I Like Big ‘Buts’ — An Evangelical Counter-Argument to Sex & Nudity in Cinema (Pt. Two)

Perino del Vaga, The Marriage Bed of Jupiter and Juno, 1501-47

As I pointed out in Pt. 1, a healthy prerequisite to a discussion about sex and nudity in cinema requires evangelicals to avoid rhetorical caricatures of “opponents” (as either prudes or pervs) and their motives and intentions (“So you’re championing sex and nudity???”). Having said that, let me engage the actual objections used by Gregory Shane Morris in his recent article No Buts About It. I’m focusing on Morris’ points as they are largely representative of the evangelical position on sex and nudity in cinema. Let me distill those arguments this way:

“Would you let your mother, spouse, or child do that?” — The Golden Rule argument
“But the images on the screen are REAL.” — The Nudity Isn’t Fake argument
“Seeing naked people on screen causes people to sin.” — The Seeing is Sin argument
“Nudity is not required to make the story better.” — The Cleaner the Better argument

Of course, there’s other arguments and layers of argument which intersect. But allow me to proffer some brief rebuttals to those points. (Being that I’m on a writing deadline, and to keep this from becoming a 10,000 word essay, I’ll address each of these in single posts.)

I.) The Golden Rule argument — “Would you let your wife or daughter do that?” This has become one of the go-to arguments recently. Morris quotes Tim Challies before making his conclusion:

“What would it take for you? What would it take for you, husband, to be okay with your wife baring her breasts and body in front of a movie camera? What would it take for you to allow another man to strip off her clothes, to kiss her, to fall into bed with her, and to pantomime having sex with her? . . . What would it take for you to be okay with the rest of us watching this as entertainment? And you, wife, would you be okay if your husband was the one acting it all out, holding her in his arms, mimicking ecstasy?”

Challies concludes with a simple appeal to the Golden Rule. If we wouldn’t accept our spouses aping sex on camera with a Hollywood star, why do we think it’s okay for someone else’s spouse to do it?

Okay, so there’s two things going on here — nudity and simulated sex — which tend to get conflated and muddy the discussion. Are we talking about a woman “baring her breasts and body in front of a movie camera” AND THEN simulating sex with a similarly nude actor? Or are we condemning both separately — nudity AND simulated sex? My sense is that Morris, Challies, and Piper are conveniently meshing both together. For example, Challies in his article Sex on the Silver Screen writes,

I believe the Bible makes it very clear that sex and the nakedness that goes with it are sacred, matters to be shared only between a husband and wife. What is good and appropriate within marriage—unashamed nakedness and uninhibited sex—are matters of exclusivity and privacy. (Emphasis mine)

Challies proceeds to argue against both cinematic nakedness and sexuality, as if the two are inseparable.

Such arguments often assume that nudity is intrinsically sexual. (We’ll discuss this issue later down the road.) Not to mention, it also assumes that all nudity and sex scenes are the same, that the nudity in Children of Men is the same as nudity in American Pie, or that the sex scene in Scorcese’s Age of Innocence or Atonement is the same as the sex scenes in Monster’s Ball or 9 and 1/2 Weeks. While it may seem like hair-splitting, I think it’s important to separate those two issues — a person baring their body for a camera and a person that bares their body and then jumps into another’s arms are two different things.

The problem for advocates of a NO NUDITY / NO SEX SCENES stance is this: If there’s a justification for SOME nudity in film, then the Golden Rule argument is not hard and fast. In fact, I’d suggest that the reason that proponents of a prohibition against watching nudity is just that — the moment they say that SOME might be tolerable, their argument breaks down. Which is why nudity and sex are typically lumped together in this argument.

I generally agree with my conservative friends about simulated sex. Unmarried couples engaging in “pretend” copulation is not just uncomfortable to watch, but often requires actors to put their bodies and themselves in morally compromising positions (as actress Jennifer Lawrence confessed about her uncomfortable sex scene with Chris Pratt). Mind you, I’m referring to graphic sex scenes which involve nudity, the touching of unclothed body parts, and acting out of sexual contact. (Interestingly enough, Lawrence later admitted in an interview with Chris Pratt’s wife that she felt no such discomfort kissing unmarried actors; her guilty feelings stemmed from the fact that Pratt was married.) Even if the artistic aim of the director is to convey something troubling, abusive, or even redemptive, such scenes still require actual people to place their nude bodies in uncomfortable proximity to an actual act of illicit intercourse. In this sense, drawing a line at not watching nude simulated sex scenes is not just a matter of your own chastity, but out of respect for the actors involved in those scenes.

