Category Archives: sexuality

Sexual entitlement, Involuntary celibacy, porn and losing your humanity


Todays essay will explore some of the problematic thoughts of the so-called ‘incels’, an internet neologism derived from the words ‘involuntary celibacy that seems to have gained a lot of creepy extra dimensions over the recent years in a rather scary corner of the internet. A recent mass murder in Totonto for example brought the word in the news again as a potential new source of violence originating from the internet:

An Ontario man accused of using a rented van as a weapon in Canada’s deadliest mass murder in decades declared himself to be a soldier in the “incel” rebellion, a term referring to a loose social media movement of men who blame women for their celibacy. (Reuters)

Elle has some more disturbing details on this movement, with its very distinct own lingo:

The Incel Rebellion has already begun!” he declared. “We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!”Welcome to the world of the “incel,” a world in which well-adjusted, sexually active young men (“Chads”) and women (“Stacys”) are somehow responsible for the misery of the dateless. A world in which the misogynistic spree killer Elliot Rodger is not only the “supreme gentleman” he sometimes imagined himself to be, but a bona fide saint.
The world got its first look at the incel subculture in 2014, when Rodger murdered six people in what he saw as an act of “retribution” against the women of the world for rejecting him. Rodger, who ended his murder spree by killing himself, left behind a hundred page autobiography-cum-manifesto in which he detailed what he called his “twisted life” and set forth the rationale behind his murder spree, which could be reduced to a simple proposition: if others were getting laid and he wasn’t, they deserved to die. (Elle)

These kinds of mass murderers are the most visible part of the movement, and they should probably be called terrorists and treated as such. But the worrying thing is the size of the movement on the social media and the toxicity of the ideology. Reddit deleted an incel group of 40.000 people because they promoted rape and violence last fall. But there probably are even bigger groups active now in darker corners of the worldwide web.

The 40,000-strong ‘Incels’ community was nominally a “support group” for people who lack romantic relationships and sex. “They are involuntarily celibate or ‘incel’.” However, popular posts from the last few months include ones titled “all women are sluts”; “proof that girls are nothing but trash that use men” and “reasons why women are the embodiment of evil”.Members describe women as “femoids” and the men they have sex with as “chads”. There are many examples, documented on a watchdog subreddit called IncelTears, where incels have condoned or advocated rape, or described it as a made-up construct. (the guardian)

I think it’s clear from the quotes what the word ‘incel means in this splinter of our universe: far beyond just people who are ‘involuntary celibate’ it appears to be a movement of violent and frustrated men (never women as they are rather excluded and often completely dehumanised by the movement) who are locked up in an impossible self-defeating dilemma: they seem to want to have lots of sex, but also express a lot of violent hate towards women, and also view women (and other men) who have lots of sex as worthless and worthy of violent destruction. There seems to be a lot of frustration behind the violence. And a worldview that is completely unhealthy, violent and also self-defeatingly incoherent.

A first thing to note is the completely unhealthy archetypes that are used in their lingo. The ‘Chads’ who are sexually active accomplished men and the ‘Stacies’ who mostly are pretty and have sex with their ‘Chads’ and not with the incels are extremely thin characters that might or might not exist but that are in no way worth emulating. Maybe it’s a mutation of the American dream or so; but I see nothing desirable or interesting about the people these incels are so envious of. The grass can be greener on the other side because it’s made of plastic, which makes it very sad that people are willing to get violent over envy at empty stereotypes…

But even worse, both for themselves and any potential partner, is the weird sense of sexual entitlement that these people have. They think that someone owes them sex, which they have been denied. That’s not a new idea but always a destructive one. Let’s get this straight. Sexual entitlement is always a dangerous illusion. Sex is not some kind basic right that you deserve and that needs to be given to you.

No-one owes you sex.

Sex is freely given between people who love each other, but can never be claimed from anyone. Otherwise it becomes rape, one of the most destructive deeds a human can do to another human. Certainly, sexual entitlement is not confined to a new internet movement but probably as old as humanity as a divisive force that destroys healthy relationships. The idea that women are less interested in sex as men but just have to do it for their husbands is another version of the same destructive thing in ‘conservative’ Western ideology. But on the other side of the political spectrum (if such a thing exists) there’s people in very creepy versions of hook-up culture that implore people to not deny sex to people if they’re trans because otherwise you’re trans-phobic. It’s all the same destructive thing.

No thanks.

I owe sex to no-one and no-one owes me sex. Otherwise the sexual revolution has become a new form of enslavement as so much revolutions do…

But the creepy thing about the incel version is how closely their sexual entitlement is linked to very violent agression:

This idea of male sexual entitlement can take many forms in society, often “less explicitly and less grotesquely” than what’s seen in the incel community, Hankes said. It can look, for example, like a husband who believes his wife should consent to sex even when she doesn’t desire it. On the other side is a redditor who said when a woman stops texting him back, “I send them a message saying ‘Ted bundy was a pretty cool guy, I wish it was legal to rape and murder women.’ I mean, id (sic) rather make them upset and fearful then just let them fade out and forget me and treat me like some subhuman.” (USA today)

And here we see the utterly self-destructing tendency of the movement again in clear terms. Nothing is more dangerous or destructive to human sexuality than sexual entitlement without any consideration of the feelings and wishes of the other. Nothing is a better guarantee for a fucked-up sex-life than thinking that people owe you sex without even caring about what they need. Intimacy that’s been won over by violence is not intimacy at all.

The sad thing is that even sex will probably not bring any actual fulfilment either for people that are so damaged; The problem is also that sex itself is not our deepest need. Our need is for love, intimacy, being accepted. As Shane Claiborne says:

If we are able to have a healthier understanding of sexuality and to celebrate singleness as well as marriage and family, then we can transcend some of this. One of my mentors is a celibate monk, and he says we can live without sex but we can’t live without love. And there are a lot of people who have a lot of sex and never experience love, and people who never have sex [but] have deep experiences of intimacy and love. (the irresistible revolution)

There’s a lot of celibate people (voluntary or unvoluntary) on this planet who are happy and have deep meaningful relationships. There’s people on the other hand who are lonely, fucked-up and empty who have a lot of sex. Sex is not the actual thing we need as humans. And the idea that sex alone can fulfill us is a dangerous lie that’ll lead to any real satisfaction. Sure, sex can be very fulfilling, but not without connection, intimacy, love. It’s always a part of a bigger whole.

And yet there’s a lot of propaganda that tries to tell us otherwise in this brave new world. Adverts use the emptiness inside of us and the idea that sex alone can fill it all of the time to sell a lot of stuff that’s completely irrelevant to human intimacy. And if you think that’s bad already, there’s a whole world of porn where sex is completely disconnected from love.

