Expectations Born Out of Porn

Expectations Born Out of Porn
by Motte Brown on 10/26/2009 at 3:27 PM

Our friend Tim Challies announced today that he'll be writing a series of articles to help young men detoxify from pornography's effects. Here, Tim explains some of his motivation for writing this series:

My great concern with young men today (which is really more a concern for their young wives) is that they may perhaps inadvertently or perhaps intentionally pornify the marriage bed. They may bring impurity to the pure, selfishness to the selfless. Having given themselves over to pornography, they have had their whole perception of sexuality altered, shaped by professional pornographers. They may be imposing on their young brides the impossible expectation of a porn star. With the vast majority of young men having been exposed to pornography (at least 90% according to recent studies), with a large percentage of them having been addicted to it and with many enjoying it still as they enter into marriage, they need to have their understanding and their expectations reset according to the One who created sex.

I think this series may also prove helpful for men and women who're bringing a sexual history with one or more partners into marriage. Because sin corrupts all the sexual pleasure you experience outside of God's intended purposes. Sexual baggage in all its forms bring with them their own "impossible expectations."

Marriage & Family , Sex | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Rachel V said the following at 5:19 PM on Oct 26:

I was just wondering why porn is characterized as a man's problem?

2. Becky said the following at 5:39 PM on Oct 26:

My ex-fiance was a porn addict....from a female, THANK YOU so much for writing and publishing these articles. I am SO glad this is being addressed, i know it will be a huge blessing.
God Bless you guys!

3. Carl said the following at 6:08 PM on Oct 26:

I do not understand your intrusion into such an intimate decision that goes on between husband and wife.

What style of marital sex is permissible? Is one 'more worthy' than another?

Are not consent and respect the only qualifiers?

4. beck said the following at 6:19 PM on Oct 26:

I think in order to be fair....more needs to be said about the fix women get off of chick flicks. They really are "female porn." Men are called out for indulging their sexual desires outside of marriage and setting up unrealistic expectations for a spouse, while women get a free pass on indulging their relationship/intimacy desires and setting up equally false expectations.

5. Jan said the following at 6:42 PM on Oct 26:

Are there signs that a young woman can look for in a suitor that would indicate a potential problem in this area?

6. Emily said the following at 6:45 PM on Oct 26:

To Rachel (#1) I think it is generally characterized as a male problem because, largely, it is. Men are visual. That's the way they were made. Porn caters directly to this visual tendency. Women, on the other hand, tend to be driven more by emotions (talking), and touches (cuddling, kisses, etc). Porn can't really fulfill that.

Therefore, I think it is safe to say that many more men than women are attracted to, and consequently addicted to, porn.

Does this cover all men and women? Certainly not. Most? Yes.

7. Ultraviolet said the following at 6:49 PM on Oct 26:

This is interesting...because I think that a lot of these false assumptions about what sex is really like would be eliminated through proper sexual education.

From people I know who are sexually active, they often emphasize how neither them, nor their male partner expect porn situations. I think this is for a couple reasons. For one, they have been practicing a lot to know what real sex is like, so I think that any married Christian couple could come to these same conclusions. Just approach it with an open mind and a sense of humour and just learn with each other. Second, among these people I know there is the common idea that "sex is just sex," there is no "normal" so essentially they are approaching it with no expectations, and that's why they have the sort of attitude that do, and differentiate between porn and real sex. Obviously I'm not condoning this attitude, as sex is much more than what they're saying, but I think the key idea is that there is no "normal" in a sex life, and if it's consensual and you enjoy it, why not, even if it's the most vanilla sex, or the craziest sex.

These ideas about sex are obviously open-minded, and I think that's because of the emphasis on knowing about and respecting your body. Now, I'm not sure how these values would translate to a Christian sex life, but I do think that just education about sex is important, but this is often discouraged in the church. Porn, coupled with near ignorance of sex is really a terrible combination. By talking about sex people can have a better idea of what to expect, and just come to it with a more frank attitude.

I don't know. These are my initial thoughts, I'm not saying I agree %100 with them. But I'd be willing to dialogue about it.

8. Clair said the following at 6:57 PM on Oct 26:

What I would like to know from this series is: If what is seen in porn isn't the way God intended sex to be, what does godly sex look like? I mean, obviously it is within the confines of marriage...but what are some other components or characteristics that one can expect of godly sex and how does it differ from pornography sex?

9. Emily said the following at 7:13 PM on Oct 26:

To carl (3) and Clair (8)

I can't speak to much, being unmarried and not having had sex myself, but here is what I have understood from my mentors and elders in my church (we've always spoken pretty openly about sex, what we want from it when we do have it, what it will be like, etc.) - "Godly" sex is serving your husband/wife. Trying to please them instead of yourself. Ministering to them. Asking what they want, what they need. Truly, truly loving them in all that you do.
To do this, both parties have to communicate openly, honestly, and frequently about needs, desires, and expectations. When both a husband and wife do this, both come away satisfied.

In my mind, *that* is Godly sex. Correct me if I'm wrong.

10. Emily said the following at 7:16 PM on Oct 26:

And I forgot, also to Carl (3)

The reason that Boundless is rightfully writing many articles and blogs about porn, and how it affects marital sex is this - Porn makes women feel like men have unrealistic expectations. They grow fearful and shut down.

Additionally, the reason that they are speaking *specifically* about the type of sex depicted in pornography is because it's inherently selfish. There is nothing loving or of a servant nature in porn. The parties are just two strangers coming together in an intimate act to make money and receive pleasure. Certainly, they are not really thinking about giving. If they do give pleasure, it's only with the expectation to receive some in return.

That is selfish, and God would never design anything that operated mainly on a principle of selfishness.

11. Mike said the following at 8:32 PM on Oct 26:

Ultraviolet -

As the linked article mentions, it's not so much the particular sex acts themselves, but the expectation that the woman exists strictly to please the man that creates the problem. Porn is very man-centric; the "performers" create the illusion that the women exist only to please the men and will do anything whatsoever to meet that goal. That's 180 degrees contrary to God's design, and is very damaging to a proper relationship between husband and wife. It makes for a very selfish male lover.

Beck (#4) -

Spot on. Not only chick flicks, but romance novels as well. These are "female porn" in the same way. They create male characters who exist solely for the purpose of satisfying the women's needs. Exactly the same phenomenon, with exactly the same sort of damage.

12. em said the following at 9:12 PM on Oct 26:

Scripture does not have a lot of instruction about what married sex is supposed to be like.

From Scripture, we know the following explicitly:
*Faithful (no adultery or bringing outsiders to the marriage bed, this includes pornography)
*Regular (don't deprive each other in a way that is non-consensual / leads to temptation)
*Singular (one man-one woman was God's creation ideal)
*Joyous ("intoxicating" and celebratory)
*Intimate (personal and "knowing")

Am I missing anything?

Some would include "possibly procreative" in this list. I believe this is a strong inference from Scripture and an important consideration for ethical sex but I don't know chapter / verse that can be cited for it. "Possibly procreative" does not mean that sex is reserved for baby-making but that one should not aim at enjoying sex selfishly / in a way that rejects any possibility of children during the season of life that both partners are capable of reproducing. Scripture does not actually say this but it is a belief that is held to varying degrees by Catholics and many evangelical Protestants. The inference from this principle is that sexual behaviors other than intercourse should not completely replace intercourse (some Catholics go further).

Other Scriptures are helpful for a married couple to remember in their sex life. These provide implicit guidelines for "Christian sex."
* Honoring (let the wife see that she respect her husband; show honor to the wife)
* Loving (husbands love your wives; train the younger women to love their husbands)
* Sacrificial (do nothing from selfish ambition... prefer one another)
* Safe (do unto others / one flesh)

From these general principles for relating to other believers and spouses, I think we can conclude that sexual activity within marriage should be consensual, should not be demeaning or impersonal and should not endanger or harm either partner.

But within those parameters, there is an ocean of diverse ways couples can enjoy each other. Within marriage, do what you enjoy together, within the boundaries God has set for your protection, and it is RIGHT.

13. Amy Lauren Scoggin said the following at 9:59 PM on Oct 26:

I think the problem with porn isn't (necessarily) certain acts, but a general air of disrespect, selfishness, and obviously lust and sexual immorality (adultery, fornication, etc.). I'm sure the author will point this out. :)

I look forward to reading this series. As a former girlfriend of a man who was addicted to hardcore pornography (things that I would say aren't even okay in the confines of marriage: abuse, injury, etc.) I am so happy that men (And women) who have turned from their past life will have some help and guidance in moving past the scars that addiction has left them with.

God bless,
Amy

14. Keith said the following at 10:16 PM on Oct 26:

My high school best friend had a father who was (and is still) addicted to pornography. His son (my friend) is now addicted to hard core drugs...a connection???

15. Sara said the following at 10:59 PM on Oct 26:

#6 Emily - Erotica and often some of the more racey romance novels are pornographic in nature, and yet they are rarely talked about as a "problem"... perhaps because men don't make a big stink over their wives reading them.

In my own peer group, porn is used by both men and women... but rarely talked about among the women. Seems to be more taboo if women use porn as a means of sexual excitement.

16. Kathleen said the following at 11:11 PM on Oct 26:

Beck: "I think in order to be fair....more needs to be said about the fix women get off of chick flicks. They really are "female porn.""

Huh? If 'setting up unrealistic expectations' is your definition of porn, then all those macho cowboy, sci-fi, sports, war and buddy flicks qualify as porn as well.

17. Kathryn said the following at 12:51 AM on Oct 27:

Thank you for bringing this to attention! Sex, like all things submitted to Jesus, is other person centred and porn is totally the opposite. It objectifies the sexual partner and makes the act about what *I* can get out of it. Keep the marriage bed pure, brothers and sisters!

I find it so helpful, whenever I'm tempted to let my thought linger on sex, to put my focus on what sex is pointing us to: the union between Jesus and the church that will finally be realised when he returns! Praise God for such a good gift and for our reconciliation to him!

18. Charlotte C. said the following at 5:22 AM on Oct 27:

Some people I knew a long time ago were addicted to porn and they're females! I believe 'female porn' is more wide range.. there are romance books, chick flicks etc. I won't go explain the rest but it's there and I believe it's as equally as serious. I really hope the issue is talked about.

19. Jeremiah said the following at 8:37 AM on Oct 27:

I have to side with those people that are questioning the possible overreach of this article. As a Godly Christian man, my desire is to one day get married and then make every effort to satisfy the needs and desires of my wife. I assume that this will include talking, emotional intimacy, cuddling, touching, and yes, sex – be it vanilla or exotic.

If her desire is for something like idol worship, then yes, I absolutely would put my foot down. My priority is to obey and honor God first and foremost. However, in most other areas related to marriage and sexuality, I see a lot of freedom. I really can’t think of anything that would/should be prohibited. If it’s going to be disrespectful to her, then I’m sure it’s not something she would want anyway. Then again, someone’s particular view of disrespectful may vary substantially from someone else’s. I really don’t know that it’s the place of Boundless to try to define where that line is. (Not that the article is intending to do that).