However, it must also be acknowledged that “sex scenes” come in lots of different forms. Not all of them involving stripping someone of their clothes and “mimicking ecstasy” in wild full-frontal gyrations. Some are implied, done off-screen, involve cut-aways, or suggestive lead-ups. But every sex scene does not necessarily involve naked bodies grinding on each other. However, using the Golden Rule logic — Would you want your spouse or parent doing that? — even various gradations of “sexual” relationships being portrayed by non-married actors and actresses could be seen as too risque. Things like caressing skin, embracing, unbuttoning a piece of clothing, or kissing, could be construed as out-of-bounds to some. Even the obligatory kiss, cut-away, couple laying side-by-side in bed could appear uncomfortably compromising for some. I mean, would you want your spouse to be seen laying next to someone not her spouse in bed with even the insinuation that they just had sex? Even though nothing is actually shown! If the same Golden Rule principle, as applied by proponents, is teased out, watching someone else’s husband or wife (or spouse, child, etc.) lie in bed with an actor not their spouse, kiss, caress, or lay their head on that actor’s chest could — perhaps should — evoke similar condemnation. In fact, ALL bodily contact between actors who are not married to each other involving actions meant to convey a relational or sexual gesture, should be reasonably avoided. It’s easy to frame “sex scenes” in the most explicit terms. But is there any cinematic expression of love, attraction, or sensuality between two non-married actors that the conservative critic will concede? If so, then the Golden Rule argument breaks down.

Novelist Cap Stewart sees the objectification and dehumanization of actors as central to applying the Golden Rule principle. Cap outlines the uncomfortable symmetry between Hollywood sex scenes, the porn industry, and the individuals left in their wake. Although he is clear to acknowledge that not every sex scene leaves actors feeling like pieces of meat, a good portion of them do. Which is why in his post Dehumanizing Actors for Our Entertainment Cap challenges those who might defend watching sex scenes on the grounds that not all actors feel exploited.

“…when you argue that ‘not everyone feels this way,’ what does that say about you? Do you mean that treating actors like pieces of meat isn’t a real problem unless it’s done 100% of the time? That dehumanizing actors is acceptable in Hollywood so long as it’s practiced in moderation? That actors should just accept sexual objectification as a normal hardship of stardom? I don’t see how such a stance can be anything but a form of moral negligence. It’s irresponsible—at best.

God created humans in His own image. Objectifying and dehumanizing them is bad enough, but doing so for our entertainment is sick and sinful. It shows a disregard for the second greatest commandment of all time: to love our neighbor as ourselves.”

As I mentioned in part one, in this debate, there is a real temptation to call into question the morals and motives of those on the opposite side rather than engage their argument. They’re either prudes or they’re perverts, depending on where you land. Cap doesn’t go so far as call someone like me a perv, however, he’s clear that he believes such a defense is egregious. “What does that say about you?” he asks. “I don’t see how such a stance can be anything but a form of moral negligence. It’s irresponsible—at best.”

So from the outset, in Cap’s eyes, I’m punching up because my stance says something about me, is a form of moral negligence, at least irresponsible. Frankly, this is what makes the discussion of this subject so difficult (and heated) in Christian circles — to defend a more libertine approach to film in evangelical circles is often seen as moral negligence.

I think Cap makes a good and fair point about the objectification and dehumanization of artists in Hollywood. This is a reality I find difficult to dispute. It goes hand in hand with our cultural slide into moral relativism and ever-expanded sexual license. That Hollywood and the entertainment industry has played a part in this is no question. But is it fair to say that because this happens that, therefore, all Hollywood is culpable, all films that contain nudity or sexual elements are shameful, and all those evangelicals who view films containing elements of nudity or some form of sex scene are irresposible and complicit?

I’m not sure if Cap would go this far. Is he suggesting we strictly avoid all films with sex scenes and/or nudity? Is he cautioning us to be more discerning or simply issuing a blanket prohibition? I’m not sure. But the conclusion drawn by many evangelicals definitely falls along the more cautionary lines. For example, John Piper’s Seven Questions to Ask Before You Watch ‘Deadpool’  seems fairly unambiguous about its aim. Some of the reasons we should not watch Deadpool, according to Piper, are that watching naked people causes us to sin, defiles our heart and mind, shows disregard for the souls of the nudes, violates the Golden Rule, and supports an exploitative industry. Clearly implicit in Piper’s conclusion is that ‘Good Christians don’t watch Deadpool.’