The fake and self-centered view of sexuality that porn indoctrinated people with is especially destructive if you’re shaped by it before you’ve even had a real relationship. You’ll be formed by lies that reduce what should be partners to thing to use, and your sexual growth as a person will go completely wrong. If your view of sex comes from certain kinds of porn you might effectively be vaccinated against love and intimacy… And you’ll always crave for things that don’t even exist outside of the sexual fantasies of some perverted producers.

Recently it even came out that porn can rewire peoples brains, and not just make relationships impossible but also make people impotent for real-life partners in some cases:

From Time magazine, Porn and the Threat to Virility :

A growing number of young men are convinced that their sexual responses have been sabotaged because their brains were virtually marinated in porn when they were adolescents. Their generation has consumed explicit content in quantities and varieties never before possible, on devices designed to deliver content swiftly and privately, all at an age when their brains were more plastic–more prone to permanent change–than in later life. These young men feel like unwitting guinea pigs in a largely unmonitored decade-long experiment in sexual conditioning. The results of the experiment, they claim, are literally a downer.

Of course there are much broader concerns about porn’s effect on society that go beyond the potential for sexual dysfunction, including the fact that it often celebrates the degradation of women and normalizes sexual aggression.

Having a partner with ED [Erectile Dysfunction] isn’t the primary problem most young women face with porn, and only a fraction of women report feeling addicted, yet they are not immune to the effects of growing up in a culture rife with this content. Teen girls increasingly report that guys are expecting them to behave like porn starlets, encumbered by neither body hair nor sexual needs of their own.

So we see the source here of the crisis that turned these poor young men in violent incels: Apart from the probably very real rejection there is the damage of how porn and toxic archetypes create an impossible world that cannot exist but that people want more than the real world. And people are so hurt by that are willing to kill for that world…

Now, as a Christian I believe no-one should be written off. These people need and deserve healing. (But before that time it’s safer for any potential sexual partner to stay faraway from them!)

My radical proposal here might be surprising to some: friendship.

Without being friends with someone on a equal level you cannot be intimate with them. Without looking someone in the eyes as equally human you cannot be one with them. If you can’t be friends with the other sex you can’t have a meaningful relationships of any kind with them, and ultimately you can’t have meaningful sex with them.

We also should never forget that sex is not an end in itself, but part of the whole of a relationship, and that there will always be destruction if we use other people as means to get sex.

Let’s really treat everyone like brothers and sisters, and put a needle in all the balloons of destructive archetypes of men, women and sex wherever we encounter them so we can all be human with each other.

We certainly can live without sex, but we can’t live without that!

peace

Bram

The friendship is the benefits (on Christian egalitarianism and cross-gender friendships)


I haven’t been blogging much lately apart from last weekend, but I seem to be full of thoughts that need out, and I’m trying to rely less on Facebook than I used to do -battling an addiction and winning?-, so I might return to blogging here more.

I’ll start with saying that I’m not following everything that’s going on in the US or in US Christianity, but I’ve been following a bit of the situation with the megachurch of Willow Creek from here. and the possible sexual misconduct of Bill Hybels -a man who always seemed rather respectable to me by the way- .  I am by no way qualified to say something about that situation, but the legendary blogger Andrew Jones has a good overview here with some important questions at the Tall Skinny Kiwi blog. (glad to see him blogging again by the way!)

One of the links that Andrew has collected in his post is a very interesting analysis of Dan Brennan here. Dan is one of the biggest experts in this age on Christianity and cross-gender friendships in the world as far as I know, at least in the English-speaking world. (See all my posts about his book ‘sacred unions, sacred passions’ here) HE has some interesting observations about a certain kind of ‘anxious’ egalitarianism that he sees as quite pervasive in certain American circles:

I was in for a big surprise when I started to go public about my friendships with women a little over ten years ago. I thought evangelical egalitarians would enthusiastically see all the benefits of intentional spiritual friendships out in the open. It was quite a jolt to me when I began to run into skeptical egalitarians.

To say I encountered spiritual anxiety among these unconvinced Christians would be an understatement. It was not that they were opposed to cross-sex friendships. They had plenty of opposite-sex friends.

What, then, were they anxious about? It soon became clear to me: my intention to practice dyadic opposite-sex friendships before a watching world. They were highly anxious in men and women sharing authentic power and risk in one-on-one relationships with no one else around. Friendship was not foundational to any Willow Creek model. It was not even up there on the high priority list.

Again, note here I can’t comment on whether this is actually true for certain circles, and my goal here is not to point my finger to certain groups that are on another continent from me, but to find out what the most Christlike way of living and interacting is, and which examples should be emulated and which examples are lacking. And what we can learn from that, either by seeing what we should do, or what we shouldn’t do.

Let’s first say that I certainly am an egalitarian and strongly believe that cross-gender friendships are a healthy thing, for several reasons. When it comes to the reasons that some Christians want to hear first, the ones derived from the bible and the Christian tradition, both more or less have the same foundation:  Jesus who broke all rules of gender segregation that his culture had is an important one to start with. Think of the Samaritan woman at the well, the story of Mary & Martha, and as I pointed out in my last post Mary Magdalene in the garden-. Paul speaking of ‘no male and female in Christ’ is another one. And just the idea of calling each other brother and sister is also a quite powerful -that’s not just a metaphor, people-. Every person is our brother and sister, and needs to be treated as such, with the same love and respect we would treat an actual sibling. (Yes, looking at our sisters as sex objects would be creepy and evil if looked at it that way.)

I also am naturally inclined by my personality type to friend women as easily as men, and any person who will tell me than male-female friendships are impossible is more or less doing something like telling Mr. beaver of Narnia that animals cannot talk.

I’d also say people who are unable to have equal cross-sex friendships are missing something in their humanity, and that New Testament Christianity quite easily leads to the conclusion that all people of all genders should be treated as friends. And that looking at people as sexual objects, either as a prey in our fantasy or as a temptation that we should get away from at all costs is, is a serious disregard of the humanity of our sister.

(Note that I’m speaking as a straight male here but that you can fill in whatever gender  or sex you are that fits for yourself and whom you’re attracted to. It’s applicable to all genders and sexual orientations)

I’m not the only one who has picked up on Dan’s important observations. The internetmonk blog also extensively quotes his blogpost in a post called “Friends without benefits“. Chaplain Mike ends his post with the following points:

In our sexualized society, it is easy to understand why some people might want to erect strong, rule-based boundaries about cross-sex relationships. I have news for you. Those boundaries haven’t stopped or even slowed down immoral behavior, and if I read Paul correctly, trying to control sin by implementing law only exacerbates the problem (Romans 7).