I am very wary of this line of thinking. Before you know it, our Baptist churches may be handing out sheets with holes in them to newlyweds just like some of the stricter Jewish sects. ;)

20. Hannah said the following at 9:02 AM on Oct 27:

After my husband I dated for two years, he broke up with me because he confessed that he had been addicted to porn for ten years and had no business dating me and asking me to marry him. It was heartbreaking because I thought he was the one I was going to marry. At that point I swore I would never marry him or talk to him again. Five months later God had worked incredibly in both our lives and we actually got back together, dated for two more years, and then got married.

One of my fears was that porn would have made him selfish and only thinking about himself. However, this fear was greatly diminished over the two years we dated because I saw in his actions patience and kindness that had not formally been there. God had changed him completely and it was amazing. I fully saw this after we got married. My husband is one of the sweetest and most caring people that I know now. He is also continually thoughtful of my feelings and wants.

I just want to say that God changes people through his word and through the prayer of people around us. I never thought I would love my husband (when he broke up with me) again and I never thought he would change. But I stand here today and give testimony of the great changes that he has made in both our lives. God is good and faithful! His plans are not my plans; they are so much better.

P.S. I would like to here about chick flicks as well since I have several friends and I have seen them unhappy in marriage and relationships because they are not perfect like these movies. My first five months of marriage have been wonderful, but I think it was because we purposely tried to have no expectations and enjoy every moment.

21. Nathaniel said the following at 9:30 AM on Oct 27:

@Carl (#3) You said: "I do not understand your intrusion into such an intimate decision that goes on between husband and wife.

What style of marital sex is permissible? Is one 'more worthy' than another?

Are not consent and respect the only qualifiers?"

It's not about the 'style' of sex. That has nothing to do with it. I think it's more to do with the expectations of sex that pornography creates in a man's mind, that women are playthings to be used and then ignored. And I think it's also because porn is like some drugs - you start out relatively banal, but as you progress things get worse and worse, and you find yourself not caring, because escalation is the only way to 'feel' anything. Instead of making sex about the intimacy between a man and a woman, porn makes it about the intensity.

22. Jo said the following at 9:37 AM on Oct 27:

I'm not a chick-flick addict, but I have to respectfully suggest that some romance novels and romantic films have good things to say. Not all, by any stretch, but some. I can't agree that they're 'female porn'.

I do understand the points made, and yes they can give women unrealistic expectations. Too much of them is certainly bad. But unlike porn, I would say that decent chick flicks (ie those with some substance) in healthy measure aren't damaging.

I mean, is there anyone here who would seriously class Austen's novels (as a well known example) as female porn?

23. Ultraviolet said the following at 10:40 AM on Oct 27:

Mike (#11) - I'm unclear on how your post addresses what I said. I was talking about the potential importance of sexual education, or at least an ability to talk frankly about it, and this is not present in a lot of church circles.

24. adam said the following at 11:06 AM on Oct 27:

The trouble is that this website likes to dance around the subject of sexuality without using terms that would clear up the debate. A lot of boundless articles on sexuality leave people more confused.

For example, a lot of articles talk about unrealistic expectations. What are these expectations? Which specific sexual acts and attitudes are unrealistically expected, by whom, and what body of research do you base your conclusions on?

Boundless tries to do articles on sex, but without actually talking about sex and only using extremely vague (false) dichotomies (porn vs real), they come up short on substance.

25. Ted Slater said the following at 11:14 AM on Oct 27:

Adam (#24):

Most of our readers are unmarried. Out of respect, we feel it's best not to get into the details. Such a discussion *may* be more appropriate for our Young Married Life community, though I'm not entirely convinced that it would.

And more importantly, we'd prefer to emphasize the heart of the matter rather than the specifics. We want to encourage loving communication between spouses, rather than dictate the morality of "positions."

We're not able to identify what specifically is "right" or "wrong" for any married couple, but we can propose principles. The specifics are up to each married couple to work out for themselves. That may make for a less contentious conversation here (which many of our readers love), but I think it's ultimately of more value to married couples.

26. Erica said the following at 11:19 AM on Oct 27:

Re: Jo, #27
"I mean, is there anyone here who would seriously class Austen's novels (as a well known example) as female porn?"

Yes. I would. I think it's tricky to look at anything (i.e., a movie, book, other object) and say, "well, that's not porn because it's not rational to say it's porn. It doesn't look like porn, sound like porn, etc." Sin in general is not rational. I know from experience that it is hard to resist certain things that might be 100% harmless to every other person--or on the flip side, 100% disgusting.

Of course I'm using a very general definition of both pornography and rationality. But for me, any physical object or sight that intensifies my sexual desire in an inward movement is pornography.

And the individual characteristic of this process--the inward movement--means that my temptations canot be applied to anyone else. My sexuality is weak to certain areas, but by individualizing this process I essentially remove myself from life-giving, rational communion with others.

27. Nikki said the following at 11:41 AM on Oct 27:

Jo #22, if we're going by "sets unrealistic expectations" as our definition of porn, then Pride and Prejudice certainly must be guilty of falling into this category. What woman doesn't want to imagine herself so independent and witty (and pretty, though, of course, not so beautiful as to be intimidating) that the most handsome, richest, high-class old money bachelor in town falls madly in love with her and still desires to marry her even after she verbally flays him in the face of his proposal? Loves her so much that he secretly saves her trashy family from social ruin without having any real hope of her affection? And, of course, the characters get a happy ending with a marvelous marriage.

In reality, most men would give up after being rejected as Darcy was; their friends and mentors would counsel them to give up; and they would go and find another woman with a much more gentle, Proverbs 31 spirit to marry.

28. Jonathon said the following at 11:42 AM on Oct 27:

I was just wishing Boundless would do a series on this; all this talk about porn has got me thinking and I don't know what's normal anymore, coming out of a five-year porn addiction. Looking forward to it, thank you Tim.

29. Alexis said the following at 11:42 AM on Oct 27:

To agree with Beck #4, I think something should be said about Romance Novels. I know some young ladies who read them regularily, daily even, to me this would be the same as a porn addiction. If you have never picked up a romance novel, you know the ones, with the muscular hunk on the cover with his shirt half open (if he is wearing one) and the woman looking very 'damsel in distress' with a 'heaving boosom' leaning into his arms, her hair flowing all down. You know, those ones, well they are full of explicit details about the sexual relationships between characters of the book. Mixed with these explicit descriptions is a story line that plays to every womans emotions. Anyhow, these are just as dangerous and easily accessable as pornography. I wonder how many women out there are addicted to these books, and wish they could stop reading them?

30. Tami said the following at 11:59 AM on Oct 27:

The notion of equating romance novels and "chick flicks" with porn has always troubled me.

Yes, romance novels, "chick flicks," and soap operas can create unrealistic expectations, allow some women to live in fantasy worlds, and portray ungodly attitudes. And yes, many *do* have graphic scenes.

But in the creation of these books and movies, no real person is being exploited for the sake of entertainment.

31. Hieronymus Illinensis said the following at 12:20 PM on Oct 27:

em (#12), one Scripture about the requirement that sex be "possibly procreative" is Genesis 38:8-10. Note that Onan was judged for *one* antiprocreative act, not merely on whether such acts "completely replaced" intercourse over an extended conjugal life.

32. Emily said the following at 1:03 PM on Oct 27:

to Hieronymus (31) - I think that you could reasonably argue that Onas was not being judged for his antiprocreative act so much as he was being punished for
1)disobeying a direct command from God
2) acting selfishly (withholding from Tamar so that she would not conceive a child that would continue as her husbands bloodline, and possibly be more important than Onan's own sons)
3) *Being hypocritical* - I think that's the kicker. God abhors hypocrites. On the outside, Onan agreed to do as he was told, and have sex with Tamar (which he probably enjoyed). But, instead of letting it be a procreative act, as God had told him to, he secretively "wasted his seed", thus outwardly appearing to fulfill his obligation, but not actually doing so.

33. Ted Slater said the following at 1:03 PM on Oct 27:

Tami (#30) -- I agree very strongly with what you've written. Romance novels and chick flicks are not necessarily wrong in themselves, the way pornography is always wrong in itself.

Dismissing chick flicks as "female porn" is just lazy, sloppy, uncritical, shallow thinking. In my opinion. :-)

Some may be beyond redemption because of pornographic/immoral representations, or because they promote unrealistic/unhealthy expectations. But the emotions they may bring up in some people are not necessarily wrong. The longing for true love, for protection and care, for sacrifice -- those are good things, found in many men and found in the Best Man, Christ.

So let's not be so quick to equate the gutter slime of pornography with the genres of chick lit or chick flicks. Doing so allows people to not wrestle with the sin illuminated in their hearts, and instead blame the media itself as sinful.

You may remember an article on Boundless called "Female Porn," which talked about the evils of chick flicks and chick lit. I removed it from the site over a year ago.

34. Jo said the following at 1:26 PM on Oct 27:

Nikki and Erica:
Wow. I actually picked Austen as an obvious example that no one could possibly argue with me on. Guess I was wrong!

Ted:
"Dismissing chick flicks as "female porn" is just lazy, sloppy, uncritical, shallow thinking. In my opinion. :-)"

Thank you. I will be the first to admit that rom-coms and the like can be damaging, especially in excess, and especially particular types. But it just is not the same, on any level, to pornography.

Now, if anyone wants to say that graphic portrayals of sex in *some* chick lit is equivalent to pornography, I will agree. But porn is inherently sinful and destructive; romantic books and films are not inherently sinful and destructive, and in my opinion you can create an entire scale of chick lit/flicks from "pornographic" right up to "positive and uplifting".

35. Melissa said the following at 1:27 PM on Oct 27:

Bravo, Ted, for expressing the inanity of equating Jane Austen to porn.

And to Erica (#26), I would politely suggest that you reconsider your analysis of the novel. In my view, it's the story of two imperfect people who hurt each other by pointing out the other's faults. In spite of their wounded pride, both work consciously to overcome the flaw in question and become better people in the process.

As Ruth Bell Graham said, "A good marriage is the union of two good forgivers." A novel which illustrates that concept is far from being "female porn."

36. Jo said the following at 1:39 PM on Oct 27:

And Nikki,

Yes Austen's characters have flaws. That's why it's called 'Pride and Prejudice' and not 'Perfection and 'Perfection'. I honestly think if you read them properly, there's very little danger of idealising any of her heroes or heroines, because they're deliberately painted as human beings with faults. Perhaps your Darcy, who would give up on Elizabeth in favour of the ideal 'Proverbs 31 woman', might be the one with unrealistic expectations...? :)

37. em said the following at 2:13 PM on Oct 27:

#31 Hieronymus Illinensis

I would associate myself with Emily #32's comments regarding the sin of Onan.

Ted, very well said in both comments 25 and 33. Thanks!

38. Erica said the following at 2:55 PM on Oct 27:

Jo (#34): "But [a rom-com] just is not the same, on any level, to pornography"

I understand what you're saying in the sense that pornography objectifies and deumanizes the porn artist through the process of creation, whereas all evidence of Jane Austen's life is conclusive that novel-writing was a life-affirming and ealthy process for her.

