CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this in. It does have something to do with movies and other media, so I thought this would be the best place.

This morning I was checking Boundless, one of Focus on the Family's websites, for updates and found this new article titled "Female Porn" and I wanted to know what some other christians thought of it.

http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001142.cfm

Agree, disagree, outraged, confused? Personally I think it's rather dumb. I don't see how watching "chick flicks" is comparable to looking at pictures of naked people, and I think the definition of pornography they are using is broad enough that almost any movie/TV show/Book etc. could be classifed as porn.

I think that the author goes too far. If we were to assume that "chick flicks" are pornographic because they produce a "quick intense emotional response," then what can be said for movies in general? I know that I'm not the only one that gets wrapped up in the alternate reality a movie or TV show or book presents--is that pornography too? Can InuYasha validly be considered pornography? The industry of mythmaking--looked at sociologically rather than religiously--gives people a respite from day-to-day life. People can't live without myths--and I don't mean idolatry, just simply tales, stories and songs. They're all myths; they're all designed to produce an emotional response; under the definition the author provides, they are pornographic.

What a dull world it would be without myths and stories.

Eh, I understand the reasoning, and I can agree with the argument but only so much. I disagree completely that chick flicks are considered pornographic and that they're all trash. A lot of them have some good messages about how you don't need to be popular or the prettiest or whatever to be loved. I think as long as you realize that it's a fantasy world, like everything else, then you should be ok.

[quote]The result of exposure to this kind of fairy tale is obvious, at least to us. When a single woman leaves a steamy chick flick only to return home alone to her cats and tub of ice cream, a part of her breaks—the heart part. And she feels more alone than ever.

The man was hers, but only for two and a half hours, and now, like every other man, he’s gone.

The same kind of letdown happens every time the newest home decor catalog comes to the house. She looks over all of the latest home fashions and then looks around her house. Suddenly a sense of “I’m just not good enoughâ€

I thought that the point about the catalogs is sort of a different thing entirely than the stuff about movies. To me that seems like it would go in the category of those fashion magazines that all portray women as skinny.

hehehe, maybe the REAL point of the article is that ALL movies are porn. The article is just the beginning of a vast conspiracy to get America to ban TV and movies and go back to the "good old days" where we all just played outside and actully exercised

Ashley wrote: Overall I think the warning is plausible, but hugely exaggerated.

That may or may not come as a surprise to frequent partakers of FOTF 'literature.'

The man was hers, but only for two and a half hours, and now, like every other man, he’s gone.

Hmm... I actually can relate to this part of it... I mean, I watch a decent number of romantic comedies and such, because one of my biggest desires is to get married... I don't usually see it as "i had that girl for two and a half hours" except in the case of one movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Of course, I didn't just have Clementine for "two and a half hours" I watched that movie over and over, seeing so much of myself in Joel, and going through the crap with him, getting and losing her and getting her again... I basically saw a part of my life in alternate circumstances, and it just made me wish I had someone... Through my addictions to Porn, I never really saw myself with any of those girls except for the very lightest stuff, and something like Eternal Sunshine isn't really porn, but it stirred things in me that may have been starting to settle.

I've managed to avoid real porn and such for over a month, but I have a strong desire to pull out "Eternal Sunshine" again, just because I want to feel a certain way for a little while again. Of course, having been so close to the real thing for a short time, and now being seperated from that, I know it is just going to drive me into a depression, or rather further into it.

I think there is a bit of validity to this... It's dangerous in the same way that rich deserts are dangerous... I mean, if they are a very occasional thing with good stuff filling you most of the time, it's ok, but if it becomes your only source of pleasure and you don't do anything beneficial, it will make you sick... Also, if you use this to fill soemthing that's empty, you'll end up hurt...

Yeah I see what your talking about. But if anything that can be used to fill emptyness can be classifed as porn then everything could potentially be classified as porn, regardless of the content, but for just how the person uses it. I like the definitions Dictionary.com gave me for porn. "1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." and "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire" I think it's better to keep the word confined to those definitions, and not start redefining it.

Gotta be careful, though. If the reason that chick flicks aren't porn is that if they were, all entertainment would be porn, does that really disprove it? No. It simply presents us with a very unpleasant corallory. I'm not particularly eager to undermine the morality of all art and entertainment, but if we're going to refute this article we need a reason that rests on fact and not on wishes.