I believe God calls us to maturity and wisdom in all of our relationships. I have long been “egalitarian” in my theological position (I’d rather say I believe in full partnership and mutuality between men and women). But this article has caused me to question a huge blindspot in egalitarian teaching and practice. We have not truly learned to welcome each other, live with each other, and serve one another as true brothers and sisters until we can learn to be friends. Without benefits.

Very important points again, although I have some quibbles with his title. I’d say that the friendship itself is enough of a benefit, not? I already don’t like the expression of just friendship’. There is something very wrong if there’s an actual friendship going on and you call it being ‘just’ friends, a if being friends is not something worth celebrating in this superficial lonely culture… So as my own title here says, I’d say that ‘the friendship is the benefits’!

In a world where people of the other sex (or any sex you find attractive) are so often reduced to a commodity to satisfy your lustful thoughts actually seeing people as humans like us made in Gods image, and treating them as friends, and sisters and brothers of equal value as we have ourselves might be a revolutionary way of living. But in the end it’s just a very logical application of ‘love your neighbour’.

Not dehumanising people into sex objects -to abuse or run away from as a temptation- and just being friends with them are two extremely basic ways of loving your fellow human I would say… And that’s the core of the question. When we grow on our spiritual Path with Christ -who friended all kinds of women including prostitutes, which were never referred to as sex objects of either category by Him, but as fellow human beings in need of love- we should  be able to go much deeper than that. Just being brothers and sisters is the beginning, like learning the ABC when there are whole libraries to read, and all of us will add our own book to them.

peace

Bram

See also on this blog:
Mary Magdalene, Apostle to the Apostles, and the Risen Jesus
Jesus against the sexism of his time: Martha and Mary
10 old traditional and/or biblical Christian ideas that are sometimes mistakenly seen as ‘progressive’…
Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’
On nudity in game of thrones, and some American bloke again…(the ‘bloke’ being John Piper)
On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and consumer capitalism?
‘Male christianity’ vs Mother Teresa
A Christian reaction to porn that doesn’t dehumanise the objectified further?
sexual dominoes vs the fruits of the Spirit
on sexy porn models and human dignity
Meditating on sexy models

Boys who have to make the first move and the misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy…


puddleWelcome again at Brambonius’ blog in English. As you already guessed from the rather strange title filled with contemporary (pseudo)feminist lingo, today I’ll venture into new grounds again, places where I don’t have much reference material at all…

By lack of better words this post is  about the ‘misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy’ where ‘misandric introvertphobia’ can be taken both as one combined term, the discrimination against introverted men, as as the combination of both. (see also note at the end.)

Where do I start? If it wasn’t clear already: I’m an introverted man myself, so I’m offering some kind of insider perspective here. Even if you don’t agree with me at all, I hope you will still be able to read this as the account of a specimen giving an insider perspective…

To simplify things too much for those wondering what the introvert/extrovert business is actually about: an introvert gets his energy from being alone, an extrovert gets it from being around people. So I don’t like big groups and mass event. Too many people around me can drain my energy especially if I have to pay attention to them, and I might need lots of time alone to regain that energy… And oh, it’s not a lifestyle of choice, it’s an inborn personality type parameter. One can learn to not act on it and pretend to be ectravert in some cases, but that would be at the expense of a lot of energy and  a loss of identity.

I personally don’t see a problem with people being different from each other. So please, be extroverted all that you want and hang out with loud people all the time as much as you want, as long as you don’t expect me to do the same. And that’s the problem introverts sometimes face. We’re seen as asocial by some, and completely misunderstood and unknowingly erased by a lot of others. In certain circles this isn’t a problem (most computer programmers and certain subcultures of nerds for example will be quite introverted and might be scared from people that are too introverted) while in others it is.

I can remember that around age 12 or so I read a sentence in an interview, I can’t recall at all with whom, but he said something like ‘I something hear young people say that their hobbies are reading or listening to music, and then I always thing ‘that’s not true, youLarus are just bored most of the time’. I had no words to describe how I was shocked by that sentence, so much that I still remember it more than 20 years later. But it seemed a complete unwillingness to understand people who were like me, and unlike that guy himself…

Years later, in my young twenties I had a job among ‘working class people’ in the public green department of the city. Before that job I never realised how big class differences could be, and how much certain personality types were favoured over others in certain environments. I was also quite shocked by the openness in which people could say racist, sexist and homophobic stuff in a way that would be impossible in places that I could understand much more, for example the academic circles my wife was in at that moment. They probably would be a textbook example of everything ‘intersectional feminism’ is against, except that it would be quite classist to say so…

Unlike the usual and more canonical forms of institutionalised bigotry on basis of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation (and class, I was already an outsider because I was of the more ‘intellectual middle class’ type, you know, I read books, and liked philosophy, and stuff like that. ) there also was an unspoken and unnamed aversion against introverted people too. I’ve been called asocial and excluded because of the moments when I wanted to be alone after being with those people who drained my energy. I was completely an outsider, and not part of the supposed ‘privileged’ mostly male group btw. (Not wanting to talk about women in a not-so-positive way might already have played a role in that too) Much less than the few women who had more affinity with the group culture and a more outgoing personality, who were much more able to fit in. (or the non-Belgians)

Unspoken and unnamed but still perceived real differences sometimes seem to be much more of a barrier than the classical areas of discrimination. At least those can be addressed, while I didn’t even have the word ‘introvert’ nor any explanation to explain how I was different at that time…

‘Patriarchy’ as a whole seems to be favouring ‘strong men’ who are ‘manly’, which often excludes more introvert men, who thus or have to adapt and change their personality (which is even more energy draining, and creates a lot of cognitive dissonance) or be ostracised and excluded. It’s not always being male that gives privilege in a patriarchal environment, but more often the amount of privilege is directly proportional to the way in which you fit a desired model of manlinness. Having a personality completely opposite to that model of manliness will not really be helpful here, while being a Marget Thatcher clone will surely make you ‘one of the boys’… At least in the ‘masulinlist’ environments that I’ve seen.