But-- "on any level", in my opinion, is a generalization. On one level reading classic novels like Austen's led me down a road of lust. You, and every other audience member, have no way of nowng this unless I tell you. And this was certainly not the purpose for which these novels were created. It's not anything that anoter person up to and including Austen did to me--it's what I did to myself.

But what I was trying to say, and what I still maintain, is that any object can be perverted by a sinner. Yes, it is unfair and disgusting that this happens. But I disagree with Ted (at least as I read his comment) that when I try to draw attention to rom-coms and rom novels, that I am being sloppy and lazy. I specifically tried to avoid dismissing chick flicks, so maybe his comment doesn't apply to my statement. I am not trying to excuse my sin-rather I am confessing that, in the irrationality that is my sinful mind, I used smeone else's edifyng art object as a object of lust. And that, perhaps but not certainly, smeone else has had this same experience. And that if this is true, then this person should also recognize their sin, and not excuse it by saying that it belongs to the world of chick flicks.

Re: Melissa (#35) "I would politely suggest that you reconsider your analysis of the novel"

This was exactly my point with the irrationality that I mentioned in my first comment. No analysis, lit crit, rational thought was involved in my former sinful use of novels like this. I did not specifically think, "Man, that Elizabeth Bennet is a model of godly womanhood journeying to a God-honouring marriage". Sure, going back to my lit class notes would have certainly prevented this lust from happening. But that's not what the process of lust is about. I realize that this is an uncomfortale definition of pornography, and it probably was not what the OP had in mind. But I still believe that it is an important view. Please compare w/ OP, "sin corrupts all the sexual pleasure you experience outside of God's intended purposes. Sexual baggage in all its forms bring with them their own "impossible expectations"

39. Ted Slater said the following at 3:57 PM on Oct 27:

Erica (#38), you wrote:

"But I disagree with Ted (at least as I read his comment) that when I try to draw attention to rom-coms and rom novels, that I am being sloppy and lazy."

That's not what I said. I very simply said that throwing around the term "female porn" in reference to the chick flick genre (and other media that some women tend to gravitate to) is sloppy and lazy.

I emphatically encourage discernment about any kind of media consumption; I'm simply saying that it's wrong to dismiss all romantic comedies, all chick flicks, all chick lit ... as "female porn." Among other things, doing so trivializes real pornography.

It also allows people to blame the book/film rather than their own hearts when discontentment arises; when the real problem of discontentment is not addressed, real growth does not take place. Read that last sentence again -- it's significant, and few people are making that point.

40. Mike said the following at 4:12 PM on Oct 27:

Ted Slater (#33) wrote:

Dismissing chick flicks as "female porn" is just lazy, sloppy, uncritical, shallow thinking. In my opinion. :-)

On its face, perhaps. But when it creates in the mind of the woman watching it the expectation that a man exists to serve her needs, with no requirements on her part; when it raises her expectations to unrealistic levels that no real man could meet; when it encourages a love of passive receipt of satisfaction over the active work of loving another...the parallel is not out of line.

At an emotional level, the impact is no different. The reason you object is because the presentation is different, and because the novels or movies have more depth and breadth than a typical porn movie or magazine. On those points, I agree. However, the dangers of objectification of the other, focus on self, and impossible expectations raised by the medium cannot be ignored or dismissed.

The simple fact that such stories create an intense emotional reaction in women that can, and often does, provide a distraction from the realities of healthy relationships makes them too close to porn for them to be healthy. Especially with regular consumption.

Both media feed powerful emotional needs. Just because one is obviously dangerous and the other is more subtle doesn't change that fact. (And, I should mention here that we're really not talking so much about the Jane Austen novels of old; we're really talking more about the Harlequin romances popular nowadays.)

41. Tami said the following at 4:32 PM on Oct 27:

Mike wrote (addressing Ted): "The reason you object is because the presentation is different, and because the novels or movies have more depth and breadth than a typical porn movie or magazine."

Actually, the reason I (and perhaps others) object is because a real, live person is being objectified and exploited in a sinful manner, for someone else's gratification.

It's not a male/female thing (because both men and women can be exploited); it's a romance novel/porn thing.

42. Tami said the following at 4:35 PM on Oct 27:

* I should add that I can't stand romance novels (and I'm not counting Jane Austen in that), so this is not me defending something I like. I'm with you all on the fantasy angle; I just can't agree that they're equatable otherwise.

43. Erica said the following at 4:59 PM on Oct 27:

Ted, you said (#33) "So let's not be so quick to equate the gutter slime of pornography with the genres of chick lit or chick flicks. Doing so allows people to not wrestle with the sin illuminated in their hearts, and instead blame the media itself as sinful."

Ted, I said, (#38): "I specifically tried to avoid dismissing chick flicks, so maybe his comment doesn't apply to my statement. I am not trying to excuse my sin-rather I am confessing that, in the irrationality that is my sinful mind, I used smeone else's edifyng art object as a object of lust. And that, perhaps but not certainly, smeone else has had this same experience. And that if this is true, then this person should also recognize their sin, and not excuse it by saying that it belongs to the world of chick flicks."

I think we agree that sin in any form needs to be faced--sorry I seemed to be atacking you, and that my comment was vague.

44. Ted Slater said the following at 5:41 PM on Oct 27:

Mike (#40) -- you wrote that one of the reasons chick flicks/chick lit is innately wrong is that "it creates in the mind of the woman watching it the expectation that a man exists to serve her needs...."

No. No media "creates" anything in anyone. People can *allow* it to create something in them, but that is their choice. A woman who watches a chick flick sees an idealized relationship and *chooses* whether or not to embrace that as her standard for men, or to simply see it as pointing toward some sort of ideal found only in Christ, and toward which men might aspire.

Does the chick flick *cause* discontentment, or merely expose it?

Again, it's foolish to equate chick flicks with pornography. There may be *SOME* commonalities (they both facilitate discontentment, they both present idealized versions of the opposite sex, they both present perfect relationship as work-free), but they are DIFFERENT in significant and key ways.

45. Nikki said the following at 5:51 PM on Oct 27:

Jo #36, I never said that Elizabeth and Darcy have no flaws. My point is that their romance is very idealized. Most romance novels don't have two idealized leads. It's very common these days for the heroine to be bright and opinionated. Heroes tend to be rakes, snobs, emotionally distant, hot-headed...the list goes on. And Darcy falls right into many a romance trope: snobby, uptight, but ultimately upstanding bachelor who just needs the love of a good, vibrant woman to bring out his warmth. The whole idea of Elizabeth, a poor country girl from a hick family, enchanting the wealthiest, most handsome bachelor in the area, resulting in a marriage in which Elizabeth moves up the social ladder and comes into wealth (and is adored by her young sister-in-law!)...this is largely fantasy.

If a woman can honestly say that after reading Pride and Prejudice, she did NOT take stock of the men around her and find them lacking in comparison to Darcy, then perhaps the book can be said not to create unreasonable expectations in women. But I think a lot of women read this book and think, "Gee, why can't men be more like Darcy?" "Why isn't there a Darcy for me?" "Men were so much better back in the 1800s." - exactly the opposite thinking that Boundless usually encourages. (I suppose the Boundless take would be, "Read P&P, then encourage the men in your life so they will have good character and be more like Darcy and then you can have your own Darcy if he wakes up and decides to be intentional about it." ;))

46. Mike said the following at 6:41 PM on Oct 27:

Tami wrote:

Actually, the reason I (and perhaps others) object is because a real, live person is being objectified and exploited in a sinful manner, for someone else's gratification.

Fair enough. That's a demonstrable difference. However, the potential for a real person to be exploited or damaged in a real relationship later because of a damaged relational model (i.e. unhealthy expectations, self-focused attitude) can't be ignored.

I'm with you all on the fantasy angle; I just can't agree that they're equatable otherwise.

I agree they're not a one-for-one correspondence. I merely think that, from the standpoint of the intense emotional reaction and the danger to healthy relationship modeling, they're awfully close.

47. Cat said the following at 7:30 PM on Oct 27:

One of the things I love about my faith is that it's not a "one size fits all" thing. It's not something where I look at the formula everyday, nor is it a set of rules I follow. Of course there are general things: We should be praying, loving others and evangelizing. Part of what makes my beliefs sacred is that it's as much a part of me as my hair color. I don't do what's right because the Bible says so, I do what's right because the Holy Spirit, who dwells inside of me, says so.

Chick flicks, romance novels, and Jane Austen (as an English major I can't clump a master like Austen in with smut) are fine for me. I've never had an issue with lust because of romantic stories. But, I emphatically encourage discernment in matters of the media. If your heart says no, don't do it. But, if you have no conviction, enjoy your freedom in Christ. But please, unless scripture clearly spells it out, don't tell me what is sin for me.

I will also say, addiction of any form and shape is sin. Christ is all we should be addicted to. If you feel that you can not stop, or have any sort of moderation in any area, you need to take a step back.

As to the person who criticized Pride and Prejudice so harshly (Erica #27), I would assume you've seen the movie but never bothered to pick up the novel? I would say that Elizabeth is far from perfect, she is proud and judgmental of Darcy, she assumes that everyone should love her just because, she harshly criticizes her family (right or not she is often downright disrespectful). But, I also think in studying her, we see the closest any author has ever come to constructing a realistic female mind. Darcy is also, extremely imperfect, he is arrogant and downright disrespectful of Elizabeth. When she rejects him she does so because he has broken her sister's heart, ruins the future of a man she believes good, and been disrespectful in his addresses to Elizabeth. I would have rejected him to, and I to,would have answered him truthfully when he asked why. Pride and Prejudice is a genius analysis of the delicate dance of love and what it means to sacrifice one's pride for the hope of winning the heart of one you love.

48. Ted Slater said the following at 7:48 PM on Oct 27:

Kyra -- I didn't publish your comment because it was just too explicit for our readers. Nothing you said was inappropriate but that. You're free to re-submit it, but without some of the, ahem, details.

Let me know if you'd like me to e-mail your comment to you. I'm happy to do so in the morning.

49. Erica said the following at 8:33 PM on Oct 27:

Cat (#47): As to the person who criticized Pride and Prejudice so harshly (Erica #27), I would assume you've seen the movie but never bothered to pick up the novel?

Can I please that it was not I who criticized P and P? Comment #27 is not mine. I have read the novel--please address your concerns to the proper person.

50. Mike Toreno said the following at 11:53 PM on Oct 27:

Romance novels, most of them, are porn; "chick flicks" are not. In most romance novels, the key scenes, and the scenes for which the readers buy them, are the ones about the heroine feeling a thrill at the depths of her being, only mostly with a lot more detail about what causes the thrill.

But the whole notion of porn messing up marriages because of the unrealistic expectations it creates is just silly. People are able to separate fiction from reality. I watch Bollywood movies, I don't expect people to break into song and dance numbers whenever any kind of significant event occurs. I watched ET, I don't ride my bicycle in front of cars expecting it to mount into the air and thus avoid being hit.