Again, this is where I think the Golden Rule argument, at least as it’s being used by proponents, fails. The Golden Rule also means giving directors, actors and actresses, and movie-goers freedom and the benefit of the doubt; it means not incriminating an entire industry, its varied players, and those who make choices contrary to yours. It goes without saying that films, filmmakers, actors and actresses, and the hearts of movie-goers exist within a very broad spectrum. It’s far easier to broadbrush the industry and make absolutist statements — Hollywood objectifies and dehumanizes actors; Nudity is evil; Seeing nudity leads to sin — than it is to admit that there may be far more gray than we’d like. Two things can be simultaneously true here. It is entirely possible to admit that dehumanization and objectification of actors is a problem AND that there’s plenty of films and filmmakers who do not exploit actors and plenty of filmgoers who can make responsible decisions.

In his post Nudity in Film, Joshua Gibbs addresses the charge Would you let your daughter do that? this way:

…plenty of Christians who get up in arms about a lady’s nipples tend to not talk much about the latex cat suits Marvel greases Scarlet Johansson into every summer, though I doubt many fathers would let their daughters do that either. I wouldn’t let my daughter don a chainmail bikini and lounge on a leash as Jabba’s sex slave, either. I wouldn’t let my daughter wear blue paint and scales to do an X-Men movie, either. Many Christians tend to write those cat suits and bikinis and blue paint off as “the price of being entertained today,” which has always struck me as more than a little opportunistic, but there are also plenty of Christians who simply aren’t taking their sons to Avengers or X-Men flicks because of those cat suits. If a man is willing to subsidize an X-Men movie which he wouldn’t allow his daughter to act in, his righteous indignation over nudity in films is at very least inconsistent. If refusing to take a boy to an X-Men movie seems prudish, we should at least be willing to admit that what an adult would be willing to let his or her daughter do on film is a profoundly imprecise way of determining what is allowable for other people. (bold, mine)

On the surface, the Golden Rule argument seems compelling. But upon deeper inspection, there’s still lots of gray. Just because you wouldn’t watch your spouse or child strip for the camera, wear chainmail and pretend to be a sex slave, or dress like Black Widow, does not justify passing a decree that anyone who creates or watches such enactments are categorically sinning. The Golden Rule goes both ways. We can acknowledge that problems DO exist in Hollywood and that performing some sex or nude scenes DOES require moral compromise and leaves terrible emotional scars on some of those who perform them. We can acknowledge that our culture is in steep moral decline and that Hollywood, and the entertainment industry in general, fuels much of that decline. Yet we should also acknowledge the many films and filmmakers who do not seek to objectivize and dehumanize others, the many thoughtful actors and actresses who struggle with difficult career and artistic decisions, and be willing to give discerning filmgoers the benefit of the doubt in their viewing choices.

Find Bactroban Online , Cheap Casodex Online , rifarad , Buy Cheap Rogaine 5% , Order Horny Goat Weed Online , Midamor Free Delivery , Order Discount Vitaliq Online , Sulmycin , escitalopram , Find Discount Amoxi-Tabs , Discount Phenergan Online , NO RX Erexin-V , Buy Relafen in Canada , NO RX Femara , Order Cheap Stress Gum , Find Cheap LipoSafe , Find Discount Avandia Online , No RX Eurax , Breast Enhancement Gum Online Review , Buy Discount Compazine , Order Discount Colchicine Online , Buy Hangover Helper in US , Buy Discount BCAA Online , Find Dipyridamole , Order No RX Male Enhancement Pills , NO RX Serophene , Buy Avandamet , Find Cheap Quibron-T , Seropram , Bactroban Overnight Delivery , indocin , NO RX Himcolin , Find Toradol , Order Discount Neurontin Online , Requip Overnight Delivery , Purinethol in US , L-Taurine Free Sample , Buy Insect Repellant Patch in US , Doxy , Buy Yerba Diet Online , Free Zyban , Find Combivent , Accupril Free Delivery , Order Cheap Tulasi , Buy Cheap Flagyl ER Online , zabel , Sterapred , Find Cheap Norvasc , No RX Rogaine 2% , enhancin , Find Clomicalm COD , Herbal Soma Free Delivery , Cheap Entocort Online from FDA Approved Store , Viagra Users