All of this is probably also part of the reason I’m allergic to a lot of Christian masculinity stuff. The dangerous extrovert leader with a lot of assertivity just isn’t me and can’t be me. Sorry Mark Driscoll, whatever your ideas about how to get men into your church, they’ll always scare me away and offend me! Another part of the reason is that their so-called Christian ‘manliness’ is often the opposite of the character laid out in Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit, so it fails to be ‘biblical’ on all acounts. If you claim to follow the book, do your best to take that book seriously…

So let’s now go to the boys who have to make the first move from the title. That seems to be a ‘rule’ in certain cultures: the male always takes the initiative. The first time I heard about that rule I thought it was something alien from barbaric backwards groups or weirdos living in a closed community after being left there after colonisation times for centuries without contact with the mainland culture, but it actually seems quite prevalent in certain American ‘conservative’ Christian circles for example. Some even defend it as a biblical concept for some reason.

I’ve never understood that kind of logic, but it is something that makes the world a lot harder for introvert boys while it favours the more outgoing men that are already favoured by this kind of culture and seen as more manly. Introversion in men is not exactly supported by that kind of gender standards, in ways that go far beyond this silly rule. Or as I posted on facebook earlier, in a text that was more written for shock value maybe:

“Wanting boys to always take the first step in romance and relationship ultimately just creates a Darwinian selection against introversion in men. But since it does select for introversion in women and I suppose that introversion isn’t that gender-dependent the net result is only that introvert boys in every generation need to or slaughter their personality or remain alone without procreation…”

Oh yes, I’m exaggerating here, and we introverts generally do often develop coping mechanisms to live in an extrovert-normative world, but living with coping mechanisms all the time will still be quite exhausting. And it feels fake to never be able to be yourself…
(I also do know that introIlikehugsverted is not always the same as shy, thank you…)

So, systems that are based on male domination are destructive for most introverted males, who might in certain situations need to or give up their personality or give up their chances on a place in the system.

And even without this whole story and incoherent rant, ‘the boy always has to take the initiative’ is a dumb rule that is sexist to both genders at the same time anyway…

What do you think?

Peace

Bram

Note at the end: I guess that only those words ‘the misandric introvertphobia of patriarchy’ already might be problematic to some… And not just because this kind of feminist-sounding lingo might make me unpopular by some people, since I’ve lost those kind of readers a long time ago anyway. Some other people more inclined to feminism might dislike my use of the word ‘misandry’, since the use of certain shibbolets  and a certain kind of logic that’s quite like the ‘guilt by association’ fallacy. Ironically that’s probably in part because its use by idiots who would themselves engage in the misandry described in this post though…
And then the other word I used, ‘introvertphobia’, is also not a canonical term in the catalogue of bigotry against minorities. I must say that I actually don’t really like the use of ‘-phobia’ for discrimination against a certain group, on grounds of etymological consistency among other reasons. Fear is not the same of discrimination or ‘bigotry’, and the whole X-phobic thing to me sounds a lot like Orwellian Newspeak sometimes… But the simplest way to be understood is to use this kind of terminology now I’m afraid, and thus my use of a -phobic neologism.
And then there’s the problem I have with the word ‘patriarchy’, which is often not defined at all and used as a container for all the sexist things in society one doesn’t like. Thus being one of the ‘thought packages’ I described in my last post that doesn’t have many meaning except for the establishing a strong we/them dichotomy.
Notice also that by now I stopped bothering with trying to follow a certain orthodoxy of ‘political correctness’ belonging a culture that I’m unable to understand anyway. Walking on invisible eggshells is unsustainable anyway…

A Christian reaction to porn that doesn’t dehumanise the objectified further?


It’s quiet here, so let’s go back to controversy and write about some kind of weird subject like the pornification of images (moving or not) of human beings made in the Divine Image… (generally called ‘porn’ by most people) And let’s give it a long title full of complicated words so I won’t attract too many Beavis and Butthead-type of readers…

Yeah,  it’s been a while since I wrote a post about things related to sex and love and so (the last and only one since July or so being my little effort to raise some awareness of asexuals as the most ignored sexual minority) so why not….

So where to start? A while ago I read this article called 3 lies that kept me trapped by porn from a guest-blogger on Micah Murray’s redemption pictures. To clarify where I stand on these things I must probably start here with saying that, while it’s an understatement to say that I’m not a fan of porn at all, I’m generally not a big fan of most Christian anti-porn propaganda either… so I didn’t expect that much from the article, since most articles with a title like that are just more of the ‘every man’s battle’ stuff, an affirmation that it’s more or less expected for a man to be addicted to porn on one hand and a lot of guilt-creation that partly misses the point on important details on the other hand. I tend to not find that especially healthy. But, to my big surprise, this article turned out to be a completely different cup of tea that needs to be shared more. (if you still get my mixed metaphors here) .

The post was written David E. Martin, who has a Christian website for people who do have problems with porn called ‘My chains are gone’. His website and ministry have an approach to the problem of porn and its solution that is worth looking at, so I recommend you all to not just read his guestpost on redemption pictures but also his site if the subject is of any interest to you.  I might not agree with every line they write, but overall they have a lot of interesting things to say that I hadn’t heard before. It’s quite quite different from the standard stuff most Christian repeat all the time, as the 3 lies in the title already show:

1. The unclothed human body is primarily sexual in nature.
 Therefore, to see another body unclothed is a sexual event.

2. The automatic and natural response to the sight of an unclothed body is sexual arousal. Therefore, the best strategy against lust is to limit the opportunity to view the unclothed body.

3. To be drawn to the sight of nudity (beyond your spouse’s) is a perversion.
Therefore, we must make every effort to eradicate this “perversion” from our hearts.

He exposes these ideas as lies that hinder those trapped in an addiction pornography in breaking with those habits. Maybe a bit counter-intuitive but I do agree with him, and I would say that the de-pornification of the human body might be the most important thing in learning to look at human beings as made in Gods image and loving our fellow human who happens to be of the sex we’re sexually attracted to. His approach is connected to ideas I have been alluding to in some of my blogpostVenus of Willendorfs (See for example posts with titles as On sexy poorn models and human dignity; meditating on sexy models; on nudity in game of thrones and some American bloke again…; Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’; On similar misandry in Christian fundamentalism and comsumer capitalism) But it’s not at all something I’ve seen discussed that much by most of my co-religionists even though some of them like to talk about porn a lot…

It’s an easy subject to start discussions of sin and holiness and whatever, but I often feel like important things are missed.  Although I naturally completely agree with Jesus who says in the sermon on the mount that looking lustfully at a woman is to commit adultery in your head, there are some points in the standard blablah that I don’t find very helpful.