There are plenty of reasons to object to porn; there's no need to make up silly objections that don't give human beings credit for being able to reason.

51. Jo said the following at 2:40 AM on Oct 28:

Nikki,
"But I think a lot of women read this book and think, "Gee, why can't men be more like Darcy?""

I don't want a Darcy. Good man and everything, but not much fun. :)

I guess the thing I see is that in Austen's books (and with the chick lit I've read - which admittedly has not been of the Mills&Boon variety - and with chick flicks too), the things we end up admiring about the men are good things. Generosity, chivalry, forgiveness, loyalty, honesty, etc. There's still the danger of ending up with unrealistic expectations, but the qualities we're hoping for are at least good qualities. That's not true of porn. Porn reduces women/men to nothing but sexual objects, romances do not do that.

Erica,
You make a lot of important points, and I don't want to dismiss what you're saying - but even though some people might find that romance novels are unhelpful and tempt them to sin, that still doesn't make them porn. You're right that the sinful nature can twist anything, and of course if romances provoke that in you, you're right to avoid them. But porn is created with that specific goal in mind, and cannot be enjoyed in a healthy and godly way. Some people can enjoy romances in a healthy and godly way, and it's unfair to suggest that in that case they are ejoying porn.

Again, I have no problem with anyone saying that romances can be damaging, or even that Christians simply should not read/watch the sexually graphic types. But it just isn't true to call romances porn. They are entirely different things with different aims and different problems attached to them.

And as someone else said, this isn't a case of us women defending ourselves: anyone can be addicted to porn and porn can come in many forms (words as well as visuals), I just don't agree that romances are in any way the same thing.

52. Cat said the following at 9:15 AM on Oct 28:

Erica #49

Apparently this is what happens when I try to sound intelligent while getting over the flu. Please except my emphatic apology.

53. khalil said the following at 9:29 AM on Oct 28:

Mike, #53…

"But the whole notion of porn messing up marriages because of the unrealistic expectations it creates is just silly. People are able to separate fiction from reality. I watch Bollywood movies, I don't expect people to break into song and dance numbers whenever any kind of significant event occurs. I watched ET, I don't ride my bicycle in front of cars expecting it to mount into the air and thus avoid being hit."

Congratulations!!! You have a reasonably strong ability to differentiate between fiction and fantasy. The problem with porn (btw, what are your many reasons to object to it?) is that it takes something that objectifies and demeans women and an act that God created and takes that new, twisted form and attempts to pass it off as normal or acceptable. Porn creates a fantasy that people can "almost" justify into reality. Softcore porn, whether the covers of tabloid magazines at the market or that which can be found online, overlook the flaws of the human body. Airbushing and computer enhancement create an ideal that just doesn't exist. The unreasonable expectations lie in the areas of wrinkles, hair, moles, pimples, and other "blemishes" that are part of normal daily life…they are gone. When a person discovers that their new spouse doesn't match the photos they've been looking at for years I am sure there might be a bit of disappointment. The more porn, in whatever form, is looked at it desensitizes the viewer and conditions him or her into thinking that what they're looking at is the ideal, in form or in function.

I strongly think that once people get the taste of porn they expect reality to match fiction. Think of it this way…the photos of the food on microwave dinners always look better than the food they represent. Do you really expect your $2.99 tv dinner to look or taste like a gourmet meal, like the one the box advertises you are getting? I don't say this to demean women (or men), but when you are conditioned and start to expect one standard and then someone comes along and changes things on you... you've held an unrealistic view. Porn creates a sort of false advertising.

Also, in the realm of sex, with all the hormones, emotions, physical sensations, and chemicals the brain produces, people tend to lose a lot of their ability to reason.

54. Erica said the following at 9:30 AM on Oct 28:

Hi everyone, Let me just add my two cents about romantic novel.

What about novels such as, Mills and Boon and Harlequin? What about True Confession, True Story, True Love, Modern Romance and Black Story Magazines that are read by women? What do you have to say about Sydney Sheldon Books and Danielle Steele Novels? Some of these books paint very graphic scene of making love that if your were a painter to paint what is described in them your painting will be placed next to Playboy Magazine. The female who visit male strip club, I believe are doing the same thing as the male who visited female strip club.

Even when you read secular articles like in wikipedia they will tell you that there are certain sex act only occurred in X-Rated Film and not in real relationship. Even the world know what is normal and not.

I stopped reading them when I realized the chance of meeting the men they are describing are slim. I live in a country where 95% of the males are black. What chance would I have to meet a blond hair, blue eyes with pale skin on the streets in the Caribbean? Also, in the end all the problems with the couple are solved. In reality, in marriage all the problems are not solved one day. Each day bring something new. In overcoming that new problem gives us strength to deal with the next problems.

In gives woman unrealistic expectations when it let women believe

a. The man they marry will always be handsome, rich, healthy and will inherited some large fortune.

b. All problems in marriage will end at the alter
Also, it becomes a part of some women live as everywhere you see them, you see the book.

55. Erica said the following at 9:35 AM on Oct 28:

In them, all the women are satisfied with every aspect of their lives. The women in them always have orgasms (even more than one at a time) and are never tired at anytime. This with men they hate These give women unrealistic expectation too about the men they will live with and love

56. Alli said the following at 11:01 AM on Oct 28:

What do you think about a husband and wife who view porn together?

57. Erica in Washington said the following at 11:09 AM on Oct 28:

Just wanted to clarify that I am the Erica of posts 26, 38, 43 and 49. The Erica of posts 54 and 55 is a different person.

58. Mike said the following at 4:05 PM on Oct 28:

Ted wrote:

No media "creates" anything in anyone. People can *allow* it to create something in them, but that is their choice.

Not to be snarky here, but the porn producers say the same thing...

Media DO create images in people's minds; that's how they work. Now, you're right insofar as we're responsible for what we do with those images and perceptions, but to suggest that we can expose ourselves to media without it producing a reaction in us isn't accurate. Otherwise, there'd be no need for discernment in what media we consume.

59. Mike said the following at 4:43 PM on Oct 28:

There's another, really dark, danger lurking in chick flicks and romance novels. Several folks have commented on Pride and Prejudice. You see a pattern of the heroine behaving badly and the hero coming back for more abuse. Now, I've not read the book nor have I seen the movie, so I'm only basing this on what people have said here, and I really can't comment in detail on it. However, let me comment on another, Christian chick flick recently released to great acclaim.

Fireproof.

Now, I can hear the screams and wails from the rooftops. "Are you NUTS?!? That's about sacrificial love, and modeling Christ, and holding marriage together, and perseverance, and putting the needs of your spouse ahead of your own! That's Ephesians 5 on screen! You're out of your mind!"

Yup. All true. (Well, except for the part about me being out of my mind; the jury's still out on that.) :-)

But let's look at the pattern of the movie. When we start, Caleb and Catherine are at each other's throats. They have two big blow-ups towards the front of the movie, both precipitated when he comes home from work to find she's left him no dinner. When he says something, she says she assumed he was going out with friends. And then the fight gets going good - he talks about how she doesn't appreciate his contributions, she talks about how he doesn't appreciate her contributions, etc., etc. Fairly typical couple fight when each one is hurt and in attack mode (instead of listening).

They retreat to their same-gender friends. One interesting thing about that was that Caleb's friend just basically listens to him vent and asks him what he's going to do. Catherine's friends, on the other hand, affirm her - "You're right, honey; you're too good for him" and the like. First warning sign. (Stick with me here; there's a point coming.)

Now, after Caleb agrees to the Love Dare, he starts unconditionally doing loving things for Catherine. And every single one, she rejects. The ultimate one is when he smashes the computer (a rather severe form of Internet filtering) and replaces it with a bouquet of roses, complete with a note: "I love you more." Her response? She leaves him an envelope on the table the next morning containing the divorce papers.

Finally, after he's gone through the full 40+ days of loving her despite her behaving like a chrome-plated witch, she discovers that he's given up his boat fund - something for which he's been saving for years - to buy special equipment for her mother. (Shades of Pride and Prejudice, anyone?) She melts, puts on her makeup, and goes to meet him at the fire station. The music comes up, they run together and kiss, and all is well. Every woman's heart goes all a-flutter.

Except at no point in the movie does she ever apologize for her obnoxious, hurtful behavior. In fact, she's affirmed for it. (Remember her girlfriends?) She just comes back and says he's changed, that he's a good man, and wants to know if it's too late.

You're probably wondering, "What's the problem?" The problem is this: Stories like this one depict a relationship where a woman can behave as obnoxiously, as disrespectfully, as hurtfully as she wants to, and the man keeps coming back for more. Not only is it unrealistic (every man has a limit to the amount of abuse he'll take), it's also un-Biblical. Too much of this sort of thing, and it becomes an expectation.

Think I'm crazy? I'm not. This phenomenon was documented in the Feldhahn's For Men Only. In that book, they talk about this very thing. When a woman is acting rudely, she actually wants the man to come through her awful behavior and act the hero to prove he actually loves her in spite of herself. It's a form of testing him - which is disrespectful. And I've seen it in action.

In Sunday School one week, we were discussing a common fight couples have: housework. Specifically, when men don't do as much as their wives would like. (Yeah, guilty as charged.) I related one such incident that happened during my marriage:

"You never help out around here!" (factually untrue and insulting, but an expression of exasperation)
"Okay, what do you want me to do?"
"Ugh! I just wish you would pick something and do it!"
(thinking) "Okay, I'll do laundry. The hampers are almost full." (Husband collects laundry, sorts it, and is loading the first load into the washer when wife enters.)
"What are you doing?"
"Laundry."
"Well, why are you doing it that way? Who taught you to do it that way? You're doing it wrong!"
(thinking) "She wanted help...I'm helping...and now she's complaining about it..."

Now, we could easily derail the discussion by talking about the proper responses to defuse such a confrontation (and I will resist doing so). The point is, when I mentioned this, one of the women in the class (who is a die-hard feminist) said, "Well, in my experience, the mistake men make is not coming back." I'm thinking, "So...you want to treat your husband abusively, and then get mad when he doesn't come back for more?"

Dr. Laura also documented this problem in The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. She said it's widespread; she has scores of women calling in, complaining about their husbands, and insisting that they have no part in the problem by saying, "Well, shouldn't he just be understanding?" That, ladies and gentlemen, is, at least in part, a product of the chick flick culture. (It's also heavily influenced by feminism, but I digress.)

This is the problem with stories like Pride and Prejudice and Fireproof. They're based on the old fairy tales - the handsome prince dashes in on his white steed and rescues the princess from the hideous dragon. Naturally - every woman wants that! But there's a difference: The dragon, in this case, is the woman herself.

Now, now, I know - "Love your wife as Christ loved the church, giving Himself up for her." But it also says, "Wives must respect their husbands." And I don't think there's anything in Scripture that allows us to treat Christ's love as an entitlement. That's where the real danger lies if we allow ourselves to assume the woman can act any fool way she wants to, as they often do in these stories.