Up till now though porn has always had a narrow definition. I don't think redefining what the word means will be very useful; it could cause more problems. Now when you call something "porn" by the traditional definition everyone knows what it means, but if the definition becomes too broad the word won't really have any use anymore, and I can just see the kind of conversations we could have.

Preacher: Little Jimmy, you shouldn;t be looking at Porno (as in Playboy) magazines. It's bad for you.
Jimmy: But sir, you watch porno (as in "The Bridges of Madison County" ^^) too, why isn't that wrong?
If Porn suddenly came to mean all media, I think we'd have to come up with some new words to take the place of the old definition, because we'd still need to distinguish between media that depicts stuff like hardcore sex, and, like, a cartoon.

And I agree with Gramarian. I think part of what drives our media (besides profit, of course ^^) is the whole myth thing. Story telling has always been a part of human culture since the beginning, it was how people taught their children, entertained themselves, and passed on their culture, it seems to be a natural part of being human. *randomness alert* Going off on a little side rant here , but it's always confused me why so many people seem to think that if aliens existed it's likely they wouldn't have their own equivalent of TV or movies. I've always thought that if Aliens existed and they were intelligent in the same way we are, that it would be INEVITABLE that they'd have some form of storytelling in their society. *end randomness*

And also, Porn has always had a very negative connotation for many people as something immoral and shameful that can cause harm to those addicted to it. I don't think the harm that is sometimes caused by the media in general or something like the Romance genere is comparable enough to the harm caused by real porn to justify them being referred to by the same term. And I think it;s undisputible that at least some media can teach good lessons and have a positive influence on people, in which case I think the label porn would be even less appropriate.

[quote="Rocketshipper"]Up till now though porn has always had a narrow definition. I don't think redefining what the word means will be very useful]

That doesn't address my concern. Just because the conclusion means that we would be forbidden from all entertainment doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Perhaps we can find a better answer by answering the questions "What is porn?" and "Why is it wrong?" or even better, "How does porn undermine our relationship with Christ?"

I agree with Rocketshipper in that their definition is too broad. Going by that article, the book of Ruth could almost be considered porn; Boaz is an ideal figure who rescues Ruth, and the story ends with marriage and children--some of the same things that happen in a typical romantic novel or movie. Once could almost make it into a chick flick.

I could sort of see where they were coming from if they were ranting about the latest bodice-ripper from Harelquin or something, but that article really is asinine. I hope their piano legs are covered chastely. Seriously though, not only their definition of porn is hopeless, so is their take on life. Is life so dreary that the temptation of a thriller novel or romance becomes a crushing blow when it's over? Do they really think that people are that fragile?

The opnly thign I have to say is that in some movies like Titanic and The Notebook and Pearl Harbour for example... there were a few scenes :/

The conclusion doesn't mean "we would be forbidden from all entertainment" it simply means "all entertainment is porn" If people accepted this statement, the word "porn" would lose it's meaning and it's likely that it would also eventually lose it's negative connotation, and we would create some other word to refer to media that contained hard core sex. In fact, their definition of Porn doesn't imply any good or bad meaning, it's simply "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction". The only thing that makes that definition bad is the fact that it's connected to the word "porn" which has a negative connotation. As for the other question...

What is Porn: 1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. 2. creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Why is it wrong: Because it presents people as sex objects, causes those who view it to have un realistic expectations for their partners, and undermines the biblical model of a relationship between a man and women that God intended. I think that would also answer the third question. (I hope I worded that right)

I think that's the best definition. And I don't think that if we find other activities that can cause the same detrimental effects as porn that we should say those other activites are porn as well, but rather "those other activities cause the same kind of problems as porn"

The etymology of the word porn pretty much restricts it to sexual material. The definition they use is inaccurate and thus the conclusion is wrong in its terminology.

The concept may actually be correct in that the material's purpose is similar to that of pornography, but it would have been better to use a less rigidly defined word, or to use a term such as "emotional pornography" to more accurately represent the concept which they are trying to convey.

Kaligraphic wrote:The etymology of the word porn pretty much restricts it to sexual material. The definition they use is inaccurate and thus the conclusion is wrong in its terminology.

The concept may actually be correct in that the material's purpose is similar to that of pornography, but it would have been better to use a less rigidly defined word, or to use a term such as "emotional pornography" to more accurately represent the concept which they are trying to convey.