Some of these things have to do with what David writes about on his site. the standard approach is not helping in what I earlier called the depornification of the human body, and moreover  ‘Looking lustfully’ is not synonymous with looking at a nude. Also we do easily forget that porn as we know it in our current culture is not a universal thing but in the current incarnation something unique in world history and very specific to our culture. The way bodies are depicted in our porn would not be very sexy to a lot of people from other times and cultures….

Well it actually isn’t even to me. And I’m a 21st century Western male…

So let’s get to some more points that are often overlooked:

1.) Assuming porn addiction is just how men are wired: Normalizing problems of a certain part of the Western population in a very peculiar time and culture as ‘this is how men are wired. Get used to it.’ is not the way to go. Men are not wired into being addicted to what is called ‘porn’ in our time and culture and in the very myopic way a certain subculture frames our human sexuality in a very narrow and unhealthy way. Porn addiction means that persons (male or female) are conditioned to like it and neuroplastically deformed into it.

2.) Missing the core of the problem gives us some pretty bad solutions: The problem is not in the first place what we see, but it is what is in our hearts when we see it. Porn is very often in the eye of the beholder. If we really learn to love watching porn is impossible, since seeing someone as a human being is incompatible with pornificating them.  The deepest problem is not what we see, but how we watch it and why we’re watching it.

3.) Furthering dehumanization is part of what we should eliminate: Pornification is always a dehumanization of the depicted humans into mere sex objects. If we want to get beyond it we should not follow that line of thinking but reject it. Accepting that women are nothing but sexy temptation and then avoid them is equally dehumanising. The ‘rape culture victim-blaming’ stuff that when a man has sinful thoughts when he sees a woman it’s her fault is only perpetuating the deeper sin of dehumanization, and actually not solving even a molecule of the problem.

4. We should also never forget the  formative danger in porn: We seem to ignore as a culture how porn shapes and deforms our view of the human body. It creates a new and perverted reality, in which sex is not that healthy at all and in which humans are less human than how God created them to be.  It is a fake ideal world that fills peoples head but that no living person will ever live up to. We might think that porn is just showing us how sex is and how sexy people look, but it’s actually completely fake on one hand, and transforming human sexuality to its own image and likeness on the other hand.

Yes, one of the exact dangers of porn is how it is making up it’s own very depraved standard of sexiness that isn’t real at all and then it tries to conform the real world to it. Which is especially dangerous for young people who don’t have their view of sexuality fully formed, like teenagers in puberty. Peoples brains are actually altered by watch porn by the way.  This brain-altering already happens with adults watching porn, but it’s extremely dangerous with young people whose view of porn isn’t even formed yet like I said.

5. Porn is not just ‘showing sex’ but  lying: The things depicted in our modern porn are not default human sexuality at all, let alone human sexuality as God meant it. It’s a very peculiar way of framing sex, a language that seems universal to many people.It’s actually a very artificial and unnatural mutation of human sex, not just a way of visually describing how humans have sex. The bodies are fake, the angles are very artificial and unrealistic.  Our modern ‘porn’ goes way beyond nudity in what it gives to stimulate our sexuality so a very big and abusive industry can make a lot of money.

Yup, the end goal of most porn is probably money for some shady types somewhere.

6. Watching modern porn is learned behaviour:
Looking at the beauty and sexiness of the sex one is attracted to is very natural, but modern porn goes a lot further than this and is much more niche… Consuming modern porn is learned behavior, like drinking wine or listening jazz.

It’s something I didn’t learn though. Except for simple nude pictures most porn when I accidentally see it doesn’t work for me, probably because it’s too far away from my own sexual experience (and lack thereof in my younger years).  Most times when I do see real ‘porn’ beyond playboy-level I’m actually repulsed, not aroused.

(Clarification: I do like female nude art a lot btw, maybe too much. But one of the things I like most about female nudes is some untouchable sacred innocence which is so real that any ‘wrong’ thought is misplaced.  Which is completely incompatible with porn and probably impossible to describe to people who don’t know what I mean. Think about Ransom and the green woman of Venus… It is because I love female nudity so much that I hate porn.)

I do think not getting it and being repulsed by what goes for porn nowadays is not a very abnormal reaction for a uninitiated person actually. Look at this description from a (female) guest-blogger at irrestistible Fish (and read the post too later after you’ve finished mine and see also her part II) about her surprise when she started to watch porn:

Porn was not exactly what I had expected.
I knew it would be graphic, but this, this was beyond graphic.
This was not like the sex scenes in a movie.
This sex wasn’t just sex.
Porn sex was different.
The bodies were ‘perfect’, the positions, acrobatic.
No one had a single hair follicle visible anywhere on their perfect bodies. And visible their bodies were. Microscopically so.
Everything was up close and zoomed in. Nothing left to the imagination.

There was no kissing, no intimacy, no love, just animalistic, self-gratifying acts of sex.

Only reading this paragraph makes me feel dirty and uninterested… Call me a romantic but I don’t even want to be able to fantasize sex without kissing, let alone intimacy or love.

What would even be the fun of that? Yuck….

This way of picturing the human body and sexuality is blasphemy against the Imago dei itself. Blasphemy against love.

(I’m actually very lucky to have formed my view of how female  bodies are not from porn but from biology books, more regular nude scenes, and more classical nude art or nude photography, and that the default for a female body in my head is mostly just my wife, not a forced ideal that doesn’t exist. )

So what is the most important thing here? I would say that what we should never forget is that porn is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not what comes in through our eyes that makes us unclean, but our own heart and how we process those things. Sexually perverted people will look at every woman with lust and predatory thoughts, no matter how they are dressed. Being a woman is enough to be subject to pornification for some.

But one of the most important commandments for Christians is to love our fellow humans as ourselves, which very certainly does not include dehumanising them as sex objects.  Even the label ‘humanist’ to me would imply a higher standard than dehumanising other people in to sex object. And not unimportantly  here is that it doesn’t matter that much if we consume them with our eyes as porn or turn our eyes away… The second one might keep us from certain sins like the ‘looking lustfully’, it still makes us regard the person in question as less than human.

How can we ever learn to love fellow humans that we cannot look at because they are only sex objects for us? This approach will never make us love more even if it can help us by means of mere sin management. But in the end we need to learn to love the other. This is why I do think that for example Dan Brennans work on cross-gender friendship is very important (check out his groundbreaking book ‘sacred unions, sacred passions‘ on the subject) Pornification of the human body is completely incompatible with love and loving the other as ourselves., and we need to let go of it…

But this might requite a letting go of cultural conditioning and might  need some help from the Holy Spirit…

So what do you think?

peace

Bram

Why are asexuals the most ignored sexual minority?


asexualSomeone on my facebook wall notified me that his week (October 26 – November 1st) is Asexual Awareness Week. And since I wanted to write about that subject for quite a while now, this might be a good opportunity.