What has this to do with porn?

1) Objectification. The man exists only to serve the woman's needs; he's not a real person with needs of his own, nor with feelings.

2) Unrealistic expectations. How much abuse can one man take before he bites back - barring divine intervention? More to the point - why should he be expected to take abuse? He's your husband, for crying out loud!

I stand by my conviction that the similarities in these areas between porn and chick flicks / romance novels are sufficient enough to make the genres dangerous. Are they identical? No. I agree with you, Ted, that there are significant differences. But do they create the danger of producing similar damage to a person's relational expectations? I believe they do.

60. Melissa said the following at 8:15 PM on Oct 28:

*sigh* All the arguing about chick-flicks makes me frustrated. There are enough bodice-rippers and "Julia's Night of Passion" books/movies out there without angsting over books that merely glorify relationships beyond the usual reality.

That being said, I think the real temptation that results from porn, whether aimed at men or women, is the attitude of treating a person like a thing to be used. It tells you that marriage will mean a ready-made person standing by to satisfy your every sexual desire. It doesn't prepare you for a husband or wife to be stressed, tired, sick, or depressed. It doesn't teach you to study your own spouse in order to please them, instead of expecting him or her to line up with the latest Cosmo/Men'sHealth quiz. And yes, porn teaches you that the "dirtier" or "naughtier" the situation, the greater the pleasure. But, there is no shame in the marriage bed, as long as love and concern for the other is law.

61. Claire said the following at 9:41 PM on Oct 28:

Mike #59:

So, maybe we should ban the book of Hosea -- wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about God's extravagant love for sinners, or what loving your wife as Christ loves the church might really mean... (Talk about a guy coming back for more!)

I can kind of see your point, and certainly as a wife I want to respect my husband, appreciate his help and humbly apologize when I fail him instead of harping on his faults. But I think that if you are making it a tit for tat situation, in which you will only love as far as you are respected, or help as long as you are appreciated, you are missing the point of the gospel as it applies to relationships.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Maybe for the wives, that means patiently/cheerfully cleaning up when the husband leaves his dirty socks on the floor or his dirty plate next to the dishwasher for the umpteenth time. And maybe for the guy that means overlooking/listening to some of her criticisms of how he tries to help. Laying down our lives, or at least our rights, for Jesus' sake.

62. Dave said the following at 11:44 PM on Oct 28:

BBC News: Rom-coms 'spoil your love life'. Fuel for the fire?

63. Loris said the following at 8:28 AM on Oct 29:

Lol, Mike #59, were you in my house last week? We had that identical fight. Only his doing the laundry was an angry reaction to his not liking the way I did it, and my angry reaction to his doing the laundry was me assuming he was calling me incompetent, although I admitted when I calmed down that his suggested system was better than mine, though he probably shouldn't have said it the way he did in those circumstances (there were a lot of circumstances). I'll put it this way, I was sorely provoked, and completely wrong.

I've moved on, but he's still acting bruised because I yelled at him, so it's not over yet. I realized that I completely overreacted because among other things, I was exhausted and worried about my job (nothing's changed), and when he made a rude comment, I exploded. I also realized that because I am normally a quiet and patient person, I expected him to comfort me when I yelled at him, as if he was supposed to know I was having a hard time when we hadn't spoken all day. Instead, he just heard some crazy woman swearing at the laundry basket. Talk about expecting the hero to rescue the dragon from her own fire!

Relationally, part of the problem is that women are more or less expected to have volatile emotions they can't control. Men are supposed to be stoic, faithfully taking whatever [garbage] their wives dish out in exchange for regular feeding and child care. That reduces both sexes down to a pretty base level. Women turn into screaming toddlers, and men into whipped dogs who still sidle up to their masters. But toddlers have to grow up, and a beaten dog will run away eventually if he gets the chance.

Claire #61, I also think women complain more and have a hard time seeing the good qualities in their husbands because a lot of working women still come home and find everything left for them to do. They can't do it all even though they work hard at the housework, so if the husband makes a comment about the cleanliness of the home, kaboom!

But still, that's not an attractive thing in a woman, whether it's justified or not. If she has the money, she should hire a maid and be quiet, and if she doesn't, she should do what she can and be quiet. Still working on that. I do pretty well being patient and gracious for a while, then I get tired and it all goes south. I'm trying to square with the idea that even if my husband rarely helps, that's his sin, and once I remind him that I need help, that's all I can do, and it's still my duty to serve the household. Sanctification, right?

64. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:08 PM on Oct 29:

Ted Slater said:

Tami (#30) -- I agree very strongly with what you've written. Romance novels and chick flicks are not necessarily wrong in themselves, the way pornography is always wrong in itself.

Dismissing chick flicks as "female porn" is just lazy, sloppy, uncritical, shallow thinking. In my opinion. :-)

It depends on what aspects of the chick flick/romance novel paradigm you are comparing with porn.

Are chick flicks and romance novels going to stoke addictions that could literally destroy the marriage the way that porn can? Doubtful.

On the other hand, if we are dealing solely with unreasonable marital expectations, then there is indeed a basis for comparing chick flicks and romance novels (tied largely to women) with pornography.

Each element creates unreasonable romantic expectations.

Moreover, because discontent is a predominate struggle with the women, the effects of romance novels and chick flicks--especially with respect to unreasonable expectations--are nothing to dismiss.

Let's say a man is working long hours to be a good provider, and strives to be with his wife as much as he can. And no matter how well he does, he finds himself unable to live up to the expectations placed on him by a wife who is grading his efforts against a work of fiction.

That can be quite vexing indeed, creating a level of friction that can drive a man up the wall.

When we judge the quality of our spouses by some secular metric imposed by man-made works (porn, romance novels, chick flicks, etc.), it is on the same level as a person rejecting God because God does not exercise justice according to someone's worldly expectations.

Last year, we had a large-scale back-and-forth over that Sex and the City movie, and the rationales were very similar if I'm not mistaken.

65. skp said the following at 3:16 PM on Oct 29:

I agree with Amir regarding romance novels.
I have observed that the women I work with who are discontented with their marriages read romance novels.

66. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:01 PM on Oct 29:

Mike (59): 'Pride and Prejudice' actually does have the woman (Elizabeth Bennet) feeling ashamed of her behaviour, and saying so to the man; it happens gradually, as she realises how badly wrong she was about lots of things, but becomes explicit at the end of the book (and the films, too, I believe).

'Fireproof' sounds to be significantly worse in that regard, as do the people you describe. Perhaps that's why older stories tend to be better, in that we only know about the ones that were considered good enough to preserve and pass on to subsequent generations!

Of course, this comment is a tangent-from-a-tangent, and may set a new record for unrelatedness to the original post :)

67. Mike said the following at 5:53 PM on Oct 29:

Claire (#61) -

I heartily agree. My objection isn't to the main point of Fireproof, which is exactly that (sacrificial love regardless of the action of the other); my objection is to a lack of accountability on the part of the other.

Ben Franklin once said, "Before marriage, keep both eyes open. After marriage, keep one eye shut." (Not an exact quote, but it's close.) I think he was a pretty wise fellow. :-)

And your comment on the book of Hosea was funny. You're right; Hosea was another good example of a man who was called to be faithful despite really awful behavior on the part of his wife. But I'm not calling for banning anything, just for discernment. As in, let's not build expectations that our mate should take whatever [garbage] we want to dish out and keep on smiling. Golden Rule, anyone?

68. Mike said the following at 6:02 PM on Oct 29:

Loris (#63) -

Yeah, lots of couples have that fight! :-)

But really, there are a few choices when your mate is doing something around the house and you don't like the way it's being done:

1) Accept how he / she is doing it and walk away.
2) Explain how you'd rather have it done (respectfully, calmly, and lovingly).
3) Do it yourself.

Belittling, berating, or otherwise maltreating your mate, as you might notice, does not appear in the list above. But it does happen. "All have sinned and fallen short." :-)

But I do love your attitude. You keep working on that relationship, K? You seem to be a great Proverbs 31 woman. We need lots of those. God bless.

69. Mike said the following at 6:03 PM on Oct 29:

Trevor (#66) -

Yeah, like I said, I've never read Pride and Prejudice. Glad to hear there was a little more balance in it than in Fireproof.

And tangents happen. Part of the fun of this blog. ;-)

70. Ted Slater said the following at 6:32 PM on Oct 29:

I've seen Fireproof several times. If you haven't seen it, please don't demean it. And if you have seen it, you'll know that the woman is portrayed as sinful, and that she comes to her senses at the end, having a repent-ful epiphany. Kinda feels like it's being dismissed because it's too "Christian." Maybe I'm misreading the comments....

71. Mike said the following at 7:09 PM on Oct 29:

Ted (#70) wrote:

And if you have seen it, you'll know that the woman is portrayed as sinful, and that she comes to her senses at the end, having a repent-ful epiphany.

I disagree. What she said at the end was that Caleb was a good man, that he had changed, and that she wanted what had happened to him to happen to her. Now, you might interpret that last part as "repentance", but in my mind, she never really acknowledged any wrongdoing on her part. She never said, "I'm sorry for how I treated you." Unlike Caleb, who literally got down on his knees and begged Catherine's forgiveness for his misdeeds. (Appropriately.)

And when the older woman in the cafeteria confronted her about her emotional affair with the doctor, the angle of the conversation wasn't, "Catherine, you're being unfaithful to your husband." It was, "If he'll cheat with you, he'll cheat on you." As if the focus of the problem were not the fact that Catherine was cheating, but on her choice of cheaters. And even that was enough for Catherine to get up and leave the table because she was "uncomfortable".

Like I said, the main message of Fireproof - unconditional love - is commendable. And I don't mean to malign the Kendrick brothers. They're doing a great work with their small budgets, volunteer casts, and very limited resources. But the lack of accountability on Catherine's part in that movie really bothered me.

72. Cat said the following at 8:27 PM on Oct 29:

To be honest maybe I don't understand this because I have yet to read a romance novel. I'm kind of a tomboy. I grew up with two brothers. I had a high school reading comprehension level in the fifth grade. Call Of The Wild by Jack London was my favorite book. By the next year I was reading and comprehending Shakespeare. To be honest, in third grade a developed the goal of being well-read. To this day I still strive to achieve this goal, reading everything from the moderns to the great classics. I'm an English major with the intention to teach middle and high school english. As a result, none of the romance novels not written by a Bronte or Austen ever piqued my interest.

But, my passion for fiction has taught me one valuable lesson:

Fiction =/= reality

That's the only math equation that ever really stuck with me. ;) Anyways, I had to learn that in real life life doesn't have a prince to ride in and save my day. I couldn't always be the wonderful, talented, witty heroine. So, I think that's why I don't get the whole chick flick and romance story creating unreasonable expectations conversation. At least that's my theory.

When I read Pride and Prejudice I didn't particularly start wanting Mr. Darcy. I did see elements of myself in Elizabeth. Some I didn't like, others I did. And, you know, some of what I saw in Mr. Darcy I really liked. I think it was his ability to admit he had been wrong and atone for his actions. I decided one of the things I really wanted in a guy was enough humility to recognize when he had erred.

