I know I had promised earlier that I would chip in my two cents in the whole sex and nudity in movies discussion. The following is a tardy and somewhat unorganized list of some points I believe ought to be considered in this issue. My thoughts are primarily directed to Christian men and are focused upon the impropriety of their watching sexually explicit scenes in movies.
1. Consider, first and foremost, the Lord and Master who has purchased you with his own blood. We are not our own, our eyes are not our own. We and they belong fully to Christ, and we have no right to use them in any way which displeases him.
2. Consider what it is you are actually doing. Sometimes, simply describing an activity helps us understand its true nature. What are you really doing when you watch such a scene? Simply stated, you are paying money to watch a real man and a real woman take off their clothes and pretend to engage in sexual activity for a movie camera. The technical term for this is voyeurism.
3. Consider your own purity. I know that most men who justify watching this kind of material say that seeing unclothed women pretend to have sex doesn’t bother them. By this I imagine they mean that it doesn’t tempt them to lust. If you’re saying this…you’re lying, at least to yourself. If you’re saying this and you’re not lying, you probably need some sort of medical attention. If you are saying this, and you’re not lying, and you do not need medical attention, then you need to find some better way to use your eunuch status for the kingdom.
Usually discussion of this issue only gets as far as the previous point, as if the possible negative effects upon the male voyeur are the only or the most important consideration. However, there is much more to be considered.
4. Consider the rights of your wife. Your wife or future wife has the right to your exclusive sexual attention. Furthermore, she has the right not to be continually compared to your mental collection of images of the mostly plastic bodies of all the women you’ve been watching on the big screen. When you put yourself in a position to see such things, you are sinning against her (Eunuchs, see the end of point 3).
5. Consider the dignity of the woman you are watching. Scripture is clear that, outside of marriage, looking upon a woman’s nakedness is a shame and dishonor to her. Again, the film medium does not change the fact that this is a real woman, whose real nakedness is being exposed to anyone who is willing to pay the $9.50. The fact that she does so willingly to get your money does not give you the right contribute to that dishonor.
6. Consider the woman’s husband or father. Remember the golden rule? Few of us, if we really thought about it, would want millions of men paying to see our wives or daughters take off their clothes and pretend to have sex with another actor. Yet many are willing to pay to borrow other men’s wives and daughters for the purpose. Again, I’m sure some actresses have husbands and fathers desensitized enough not to let such a thing bother them. That does not mean that you are wronging them any less.
7. Consider your own daughters. Be prepared for the difficulty of explaining to your young girls why they shouldn’t do for other men what you’ve been paying other girls to do for you.
12 comments:
Great points Brad. I would add to this list that we should not be entertained by things for which Christ had to be crucified.
Those are some good, helpful thoughts Brad. I would agree and even say that nudity, and especially sexualized nudity, in movies is really just another form of pornography, something designed to sexually stimulate a visually-minded male outside the God-ordained context of sexuality.
However, while agreeing with you, another question popped into my mind. Should we apply these same standards in regard to ancient sculpture and nude art that we often see paraded in museums and even textbooks? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Matt, that would be a good addition, thanks.
Dale, I haven't come to a firm conclusion on that question myself (comes up a lot in classical education circles).
I am by no means claiming that my suggestions represent anything close to a fail-safe checklist, but I can certainly see how some non-representational nudity (art not depicting any particular persons) might be able to pass such a test.
With non-representational art, there really is no other woman to wrong, and subsequently no husband or father; nor, by looking at such pieces, would you necessarily be condoning behavior inconsistent with biblical standards for our daughters (though I suppose much ancient art was based on some living models).
The concern about temptation to lust though diminished, perhaps, might still be present, as would the potential for creating unfair comparisons for our wives (maybe even more so, since the ancients were aiming for the "ideal").
I don't know.
Just a follow up question to the art work. I must admit that I haven't given the specific question much thought, but as with Dale when reading the comments something came to my mind. If when after Adam and Eve sinned in Gen 3:21 God made garments for them and at that time there was no other people around why would it be ever right for us to look on another person in a nude form - whether art or not?
Matt, I don't see that God, by clothing Adam and Eve, was indicating a total prohibition against ever viewing any unclothed person. This would have made the command to fill the earth extremely problematic indeed. The clothing seems to have been rather for Adam and Eve's benefit, to lessen their felt shame.
I'm also suggesting the possibility that when viewing a representational piece of art, one really isn't looking at another person in a nude form. Again, I'm not so sure about this.