What am I talking about? Asexuality as a sexual orientation just means that the person is not sexually attracted to other persons. It’s quite simple if seen as ‘the fourth orientation’:
Heterosexuals are sexually attracted to (some people of) the other sex,  homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, and bisexuals to both genders (Some use the word ‘pansexual’ for not making any gender distinction in sexual attraction too) and asexuals don’t experience sexual attraction to anyone. Note that sexual orientation has nothing to do with sex drive, asexuals can have a sex drive physically but it isn’t directed towards other humans. It’s not the same as celibacy either.

When looking at subjects like this one the meaning of words and the definitions that are used are of utmost importance. Note that the word ‘attraction’ which is often very loosely used can mean a lot of different things. Within the asexual community there is a distinction between sexual attraction (which is not experienced by asexuals) and romantic or aesthetic attraction that can be experienced but are for asexuals not linked to sexual attraction. Some asexuals are aromantic, but others are heteroromantic, homoromantic or biromantic.
Another word used in the asexual community is ‘demisexual’ (or grey asexual) for people who only can feel sexual attraction when a relationship of intimacy has already developed.

(I’m not quite sure if that last one is a separate sexual orientation though. And I do think semantics are interesting here: sexual attraction does not mean that one wants sex, should have sex, or can have sex without being devastated. As someone who has been a virgin until my twentysomething years I can say that I, although I’ve always have been heterosexual, needed a lot of time before there was a space in my life in which sex was appropriate and ‘in place’. With my personality and a worse sexual history I might have actually collapsed into pseudo-asexuality…)

But asexuality definitely is a thing: some people don’t experience sexual attraction as their sexual orientation. That’s the theory, but we’re not speaking just about issues here, we’re talking about humans, their life, and a part of their being. And it seems that for some reason, a lot of asexuals are still ‘in the closet’ because for some reason some people do not like asexuality. Not only do some not believe in it, but it seems some people can be very negative towards the idea itself, and towards asexuals. From wikipedia:

A 2012 study published in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations reports there is more prejudice, dehumanization and discrimination toward asexuals than toward other sexual minorities, such as gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Both homosexual and heterosexual people thought of asexuals as not only cold, but also animalistic and unrestrained. The same study also found more bias towards sapiosexuals (people who find intelligence the most sexually attractive feature) than towards homosexuals or bisexuals, and that attitudes towards sapiosexuals was the strongest correlate of attitudes towards asexuals.[55] Asexual activist, author, and blogger Julie Decker has observed that sexual harassment and violence, such as corrective rape, commonly victimizes the asexual community.[5

Now what I do find interesting here is that it seems that some of the people who do advocate for sexual minorities are negative about asexuality. (I’ve seen a lot of letters being added to the English abbreviation LBG, but rarely the A for example, and I’ve almost never heard anyone in my own language mention them when speaking about sexual minorities)

I wonder if it has something to do with the mistaken idea that sex is so so so very important and the most important thing that a lot of people (including advocates for sexual minorities, who often have to fight for their sexual identity) have, which is completely negated by the existence of asexuals.

Humans are not defined by having sex or experiencing sexual attraction. As a Christian I can point here to the fact that two of the most important persons in the New Testament were unmarried, not just the apostle Paul but also Jesus Christ Himself were unmarried. The absence of a sex life or a life partner does not make one less human, so why would anyone at all have problems with an ‘absent sexual orientation’? People who are ‘not into sex’ have a lot of other things they can put their energy into. I don’t see at all what the problem would be.

(Any conservative Christian argument against staying unmarried is bogus anyway, like our examples of Paul and Jesus and all those millions of celibates in the history of Christianity make clear. Some people are called to have families, others can do other things with their life. Yes, everybody is different, get used to it.!)

So I guess that I just want to give you this for asexuality awareness week: asexual people exist. If you want to read more you can read this website. People around you might be asexuals and be still in the closet because it’s a taboo far beyond other sexual identities for some apparently. (I don’t see why though) They seem to be the most overlooked sexual minority. But they are as human as anyone else.

peace

Bram

 

 

 

 

Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’


For this post we’ll go fXXXurther where I left off in my post about John Piper and nudity a while ago. There was one subject that we had to address there: the myth that ‘men are visual’.

Why do I speak of a ‘myth’ here? I in no way inted to use the word ‘myth’ pejorative, since I do think myths can be something very positive. I use it here as an explaining narrative that is believed in a certain culture. Think of Greg Boyds use of the word in his book title ‘the myth of a Christian nation. A myth doesn’t even just explain, it also forms identity.

What is meant with visual here? It is used for being aroused most by the things that we see. If we let go of the subject of sex here we see that different personality types do react more to different senses and different ways of data-input. Some people are better in learning stuff when they hear it, others when they read it, or when they experience it, etc… This differs from person to person, and has nothing at all to do with sex or gender.

So some people are visual. Their eyes are their main way of getting information and impulses through so that it connects. Visual people will get more from paintings and video’s (or written texts) more than spoken words or music or so. But it’s always a matter of degree, all people that are not visually handicapped are ‘visual’. But some are more auditive, or even tactile, or…

If we look at it this way, the question arises why all men would be mainly ‘visual’ when it comes to sex as our myth says, compared to women who seem to be not visual at all?

The first thing I can say is that I don’t believe that this is true. I am not that visual sexually myself, touch and closeness are much more important to me. And I’ve heard and read women who described being visual in a way that went far beyond anything I understand. I don’t get physically aroused that easily just from seeing a person of the other sex that is more or less attractive at all…

Recently I read a blogpost from an American ex-fundamentalist girl that now lives in Europe that often writes very interesting stuff. I quote it here not to expose here in any way, but as an example of a woman that clearly is ‘visual’ while I am a man that isn’t at all, if this is ‘being visual’. (I do disagree with her on something important, but we’ll get to that later)

When I see a man, dressed and all, I do not look at his impressive jaw or deep grey eyes or strong hands.

I look at your muscles, and your hips, and your nose (guess why). And if I can’t see them cause you’re wearing some fancy t-shirt, let me assure you: I can perfectly well imagine you naked. And even worse: I do it. all. the. time.

When I look at a man, I don’t stare at his eyes because they reflect some promise of love and tenderness. I look at your chest and imagine what it would look like in dim light. I wonder if you have a “V” and then I wonder if it would look good on you (it doesn’t on everyone).

(..)