73. Ted Slater said the following at 8:31 PM on Oct 29:

Mike (#71) -- the movie shows that Caleb is only able to love his wife after he's received the love of Christ. His apology to his wife only came *after* he came to the Lord.

You wrote, "What she said at the end was that Caleb was a good man, that he had changed, and that she wanted what had happened to him to happen to her."

I think this makes fine sense -- before she is able to repent fully to her husband, she first needs the love of Christ in her heart. That is what she is requesting: The love of Christ that's become evident in Caleb.

I suspect that plenty of repentance took place off-camera, between the scene in the firehouse and the re-affirmation of vows. I don't have a problem imagining that, and don't think it's a stretch to believe that the characters would engage in repentance during that time.

Let me say that this film, and the script, have problems. I'm not a big fan of "40 days to a new you" kind of projects, for example. And because it's only two hours, they're not able to be as thorough with the repentance process as they perhaps should have. But I think this movie is good in that it brings up questions and facilitates hope and directs people to the Lord. These strengths, I believe, outweigh its weaknesses. And so when it's criticized, I tend to come to its defense.

Too often a movie is criticized simply because it's "Christian." That's not why *you're* criticizing it, Mike, but many people do criticize this film because, apparently, there's not enough nudity and foul language and blood in it to bump it up to the status of a "legitimate" film. OK, that last part was probably not necessary.... :-)

74. Texas Craig said the following at 10:21 PM on Oct 29:

Mike:

Great comments. There is a lot of truth in your posts.

The difficult balance we husbands must strike is in loving our wives unconditionally (even--no, particularly--when they don't deserve it) and not letting their attitudes or actions affect our attitudes or cause us to sin in word or deed.

On the other hand, loving our wife does not mean we simply accept whatever they are "dishing out." I can be both patient and loving, and yet firm in calling out her actions that are improper. It is not unusual for me to firmly and unequivocally tell my wife "you need to stop ______" (fill in the blank with whatever sinful thing is involved at the moment). Now, the job I have requires me to be firm and fair with people all the time, so that helps me to maintain my composure with my wife. To me, that is key. Having a genuinely patient and loving attitude, while at the same time being firm, objective and "calling a spade a spade" when it comes to her conduct (and admitting my own shortcomings).

I do think that women have a harder time in marriage because they often expect too much from their husband. Namely, they want all their needs to be met by their husbands when, in reality, only God can meet many of those needs. But, this is also a result of the fall - where women were told that their desire would be for their husbands - i.e., they would always be seeking affirmation from their husbands and to to have their husbands satisfy their needs.

FWIW, my wife and I have both done The Love Dare and it was great for our marriage (which was already good anyway). So, I recommend it for everyone who is married.

75. Cat said the following at 10:29 PM on Oct 29:

I saw Fireproof because it was a Christian movie. Some of it seemed a little too scripted. Some of the acting was sub par. Some of the scenes were a bit corny. But, you know, I don't go see Christian movies because I think they'll be awesome. I try to see Christian movies because the biggest problem is a lack of funds. If I go support them, they'll have more funds to make a better movie. Already Fireproof is leaps and bounds above some of the movies that were out when I was younger. So, I'm supporting the industry in hopes that it will continuously improve.

Fireproof was pretty heart warming. The only scene my mom ad I judged as being a little over the top was the conversation between Ana and Katherine.

I don't see the themes others are claiming to see of Katherine being unrepentant. Her dressing up and meeting her husband at work was, for her, repentance. It wasn't a big scene where she makes a huge apology, but I don't think that was needed. I think it would have been corny.

Moreover, as humans when we mess up and hurt people it takes a while for them to trust us again. Caleb had wounded Katherine deeply and just because he comes to her and apologizes a bit doesn't mean that everything is going to be ok in a snap. There's a big difference between repentance and reconciliation.

For example, let's say I found out my boyfriend, who I am dating exclusively for five months now, was seen kissing another girl in the movie theater. When it came to light I would be angry and hurt. But, if he apologized from his heart I'd forgive him. Repentance would have been accomplished.

Reconciliation takes time. Reconciliation is boyfriend getting really accountable to a group of guys, spending some quality time with me, and putting his money where his mouth is. Showing me he really is repentant. Even though I'm no longer holding it against him, it's not going to be tomorrow that I will trust him fully.

I think these are the same shades we see in Fireproof and Pride and Prejudice. Caleb has to show Katherine that his years of taking her for granted are ended. Mr. Darcy has to show Elizabeth that he isn't an arrogant jerk.

Note: My boyfriend has not cheated on me. Ever. He is among the people that I trust implicitly. He's worked hard for that status and I don't see him doing anything to change it anytime soon. He is an honorable man. Just wanted to say that and brag on that awesome man of God.

76. Heidi M. said the following at 5:13 AM on Oct 30:

Mike #59 said "When a woman is acting rudely, she actually wants the man to come through her awful behavior and act the hero to prove he actually loves her in spite of herself. It's a form of testing him - which is disrespectful."

Thank you for your post. Though I would like to speak up in a very small defense to say that it isn't always the case, it certainly does happen, and it troubles me as well.

I have a theory on why this happens, besides the media portrayal. We all know the illustration of marriage as a portrait of Christ and the church. Well, females seem to ubiquitously find themselves tempted with "save me from myself syndrome".

SMFMS comes in many forms; you have only mentioned one of them: rude and disrespectful behavior. Another one is a girl refusing to utilize common sense to take care of herself during trying times, forcing others around her to invasively take on the job. Still another is withdrawing emotionally from people, secretly hoping someone will pursue. Another one is always, invariably, finding something to be upset about. The list goes on and on.

The point is, SMFM syndrome appears to be a reflection of sinners before a righteous God. We are redeemed and precious, and yet we still do that which we hate--sin--and then throw ourselves on the Lord, begging Him to save us from ourselves, to help us, to pursue us despite ourselves and make us do right when we haven't the strength. I trust this kind of repentance is not limited to females.

Since the male and female roles are biblically said to be an illustration of Christ and the church, it makes sense along those lines for women to have SMFMS and look to the guys to resolve it. Only it is twisted to the point that they often do not want to resolve their own issue, they just want the guy to keep solving it for them. And yes, that is very wrong. But can anyone here say they have never once treated God that way? I, ashamedly, cannot.

I do ask that you guys show kindness to the girls who struggle with this. For many, they do not even realize they're doing it, which is why I'm grateful the issue has been brought to light here.

Finally, I take great issue with the way the media portrays faults as the things that make people interesting. What's the underlying message? Goodness, righteousness, and responding appropriately to every situation is boring, and if you do those things or strive towards those things you're a very dull, uninteresting person with a flat character.

This belief was even vocalized on a recent bachlorette show, where one of the men was criticized as being "too perfect". The bachlorette would say "you can be real around me" and he would say, "I am being real! This is how I am!" and she ended up letting him go, basically saying, "he's 'perfect' and I have lots of flaws, so we aren't a good match."

It's tough to battle sin in earnest when the message that sinful flaws are what make you interesting and unique as a person permeates the culture. But then again God's Word is a pretty powerful antidote if ever I saw one. :) Why would we want sin to be seen as part of our identity? No, let it be Christ alone.

77. em said the following at 8:31 AM on Oct 30:

SMFS as Heidi (#76) called it is not really a gender issue. Disrespect, withdrawal, addiction, abuse cycles happen with both men and women and both sexes expect the other to play rescuer / enabler. I appreciate that it is easier to see when it is the opposite sex doing this to you and your friends, but it does cut both ways.

I saw both of my parents do it to each other with different primary sins (his was physical abuse and hers was alcohol abuse). I've also seen similar patterns with other couples (he drinks, cheats; she subjects him to endless nagging and emotional outbursts). Good guys end up with manipulative women (and, yes, often they don't know what they are doing). Stable women end up with bad boys who they think they can change (and the boys sometimes think having the "angel" will redeem them).

We all need the rescuing, redemptive love of our merciful Savior. We can image that Love as an instrument of the Redeemer but we ourselves - male or female - cannot redeem anyone.

78. Laura said the following at 12:52 PM on Oct 30:

Carl said:

"I do not understand your intrusion into such an intimate decision that goes on between husband and wife. What style of marital sex is permissible? Is one 'more worthy' than another? Are not consent and respect the only qualifiers?"

I do understand where you are coming from. And aside from consent and respect, sacrificial love is another qualifier. But I think you may have answered your own question about what is permissible.

You expressed that Boundless' attention to this subject feels like an "intrusion" on the intimate nature of your relationship with your future or present significant other. In short, you felt that no other person or entity (except for God, presumably) has lawful access to or authority in this very intimate area of your life. My question is why you do not apply this principle to porn use? I don't want to misunderstand your comment, and if I am way out of line I sincerely apologize. But if you are saying that you do not see anything wrong with acting out what you have seen in porn, my question is why? Why would you actively embrace and invite pornography's influence into your consciousness? Why is it okay to watch two people (or more) have sex and to become influenced by what you see, hear, and learn from them, but it is an "intrusion" in this context? Again, if I have misunderstood your meaning I apologize a thousand times.

By its very nature, pornography gives people access to the most intimate parts of other people's lives. And to view pornography is to allow one's mind to be shaped and formed in a very fundamental way. I don't think that it is wrong to talk about sex, sex positions, the pleasures of sex, as long as it is in the appropriate context. But how do we reconcile ourselves to having access to other people's sex lives while we bristle at the idea of anyone having even remote access to our own? My thought is that we instinctively know that no one should have access to the sexual relationship we have with the one we love and are committed to (Hebrews 13:4). It is solely ours. At our very core, we know this.

I see pornography as a type of sexual abuse. Not the sexual abuse that involves forcing oneself upon another. But the abuse of something that is sacred and making it public, a commodity, an intrusion upon the minds of people who Christ died for.

Concerning how porn affects the sex life of the viewer, a lot can be said about creating unrealistic expectations. Seeing someone else's nakedness will have an effect on you. It's supposed to. God designed us that way. But most importantly, sex was designed by God for lovers who are in a marriage relationship. And if you are not in that marriage relationship, quite frankly, then you shouldn't *be there.* That is not to say that all topics concerning sex should be banished from our discussions. Song of Solomon totally celebrates sex and sexuality between a man and a woman. But as far as we know, no one but God was present when they were actually having sex.

I agree with you, Carl, that within the context of marriage there is and should be incredible freedom. But I am reminded of that verse in 1 Peter that says we should not use our freedom as a covering for evil, but as bondslaves of God. The issue is whether or not people outside of marriage should view others participating in the sex act, and whether or not it is lawful for others (such as Boundless) to seek to influence our thoughts about sex. I just find it hard to reconcile the thought of feeling as though Boundless has no business "meddling" in the sexual relationship of others while simultaneously opening your mind to a whole host of intrusions by people who probably are living a lifestyle of rebellion against God. Again, if I have misunderstood your original post, please just ignore me.