Brad, as an individual moving ever so closer to the film industry, this question surfaces on a consistent occurrence. It is true that the visual medium presents problems such as nakedness for the Christian. Although the written word can accurately describe a sex scene or nakedness, the individual has a choice how to represent the words in his/her own mind. The visual medium however gives the audience its interpretation of that same written scene of nakedness and the viewer has no choice but to accept the image in front. I do understand in the film world why nudity is not objectionable just as much a head blown off. The story is what drives the moving images and for the Christian, film still neeeds to have a purpose (hopefully a redemptive one). Yes, we understand from Tamar, Jezebel, Potiphar's wife, Solomon, Bathsheba, and many others that lust, adultery, and other forms of sexual sin exist and will continue til God ceases it. Yet, when putting those stories in picture or even moving picture form, how does a Christian writer or even director handle the portrayal? I personally have grappled with this. And yet I do know it would be my God-given obligation to never put two individuals in a compromising situation for the sake of entertainment. And yes, no man can look upon a naked female with objective study for we are innately drawn to their beauty whether in love (in the case of our wife) or in lust. The question I pose to conclude is...is there ever a time when seeing nudity (aside from marriage) of the opposite sex is acceptable or even allowable for the Christian? I have viewed hundreds of films and more than a handful contain nudity at some point. Is a film considered 'banned' if it contains such content for the man or can we simply fast forward to the next plot point? Or can we still enjoy a Schindler's List and understand the disgust of the gas chambers and have not sinned by looking upon that scene? We also understand that God gives creative talent to His creation whether redeemed or not. As in art, if we are not portraying a bedroom scene, is there ever a time or purpose to have such a portrayal of nudity?
brad,
great post.
most humorous line:
If you are saying this, and you’re not lying, and you do not need medical attention, then you need to find some better way to use your eunuch status for the kingdom.
most profound line:
Be prepared for the difficulty of explaining to your young girls why they shouldn’t do for other men what you’ve been paying other girls to do for you.
raymond:
your thoughts are great. i'd suggest that in film making, you can imply an activity without actually going into detail. when you look at the text closely (especially the OT), the authors often come right up to the point that you know what happened, and then leave you to make the understandable conclusion. when you go into making film, this is the approach i would suggest.
dale,
when i've had people ask me your question before, it was the beginning of an argument to excuse their watching movies with nudity, since the ancient art usually isn't considered bad. the line usually goes, "yeah, that seems wrong, but we're inconsistent when it comes to clay and painting...so roll film!" i hope that's not where your question was going.
As Providence would have it, my Constitutional Law class today covered the Supreme Court cases dealing with sexually-oriented material. Some interesting connections with the present discussion:
1) For the first time in my life, I found myself in nearly full agreement with a feminist position. Some lawmakers of such a persuasion have been working to pass bans on sexually explicit material on the basis of its harmful effects upon women: both direct (by exploiting the women used in the productions) and indirect (by contributing to the male view of women as mere sex objects). So far, District Courts have not gone for it.
2) Paralleling the representational /non-representational art question: an important distinction made in defining child pornography is whether actual children were used in its production.
Ray! great to hear from you. Thanks for stopping by and for sharing the insightful comments. I'll try to pick back up the discussion very soon.
brad - found your post by way of danny's blog. you have presented some really good thoughts - thanks for those. i just want to say that my own husband of 23 years had decided a long, long time ago that it was wrong for him to look upon another woman's naked body, and i don't think i can express well enough in words just how secure that has made me feel as his wife. it doesn't mean he is free from the temptation to lust or from seeing unexpected images, but when he consistently turns his head away at the moment he's confronted, it fills me with a great sense of assurance of his love and fidelity.
and yes, my teenage daughters have noticed!
Thanks so much for your encouraging testimony, ~d (took me a while to find the ~ on my keyboard).
It's one thing for a bunch of guys to theorize about the positive effects of purity upon wives, it's quite another to hear about them first hand. May God continue to bless you and your family!
Some responses to Ray, mixed in with additional random observations:
1) For what very, very little it's worth, all I can say about the "skip to the next scene" method is that my conscience presently permits me to use it: if and only if I can be quite sure that I don't "accidentally" see anything appropriate. Sites like Screenit.com are helpful for this. Again, chapter and verse elude me on this particular issue.
2) The sexual prohibitions of Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 are interesting: the wife's nakedness in each of these examples is actually considered to be the husband's nakedness.
This suggests, first of all, a good explanation as to why it is appropriate for spouses to view one another's nakedness. The nakedness of a man's wife is really his own nakedness.
This also brings up an entirely new issue. Biblically speaking, is same-gender exposure any less problematic? What role do familial relationships play in the question? Again, in Lev. 18 and 20, sexual relations with female relatives by marriage are said to be wrong because their nakedness is considered to be the nakedness of the male blood relative.
Also, Canaan was cursed not for looking lustfully at a woman but for viewing too casually the nakedness of his father (though some commentators suggest that something more sinister is being described in this passage).
All that to say, there seem to be indications that even exposure of same-sex nakedness is frowned upon in scripture, though ultimately, such a severe position would seem to be inconsistent with issues of medical necessity and important cultural practices like sports team locker rooms.
3) Finally, on the text v. image question. I remember hearing that Francis Schaeffer said that the more imagination required by a piece of obscene art, the more potentially damaging it is to the viewer, because rather than being a passive recipient of the obscene mental picture, the viewer is actively involved in its creation. Don't know if that's true or what it would prove if it is, but it seemed relevant.
as for 2)
that explains whey junior high locker room was so awkward. it's a violation of leviticus!!!
Post a Comment