I have all the imagination I need to picture you naked, even when you’re fully dressed. You cannot escape it, no matter how you behave or what you wear or say or do. I do not care about your positive character qualities. Not one – tiny – little – bit.

I’ll go back to this quote later, but let’s for now just say that it should be evident from my own experience, from what she describes, and from the people I met in my life some people (men and women) are visual when it comes to sex, and some are less visual (also men and women).

So our ‘men are visual (and women not)’ myth fails blatantly as a myth that tries to explain something, and to form identity. But on the other hand, our society is indeed oriented towards the exploitation of the male gaze and the female sexiness. A lot of money can be made of that in the advertisement industry if people can abuse sexy female to sell about just anything unrelated to female humans.
We just have to always remember, like I said before, this is in no way a question of ‘hard-wiring’ but of ‘programming’. The visual stimuli that arouse a person sexually aren’t even fixed. We Westerners seem to be obsessed with female breasts, but in some cultures men are used to seeing naked breasts without ever connecting those with sex. In other cultures even the sight of a bare ankle or arm might be very sexy and considered quite inappropriate. So what we’re talking about here is just a cultural thing, and a form of conditioning that is formed when we grow up.

So I a way it’s only ‘just’ a learned thing, in another way it is a programmation that might be hard or in some cases impossible to get rid of in this lifetime, especially if all you ever see is affirmations of it. But in no way it is a question of being ‘hard-wired’

We are no robots, remember?

So, some men and women are more visual than others when it comes to sex, but men are conditioned to be visual (because that can be abused commercially easily, although there will be other reasons too), and in some environments women are said that they are not at all visual. Which is a lie, some women are as visual as the most visual men, while others aren’t. this is quite damaging to women who are visual sexually. It’s part of a bigger ‘men want sex, women want love, so women just give sex to feel loved’ myth that is equally damaging and dehumanising to both sexes. I’m a man, but if I have to choose between a world without sex and a world without (romantic) love, I’ll choose to let go of sex, not love. Not in a million years

Another thing that should be noted is the logical fallacy of taking one step too far in the quoted blogpost, which seems to be very common. Like I said, being visual means that we get aroused though things we see. That’s all it means. It does not mean that there has to be a second step of reducing the person you see and find attractive to a sex object that you can use in your fantasy. Those things DO NOT have to follow from each other. Nakedness is just nakedness btw, we focus way too much on connecting nudity with sex. And no it’s not because I see a (clothed or naked) woman that I find visually arousing that I automatically have to make the step to fantasize about having sex with her.

Being visual (easily visually stimulated) and having sexual fantasies about strangers easily are not at all the same thing!

But we do probably have to come back to the conditioning problem here. If you’re used to making that step, it has formed a conditioned reflex, and it might be hard to unlearn it or imagine that people would not make that step. As hard as it is for me to imagine that anyone would be so perverted to automatically make that step… It must be very tiring if people really have a reflex every time the see an attractive person that’s their type to have fantasies about having sex with that person. I’m glad I’m not in that situation at all…

Ah, neuroplasticity

It’s also generally quite hard to communicate about these things because everybody has only their own experience (and the acummulated input of a lifetime) as a point of reference, and most people easily assume everybody (or everybody of their own sex/gender) is like them. What I’ve learned is that this way of thinking will always cause painful misunderstanding…

The other problem with the quoted blogpost, and with other expressions of the pseudo-feminist idea that women should master stereotypical but problematic macho maledom is that what is emulated here is an aberration of maleness, not at all how men should be, and actually not healthy for anyone, male, female or otherwise; It’s something we should unlearn because it only leads to dehumanisation of the gender one is attracted to.

(And to very bad TV shows like sex and the city and idiotic pop songs.)

One last thing is that it seems to me that the American ‘purity culture’ (that I still don’t understand at all) seems to be really fixated on this stuff. It’s every man’s battle to be visual and see women and want to have sex with them and watch porn all the time. This whole obsession might be more a form of projected belief that aligns all men including those who don’t have the problem into believing this stuff and becoming it.

(And it’s equally damaging to girls in other ways)

Isn’t that the opposite of what we need?

Shalom

Bram

See also

meditating on sexy models
Some old critique to ‘true love waits’ and Joshua Harris…
on sexy porn models and human dignity
Man as an automatic leader and/or utterly untrustworthy animal?
On the sex-life of aliens and sexism here on Earth…
A purity culture I don’t know…
Nothing more natural than cross-gender friendships?
Jesus against the sexism of his time: Martha and Mary
On cross-gender friendships and Christians…
teenage flashback: I’m not flirting, but I might need a hug…
christians and cross-gender friendships
sexual dominoes vs the fruits of the Spirit

 

On nudity in game of thrones, and some American bloke again…


Yes, I know I had planned to not interact that much any more to whatever the American Christian blogosphere gets riled up about, but I’m going to break that rule for one time now, even though this post is probably a bad idea.  I do know the John Piper bloke is big in certain circles, but he does not concern me much personally. I have written about him in the context of sexism in North American evangelicalism earlier, but overall he’s not someone that has much impact on me nor does interest me that much generally, but I want to react to one of his recent writings.

(To not have too much controversy I will probably add one post with pictures of Antwerp before I go back to the occult. Oh and I did recieve a book called ‘a farewell to Mars’ that looks interesting even without featuring any Martians… Why can’t I just blog about more regular things?)

Some people in some facebook groups were reacting against one of his recent writings (a transcript of some king of talk more specifically) about nudity and the popular series ‘Game of thrones’.  Now I neither read the GoT books nor watched the series, and I don’t really intend to. This has several reasons, the first of which being that I have a reading and watching list that’s full enough already with much more interesting stuff. The second reason seems to be (if I understand people who like it well) that the background philosophy seems to be something like ‘there is no good and evil, only power, and those who are too weak to get it’. Yes, I actually I do quote professor Quirrel here from the first Harry Potter book. And I do note that Harry Potter rejects that way of thinking without even considering it. There’s enough of that stuff in world politics, and it’s not what I turn to fantasy for. The third reason why I’m not really interested would be that I hear that there’s a lot of sexual violence in it. I don’t enjoy stories with too much sexual violence AT ALL.

Since Piper most probably hasn’t seen any GoT himself, and I did read his article 12 questions to ask before you watch game of thrones, I do feel sort of qualified to comment on some things in the article (though not on GoT).