My last point is that, as a female, I certainly do understand the lure of porn. Having never been married, I'm as curious about sex as anyone else my age is. But I have made a decision to wait and explore that area of my life with the man I will someday marry. And I really hope that the man I marry will do the same for me. I don't want to just save my body for my future husband, but also my mind. I just don't see how that is possible if I choose to watch complete strangers who are (excuse me for being blunt) butt naked have sex. I mean, it's like, where on earth do I fit into that picture? The answer is that I don't.

79. Jeremiah said the following at 1:39 PM on Oct 30:

Laura (#78), I agree with almost everything you wrote. The one exception is that I do not think that Carl (or anyone else on Boundless for that matter) is saying that porn is OK. It's obviously sinful and obviously destructive.

An interesting side note, though, as a young man I can remember being initially attracted to porn for two reasons: 1) one because I DESPERTLY wanted to be married so that I could experience the benefits of intimacy and wasn’t patient enough to wait for the real deal; and 2) two, I held a false believe that viewing porn would make me better at sex because I would know what to do.

In school, I felt like I was falling behind the learning curve because everyone I knew was getting to experiment with the real act. As a younger man, I can remember feeling intensely jealous when the young women I had crushes on (Christian or non-Christian) ended up dating other guys. In my mind, I assumed that if the “cute girl from church” was dating the “cool guy at school” for over six months then they were probably having sex. (As an adult I am now discouraged at how often that false preconception has actually proved to be true).

As a young man, viewing porn was a defense. Kind of like, I’m not cool enough to date so-and-so but at least I can pretend that’s her on the screen. Disturbing? Disgusting? Sinful? Yes, yes, and yes. I guess my point is to the ladies, that your relationship history can have a profound impact on men in indirect ways that you may not realize. Porn as a sin is the responsibility of the sinner (often times it’s the guys). However, women have been and always will be the encouragers, and helpmates for us. I’m hoping that some of you that have been reading these posts with disgust can find some empathy for those of us (men) that have had issues in the past. The issues are perhaps more complicated than us dudes simply having no self-control and being walking sacks of hormones… (though I’m not completely denying the later.) ;)

80. Mike said the following at 4:02 PM on Oct 30:

Heidi M. and Texas Craig -

Thanks, both of you; you've grasped the essence of what I was trying to say (in a rather long-winded fashion!). :-)

I can handle the notion that a woman will sometimes be so overwhelmed by exasperation that she will act out. I lose it sometimes myself. It's the implicit expectation that the man should take abuse that bothers me.

Ted -

Oh, I'm sure some apologies happened offscreen for the characters in Fireproof. But that doesn't excuse what didn't happen onscreen. :-)

And, for what it's worth, I agree with you; Caleb would have been at a loss had he not been propped up by the Savior. And I also have a little bit of heartburn with the "magical transformation" message that sometimes comes out in these movies. My brother says they often turn God into a "cosmic bellhop": "Just start doing things right, and everything will be perfect" - when we know that, in reality, that doesn't always work.

I know there are some on this forum who don't believe in spiritual attack, but what would you say if I suggested that chick flicks were a perversion of the ancient fairy tale? That they twist the protector role of the man from fighting against external evil (i.e. the dragon) to fighting against a "quarrelsome woman" (Proverbs 21:9)? We know the enemy hates marriage; what if he's acting to interfere with it by corrupting the heartwarming story?

Hmn...food for thought...

81. Laura said the following at 4:59 PM on Oct 30:

To Jeremiah:

Thank you for your reply. I don't really know why I read into Carl's comment the way I did. It was really good to have a different perspective, and I do see where I read into that post wrong. (Sorry, Carl. No hard feelings.)

I do have empathy for those who have had issues with pornography in the past. In fact, I've already come to terms with the likely possibility that whoever I marry would have probably viewed porn in the past. Seeing as how I misread Carl's statements (I don't know what I was thinking, this is a Christian website after all), I probably came across as a bit brash.

I have to say that it must be really difficult to be a man and live in this culture where sex is in your face every day at practically every turn. Having a brother myself, I cringe at the things he is subjected to on a daily basis that he has absolutely no control over (billboards, magazine stands, racy commercials, etc.) I also understand why porn is/can be such an appealing option when you sense that you are many years away from being able to enjoy a sexual relationship. I get that and I'm sorry for not handling the subject with more sensitivity.

In your last paragraph, Jeremiah, you stated that "women have been and always will be the encouragers, and helpmates for us." I was wondering how women can be encouraging in this area? And also, if you don't mind me asking, what are some of the indirect ways that a lady's relationship history can affect men? I honestly don't know the answer to these things. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Lastly, I have a great respect for men for so many reasons, chiefly those characteristics that tend to be distinctly male in nature. For instance, if I have to make a decision and I am trying not to do so based purely on my emotions, I frequently will go ask my dad or brother for advice. That is not to say that women are incapable of making rational decisions and that men do not have emotions (wow, I really don't want to get myself in trouble again), but I often find that men bring a different perspective that is extremely helpful when seeking to make practical decisions. I also admire how men can go for long periods of time and never say that they dislike something about another person, whereas sometimes women are quick to point out things in other people that they do not like without actually taking the time to get to know that person better. I also admire how guys are protective of the people around them because God made them strong, and the way that they can take charge in a situation when things are getting out of hand. All this to say I do not see men as "lust-driven beasts" as one contributor put it. There are so many things to admire about men and I am sorry if I gave the impression that I cannot/do not empathize with their struggles.

Mike (80) that was a great comment. Food for thought, indeed.

82. Sarah K said the following at 7:14 PM on Oct 31:

Mike...I really appreciate your comments about men taking abuse, far too often women are taught through movies, books and other mediums that it's ok to treat men in a disrespectful manner. As a teenager, God had to weed out that belief in my own heart and teach me to treat the guys around me with increasing kindness and respect, in other words, in a Christlike manner. But...the main reason I'm writing is to comment about your views about Pride and Prejudice...a book that you have not read (!) and are unfairly judging to be in the "female porn/unrealistic expectation" category. Take it from me...NOT TRUE!! Pride and Prejudice is the perfect example of a romance novel gone RIGHT. I believe that part of it's enduring appeal is due to the fact that Austen is incredibly fair in her treatment of both male and female characters and that the relationships she portrays live and die upon the outworking of solid character and selfless love on both sides. In the case of Darcy and Elizabeth, yes Elizabeth coldly refuses Darcy when he proposes and berates him for two major things, one incident which he is at fault for and remedies later, and another incident which Elizabeth had been lied to about and he is not at fault at all. And contrary to your belief, Darcy does not come back for more abuse, but he does defend himself in a letter, which is the catalyst for Elizabeth's own growth and repentance. At the end of the novel, when they get together, they repent to one another for their judgements and treatment of the other, but by that time, both have already acted in ways that bear out their mutual love and respect. I know that I'm going on, but I felt I must correct some of your assumptions about that wonderful book and hopefully encourage you to separate it in your mind from the other, damaging, stories that do not honor men, women, marriage and relationships like Austen did and does.

83. Mike said the following at 8:58 PM on Oct 31:

Sarah -

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was judging Pride and Prejudice unfairly. I did clearly state that I had not read the book, nor seen the movie, and was not going to comment on it extensively for that reason; I only made brief mention of a couple of things other posters had said.

As far as Darcy coming back for more abuse, that's based on Nikki's comment in #27: [Darcy] falls madly in love with her and still desires to marry her even after she verbally flays him in the face of his proposal...Loves her so much that he secretly saves her trashy family from social ruin without having any real hope of her affection...

Sounds like coming back for more abuse to me. But perhaps that's just a thin slice of the story.

Honestly, I don't feel as though the corruption of the romance genre really started in a significant way until the latter half of the 20th century (along about the same time as second wave feminism took off). So it doesn't surprise me that a 19th century novel doesn't suffer from the malady. I apologize for stepping on what is apparently one of your favorite books.

84. Sarah K said the following at 1:33 AM on Nov 1:

Mike, thank you for your response. After reading Nikki's comments, I can see how you got that impression, and I respectfully disagree with her analysis. P&P is one of my favorites, and I have done some background reading about the time. Just so that you don't get a bad impression of Darcy ;) he only planned on proposing again once he had seen that her opinion of him had changed and she exhibited a softening towards him. He was thwarted in his second attempt by her family scandal which made it impossible for a man of his standing to then marry her and he knew that he had to remedy the situation himself, which he did at considerable expense, both personally and financially. And also contrary to Nikki's statement, he did have hope of her affection, which is partly why he acted as he did. Thank you for letting me explain. I just can't bear for P&P or any other Austen novel to be lumped into the same category as those horrible bodice rippers or cheesy "romance" novels!

85. jack said the following at 10:25 PM on Nov 1:

Ted-

You're just another feminist-indoctrinated Christian.

Chick flicks are romance novels destroy marriages JUST LIKE PORN does.

Both cause the consumer of them to disdain their companion.

You.
Are.
Simply.
Wrong.

I had to stop going to church to get away from feminist lickspittle thinking like this.

86. Ted Slater said the following at 10:44 AM on Nov 2:

Jack (#85) -- I agree that many chick flicks promote relationally unhealthy expectations. But as a genre, neither they nor chick lit (such as Pride & Prejudice) are "porn."

I'm advocating linguistic integrity here, and not wanting to water down the real danger in real porn, by drawing a line in the sand about chick flicks and chick lit.

Your decision to "stop going to church" is not because of people like me, of course.

87. Tami said the following at 10:55 AM on Nov 2:

Jack (85) -- Despite the fact that both can create unrealistic expectations, THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME. The people who are involved in the creation of porn are (a) themselves sinning, and (b) often from very troubled backgrounds (abuse, drugs, etc) and being EXPLOITED for the purpose of entertaining others.

I don't understand why Ted would be a "feminist" for making a very important distinction. Romance CAN be uplifting and noble. Porn NEVER is -- it is degrading.

88. Mike said the following at 3:59 PM on Nov 2:

Seems Jack is even more spun up on this topic than I am. I didn't think that was possible. :-)

But even though it is about unrealistic expectations, it's not just about that. It's about the consequences of that. Just ask yourself: Why does the typical guy hate being dragged to a chick flick?

1) He gets compared to the hero. "Why aren't you more like Mel Gibson / Daniel Day Lewis / Brad Pitt / Daniel Craig?" Even if it doesn't happen out loud, it still happens. (Please don't deny it; the reason your heart goes pitapat is because these characters on the screen are such heartthrobs.)

2) Because he's NOT Mel Gibson / Daniel Day Lews / Brad Pitt / Daniel Craig, he winds up feeling...inadequate. That stomps on a primary emotional need of men: Competence.

Just like women hate being compared to lingerie ads, supermodels, and other "perfect" specimens of womanhood, men hate being compared to the heroes of chick flicks and romance novels.

Tami wrote:

Romance CAN be uplifting and noble.

