (pornography) no matter if they are married or pretending to have sex (movies) or imagine people having sex (book characters ).
    You are not supposed to see other people nude in sexual situations, this includes nudes in movies, which surprise are usually sexually motivated or free. I have never seen a medical nude scene in a movie, let’s add that between a doctor and a patient, it’s really only the two of them Millions of people are in the consultation in the movie seeing the nude, to make matters worse the doctors usually only check the affected area, they do not ask the patient to undress in its entirety, they even give them paper gowns for modesty… in the nudes of the cinema nobody cares about this.
    And finally, you are not supposed to constantly think about sex or give satisfaction to those impulses if you have not been married, in fact it is better to let them sleep if you do not have the legitimate outlet given by God for them and it can be done, if you do not stimulate them they will be they can avoid. But many people will find what I am saying too terrible because our culture is so pornographic that avoiding porn already involves going less to the movies to abstaining from certain music, books, etc. and social morality about sex causes what I said above to be almost criminal.

What do you think?