I must tolkienpipesay that he makes some interesting points here and there, and actually goes back and forth from saying stuff I agree with to things that make me think ‘Dude, what did you put in your pipe, is it an old Toby from the Shire or rather a fine Moroccan hashish? Some of his questions are interesting, some seem a bit besides the point, and others come with an explanation that I just disagree with or find completely irrelevant:

Am I Recrucifying Christ?
Does It Express or Advance My Holiness?
When Will I Tear Out My Eye, If Not Now?
Is It Not Satisfying to Think on What Is Honorable?
Am I Longing to See God?
Do I Care About the Souls of the Nudes?
Would I Be Glad If My Daughter Played This Role?
Am I Assuming Nudity Can Be Faked?
Am I Compromising the Beauty of Sex?
Am I Assuming Nudity Is Necessary for Good Art?
Am I Craving Acceptance?
Am I Free from Doubt?

Actually apart from the article and GoT a lot of these questions are worth meditating on in genera. But what I want to react to is his general reaction to nudity. I do believe as a Christian that pornography is wrong for several reasons. I can argue from the words of Jesus that adultery in your head is sill a sin, and I would add even whether the other person exists or not. (Which is probably quite extreme a teaching for some in this world, but I stand by it. Yes I can be pretty ‘conservative’ indeed…)
Also, the porn industry is quite exploitive towards women and human beings in general. All of which are made in Gods image. Not only is reducing people to sex objects with a camera dehumanising, making people of the other sex watch it and reduce themselves to such things is equally dehumanising.

The thing is that John Piper seems to assume that all nudity automatically works pornographic:

Jesus said everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away (Matthew 5:28–29). Seeing naked women — or seeing naked men — causes a man or woman to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies. If Jesus told us to guard our hearts by gouging out our eyes to prevent lust, how much more would he say: “Don’t watch it!”

I’ve seen this approach more, both from certain Christians of a more fundamentalist ilk and certain Muslims, but I don’t believe in it. I do not believe at all that men automatically have to sin when they see a naked female body, and can’t do anything about it, although I can’t rule out that some men are probably indeed conditioned that way. (I say conditioned, so I do not at all mean hardwired here, but programmed: In some culture women walk around with naked breasts all the time without anyone seeing it as sexual at all, while in other cultures seeing just the unscarfed loose hair is considered too sexy for a man to handle and keep his self-control…)

I’m sorry, no matter what some mega-selling books claim to be ‘every man’s battle’, I’m not free from flaws and sinful thoughts in the area of sexuality, but no, I do not just automatically want to have sex with a women when I see her without clothes in a movie. I don’t picture me and her having sex just because she’s unclad or scantily clad. Yikes. What an idea… Just as I do not want to have sex with a woman I see in real life just because I notice how attractive she is. (Actually clothes don’t have to make that much of a difference here anyway. The ‘lustful lecher’ type will be doing the same when they see people they find sexy even when fully clothed.)

Yes, sex scenes in movies are arousing and sometimes IT IS better to look away, I won’t argue with that. Completely agree. Watching people having sex or faking to have sex is maybe generally not always the best idea. (Although it is not so far-stretched to just want your OWN partner in such a moment, not the people pictured, I’d say.)
Assuming that people will automatically sin when they see a nude person of the sex they’re attracted to shows probably just too much faith in ‘total depravity’ for me. Moreover, if I were from a tribe that walks around naked with even caring about one breast more or less it would be one more case of telling Mr. Beaver of Narnia that animals will never be able to talk. Even to me this article already feels a bit like it.

And here we come to the problem that porn often lies in the eyes (and mind, and hormones) of the beholder, so this is a difficult discussion… I can’t argue with other peoples POV, but I would be very glad if they do not project their own experiences on the rest of the world either…

It’s probably true that nudity in GoT is used a lot for sex scenes or otherwise voyeuristic purposes, but apart from this, there is no reason at all to always see nudity as sexual. It’s in fact quite dehumanising (speaking as a heterosexual male here, substitute whatever gender applicable if your situation is different if you find this hard to read otherwise) to directly reduce the nude female body to something solely sexual. Censoring breastfeeding for example has very perverse ideas behind it for me, breasts are meant for breastfeeding and sexualising it is quite sick in my opinion.

100_1594Maybe it’s because I am the grandson of the late semi-famous painter Willie Cools, known for his abstract female nudes (that are not and have never been sexually arousing to me at all, no matter what other thing one could say about them) but I think it’s totally overblown to say ‘nudity = pornography, always’ I have seen a lot of classical paintings and sculptures with female nude in my life, and again, most of them are not that sexually arousing as far as I’m concerned.

Maybe it’s not that weird to not equate all nudity (or all female nudity, our society does seem quite asymmetrical here) with porn. I’d rather just think our culture’s attitude towards nudity is unhealthy. There is a lot of evidence that the first Christians practised nude baptism for all believers without anything like this discussion at all…

I thus assume we better reframe one of Pipers questions here, and not ask “Do I Care About the Souls of the Nudes?” but whether we are able to see the image of God in every person we might dehumanise. This might be the case with sexy models as I’ve written about earlier, and for said nudes here, but it applies far outside the category of ‘sexually tempting’ to any person we deem less than human, because they are in our eyes, too poor, too ugly, too different, whatever…

We need to have the eyes of Christ, who was a friend of prostitutes without looking down on them nor looking at them for their sexiness. We should indeed not look at people with lust and reduce them to sex objects in our head, but it’s much more healthy to be able to see some nudity every now and then when we stumble upon it without going completely crazy about it than assume that every time we see a female body we need to think about having sex with them and ‘can’t help it because we’re wired that way’. Such an approach will never be helpful at all.

Another thing that does concern me about the article is that the issue of sexual violence is not addressed. I hope it’s because Piper doesn’t know enough about GoT -I can’t imagine him watching/reading it at all-, and not because for some reason nudity seems much more of a problem than sexual violence (in which case the term ‘rape culture’ would be more than appropriate).

Also, one last thing is that I am more than a bit confused by the ‘violence can be faked and nudity not, so watching violence is OK and nudity isn’t’. Come on, what kind of an argument is that? Does that mean that pornographic manga or computer-generated realistic images of nudes are okay then? I disagree on both accounts: nudity isn’t automatically evil, nor is violence ‘not a problem’ when it is faked.

Some people will not be able to see nudity, whether real or not (or in certain cultures bare ankles or loose hair) without falling into ‘lust’. Just a a lot of people get very unhealthy and sinful kicks out of watching violence (even if fake). Killing humans (made in the imago of God, or representing humanity which is made in the image of God) is one of the most severe sins one can do, and portraying it should always done with a lot of consideration, whether it is fake or real isn’t even the issue. Just as with sexy manga the sinful reaction is present will be completely the same…

what do you people think?

Bram