While etymology doesn't say much about the semantic meaning of a word (what it means today), I do agree that the definition the article uses is far too broad.

"Emotional pornography" would be more accurate, but would present the same problems with our worldview, since it declares all mythmaking-- whether film, book, or oral tale--sinful. Taken to an extreme, as was pointed out, the biblical Book of Ruth could be considered "emotional pornography," as could every Messianic prophecy in the Bible. After all, hope is as much an emotion as anything else, and the response many people have to Biblical prophecies of the Messiah--the response intended by the Author--is a response of hope in the Coming of the Christ.

As an aside, do people still distinguish between "softcore" and "hardcore" pornography? If so, is softcore pornography still sinful, and what qualifies something as softcore pornography?

Many of the previous posts have voiced some of my feelings. I also feel that the article was taking entirely the wrong stance on the issue. Instead of expanding a definition to the point of it being rendered useless, they would have been better off considering if said "chick flicks" are harmful in different ways.

The Grammarian wrote:As an aside, do people still distinguish between "softcore" and "hardcore" pornography? If so, is softcore pornography still sinful, and what qualifies something as softcore pornography?

Many still do, yes. I know that a fair number consider "softcore" pornography to be things that arouse lust while not technically featuring naked people (eg Victoria's Secret magazines). However, I think this is as weakened definition, and that originally "softcore" referred to your basic sexual images and "hardcore" to the much nastier variety.

The article defines porn as something to arouse emotional feelings, but the objective of porn is arouse physical feelings, correct?

Now, see, I'd always taken pornography to mean something depicting actual sex. In that definition, things like Playboy would not be considered pornographic, because there is no sex in Playboy, merely nude women. To me, that would be filed more under the category "erotic."

the objective of porn is arouse physical feelings, correct?

Eh, a little of both, honestly. Yes, the primary purpose is to arouse physical feelings, but there is an emotional side to it, too. For example, a person who is constantly rejected by women in real life would watch porn, and perhaps visualize himself with that woman, a woman who does not reject him, thus fulfilling his need for acceptance.

So, yeah, there's an emotional part to it too. But again, that's not pornography's primary purpose, which is what makes that article ridiculous.

kaemmerite wrote:Now, see, I'd always taken pornography to mean something depicting actual sex. In that definition, things like Playboy would not be considered pornographic, because there is no sex in Playboy, merely nude women. To me, that would be filed more under the category "erotic."

That's an unusual definition. I doubt that most people use it that way, so if you're operating by it you should probably make an effort to be especially clear. The reason I think I do not favor that definition (other than general acceptance) is that it forces negative assocations on the word "erotic," which should be neutral.

kaemmerite wrote:Eh, a little of both, honestly. Yes, the primary purpose is to arouse physical feelings, but there is an emotional side to it, too. For example, a person who is constantly rejected by women in real life would watch porn, and perhaps visualize himself with that woman, a woman who does not reject him, thus fulfilling his need for acceptance.

That is a valid point (and your relation of it to the article).

I think perhaps a better term than "erotic" is "erotica."

To me when I think of pornography I think of something on the lines of Playboy.

Yeah, I tend to think of Playboy as pornography too. On the other hand, a lot of pics of the girls of Dead Or Alive--not to mention the whole Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball game--and pin-up posters of women like Pamela Anderson (unattractive in my opinion, but you get the idea) would qualify as "softcore pornography" by the established definition, though a fair number of people would either 1) not define DOAX, et al. as softcore porn, or 2) not make a distinction between softcore and hardcore, and yet consider 'skin' magazines porn despite its not being hardcore.

I think the article brings up an interesting point, and if nothing else, it sparked a pretty healthy discussion here, which I'm sure was one of FotF's intents. That said, I've found FotF generally goes overboard in their definitions of everything controversial. That's how they approach it, for good or ill.

I don’t think the intent of the article is to say all entertainment is porn or bad or whatever. Saying so makes you guilty of the same overreacting attitude as the article you are critiquing.

Just as I do not believe that all nudity is porn, I do not believe all chick flicks are “female porn.â€

You make some very good points, termyt.

[quote="termyt"]Just as I do not believe that all nudity is porn, I do not believe all chick flicks are “female porn.â€