Coming from a woman, this is easy to understand. But tread lightly. YOU may feel uplifted, but your man is in a vulnerable spot. Nobody likes to have his emotional needs trampled over. I think this is what Jack was talking about when he talked about "disdain" - the idea that a man comes up looking inadequate in his woman's eyes when she walks out of a chick flick or lifts her head from a romance novel.

89. Loris said the following at 7:41 AM on Nov 3:

Jack #85, Whoa, sounds like you've been burned. Not attending church isn't the answer. Can you explain more why you're so angry?

90. Kit said the following at 9:50 AM on Nov 3:

I have to say, I Can see the argument for 'chick lit porn' but, as so many others said, this is not the same. It is not real women, often times underage, being forced (yes, forced--so many times girls go to 'model topless' and are coerced into MUCH more than they bargained for, abused, raped, etc--if you read about the porn industry a little it's not what it looks like)to do things they don't want to do.

In Austen's novels (all of which I, a female, despise, by the way, along with Anne of Green Gables and all her kitsch), the characters are willing--and it's fiction, not reality.

That's the difference.

91. Tami said the following at 10:12 AM on Nov 3:

Mike (88) - to be certain (and consistent with my earlier comment about hating romance novels): I'm not referring to the modern brand of romance found in Harlequin novels or chick flicks. But there is something inspiring and ennobling about stories in which people truly love and respect one another, and sacrifice. I find that romantic. It's not something I project onto someone else, but I can say that stories of true sacrificial love are uplifting.

92. jack said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 4:

How many of you have read the actual definition of pornography?

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornē prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey — more at fare, carve
Date: 1858

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

So there you go.

The fact that actors in porn movies are sinning is true, but is a separate issue.

What about the Asian phenomenon of cartoon porn? No actual people need fornicate to produce it, but the intention is the same.

Many so-called "Romance" novels are VERY sexual in nature, and I utterly reject the idea that women should be permitted to relabel lust as "love", and arousal as "romance".

If the novel is relating anything other than sexual contact between married people, then it is a story about sin that is intended to create interest on the part of the reader. The sex is not incidental to the story, but key to it.

Suppose a woman reads a romance novel and experiences a strong emotional reaction. While she is busy fantasizing about the man in that story, she is slowly developing a taste for that kind of feeling.

When the average man cannot sweep her off her feet with "chemistry", she decides that he is inferior.

Just like pictoral porn causes many men to be less interested in normal women.

Loris:

Why am I so upset? Because I have received far more rejection and bad treatment from my 'siters in the Lord' than I have ever received from wordly women.

I dated two very sweet women who I later learned were Wiccans. I had to break it off once I discovered that, of course, but I was struck by the difference. They were accepting, sweet, and far less haughty that the Christians I tried to ask out.

Many church girls have been so amped up on waiting for "God's Best" that they just know, they just FEEL, in their dear little hearts that God is going to send them a hunky born-again movie star who will sweep them away to endless bliss.

Here's some news:

You may have already rejected God's Best many times over, in your belief that God, functioning as a Great Santa Clause in the Sky will drop your leading man right into your swooning lap.

Take a good look around at the plain, average men in your church.

Oh, they're for OTHER WOMEN. Not me.
Perhaps they could be fed to some lions in the event religious persecution returns to the US.

Ted-

I left the church EXACTLY for the reasons stated. Thinking like that is the exact reason I left.

Because a bunch of female-appeasing men, in the desire to win female approval are willing to give women's bad behavior a pass. Women reading textual porn is "not preferable, possibly harmful".

Men looking at pictures is an abomination, a horrific sin. It's *different*. Ummyeahsureokay.

The point is that men and women are EQUALLY SINFUL. Equal. Quit white-knighting women's base desires and repainting them as something more innocent and pure than men's base desired.

The religious girls threw me to the lions a long time ago. I know quite a few of them that married non-Christians, though. Hope the Chemistry was worth it.

93. jack said the following at 11:42 AM on Nov 4:

Additionally, let's call the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue what it is - porn.

Tami-

Is that okay since it features highly-paid consenting adult models?

No nudity even. No sex. Just hot women showing lotsa skin. Just the body God gave 'em.

Might not such a publication cause a man to look with disdainful eyes at the assymetric chest and less than taut body of the woman God has for him?

Just look a the model's stunning skin - golden tan without blemish. Photoshop you say? No more fictitious than a romance novel character!

So no harm done! I'm sure that single Christian women should have no problem with the picture of Anna Kournakova on the bedroom wall of the men they date.

94. Tami said the following at 4:36 PM on Nov 4:

Jack, to imply that I would somehow be defending some sort of false ideal for either men *or* women to look to and fantasize about -- which I did *not* do -- is not exactly a fair representation of what I was saying.

Again -- to reiterate -- I am absolutely not defending modern romance novels.

I am simply saying: A love story can be ennobling. Not a "romance novel" -- a true love story (whether a biography, or novel) based on virtues such as patience, kindness, and sacrifice on both sides of the relationship.

A good love story points one towards virtue. Not fantasy.

95. Ted Slater said the following at 4:56 PM on Nov 4:

jack (#93) -- I appreciate your clarifying the definition of pornography. I think that's helpful.

I also appreciate that you point out that pornography is not sinful merely because of those involved in creating it.

I also agree with you that romance novels that include pornographic imagery/storylines are ... pornographic.

I have to disagree with you, though, that all media produced primarily for women (books, movies, etc.) are by their very nature "pornographic." They may promote wrongheadedness about relationships, but they are not "pornographic."

Of course, men and women are equally sinful, and equally in need of a Savior. You're not going to catch me "white-knighting women's base desires."

Finally, I'm sorry to hear that you've had a hard time with Christians. Of course, that's no reason to reject involvement in church. In fact, I'm sure there's a church out there that'd be better off with a sinner like you in attendance.

96. Ted Slater said the following at 4:58 PM on Nov 4:

Tami (#94) -- you wrote:

A love story can be ennobling. Not a "romance novel" -- a true love story (whether a biography, or novel) based on virtues such as patience, kindness, and sacrifice on both sides of the relationship.
A good love story points one towards virtue. Not fantasy.

You've phrased that perfectly. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and needed to repeat your words here in case someone missed it.

97. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:21 PM on Nov 4:

Jack: I think the prevalence of romance in many books/plays/films/etc. since humanity first started using writing tells us something about the appeal of such a topic to both men and women: the ancient Greeks (think Helen of Troy), the Bible itself, Shakespeare, etc. It's not necessarily about women liking such things more than men, as most of the literate people in such times were men. Not that I'm trying to excuse the current crop of pseudo-romance novels, many of which are (according to descriptions from the publishers themselves) produced in such a formulaic manner as to be unworthy of anyone!

To second Ted's idea: most churches would be better off with you in them! After all, part of the problem with trying to retain men in churches comes down to the absence of men willing to challenge the gooey sentimentality that so often passes for spiritual life, and I think you'd be willing to do that.

98. Nate said the following at 10:01 PM on Nov 4:

Wow. This whole thread is pretty intense. I can't really add to much that hasn't already been said but I'll toss in a few notes.

Firstly, regardless of how it sounds, I think some posters need to lighten up on Ted & Boundless in general. Attack the subject and the sin, not the posters. Lively disagreements are fine and well. What I am seeing here and there are more personal attacks on some posters, and that's not cool. I treasure this website and it's staff, and it really rubs me the wrong way to see them attacked. Don't mess with me or my Boundless family. I know how to pray. >;-)

JACK -- You are on my prayer list tonight for sure. I hear and sense a lot of bitterness and it sounds / feels all too familiar. I wish we could share war stories. I'd love to listen and encourage you. But you have to know as a true believer that you can't ditch church and expect that to solve the pain. I've been rejected too. I've seen the haughty Christians too. Remember that the church is Christ's imperfect bride, yet to be perfected. It's made of imperfect people, like you and me. It sounds trivial today but I mean this: take this to God for real. Spend time with Him and let Him lead you to a fellowship that you can relate to and belong. I totally agree with Ted: you DO belong and would be wonderful asset to a true body of followers somewhere.

Beware though my friend, "...sin is crouching at your door...(Gen. 4:7)". Bitterness and anger are deadly and a cancer of the soul. Don;t let it consume you. Regardless of our experiences, God is able to heal and bring good to it if we let Him.

OH HOW satan has perverted this most sacred of God's gifts; the marital bed. I see a ton of what media is more damaging then another, what is and isn't actually 'porn', etc., etc. What I tend to see a lot of on Boundless blog posts are posters making other issues the 'issue'. I know it may not be great for discussion, but I tend to boil things down to the lowest common denominator.

Actual porn, (as succinctly defined as it has been) with real people and / or clearly explicit sexual depictions is wrong in any sense and will create expectations no man or woman can fulfill.

Beyond that, chic-flicks, the 'less graphic' romance novels and similar material can be a bit of a gray area. As Paul & others point out, some people are stronger in the faith then others, and may be able to handle such material without detrimental effect. But he also says, (paraphrase) that "while all things are lawful, not all are good for you." I think that applies here. Are they all bad and porno? Nah, that's a stretch. But it's a good possibility that some of it will create the wrong images, thoughts and expectations. As with everything else, we as true believers need to look beyond "laws" & "legalism" and filter what we take in through prayer and God's Word. That's why He gave us a brain and a conscience. Some things may not be inherently wrong, but deep down you know it's not good for you and will cause trouble. Again, I qualify this for the *gray areas* referenced above, NOT the clearly sinful and wrong material, (I'm not going to pick apart what is / is not clear. Read your bible and pray. it should be fairly clear for you then).

I say all this from experience. I have not had cable TV for years, and avoid most movies. Am I some raving legalist? Ah, no. But I've been down these tantalizing roads, and I KNOW that it creates conundrums and sexual conflicts in my head. That in turn putrefies my "springs" for my future wife. I probably will have enough of a difficult time pleasing her, I don't need past images adding to it. Do all people need to go to such measures? No, and most won't. Radical? You bet. But maybe more people need to be radical and put God and marriage over their unquenchable need to be entertained. Maybe more of the varied filth would pervade fewer homes and families would actually *gasp* do something together that didn't involve such media. More families do that, and a nation is transformed.

But, sadly, it seems to me that most (no one specific here) would rather argue about stuff then get out and try to change something. I may only be one person, but I'm going to do what i can to step out and make a difference where I can. Part of which is saving my sexual energy for my future wife. I believe God has miraculously enabled me to keep that energy cool for now by prompting me to stay away from tempting media.

God Bless Boundless.

Respectfully,

--NMM

99. jack said the following at 1:17 AM on Nov 5:

"I have to disagree with you, though, that all media produced primarily for women (books, movies, etc.) are by their very nature "pornographic." They may promote wrongheadedness about relationships, but they are not "pornographic.""

Please point out my use of the word "all".

All? Really? I said "all"? Suggesting that another person said "all" or "never" when in fact they said neither is a very weak form of debate.

Anyway, let's read it again:

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

I highly encourage you and others to search out the meaning of the word Pornography from various dictionaries and etymology resources.

100. Tami said the following at 8:23 AM on Nov 5:

100

Thanks, Ted.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post