A Proposal for a Christian Pornography

[Harbinger]

It is natural for couples to want to learn new lovemaking techniques and ways to embrace the Lord's wishes through marital sex. But pornography rarely depicts married couples. Much less married couples making love or praising God for the goodness of sex. A properly prepared Christian pornography could be an excellent way for married couples to deepen their sexual relationship in accordance with God's will.

Here is an excellent article providing a framework for a Christian pornography:
www.sexinchrist.com/pornography.html

[Savor Dam]

Interesting.

While it is probably more a semantic quibble than a legitimate objection, I would assert that "pornography" is at minimum a loaded and pejorative term and may well be objectively the wrong word here. In its place, I would tentatively suggest "erotica" and invite those with more developed vocabularies to offer even more exacting word choices. On an SRD site, surely we have the resources to nail down the correct verbiage!

Other than that, since I am not a Christian, I have zero room to comment here.

[TheFallen]

Interesting.

While it is probably more a semantic quibble than a legitimate objection, I would assert that "pornography" is at minimum a loaded and pejorative term and may well be objectively the wrong word here. In its place, I would tentatively suggest "erotica" and invite those with more developed vocabularies to offer even more exacting word choices. On an SRD site, surely we have the resources to nail down the correct verbiage!

Other than that, since I am not a Christian, I have zero room to comment here.

You're absolutely right, Savor - the word "pornography" is not just loaded through association or usage - the very roots of the word itself ("porne" being the Greek word for prostitute and "grapho" meaining I write or record) make it mean in its strictest form the recording or depiction of acts of prostitution.

I think "erotica" is a more than apt suggestion - it doesn't suffer largely from the pejorative colouring that pornography rightly does.

[drew]

Not sure if this article is supposed to be taken seriously, or not.

It is well written, but the following articles, seem very tongue in cheek.

But as far as tastefull erotica, geared towards loving couples, the Kama Sutra i think certainly fits.

[High Lord Tolkien]

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... ornography

[Lambolt]

holy. shit. what the f....

[SoulBiter]

The problem in this would be that you would have couples that would start preferring to get their kicks from looking at the material. So rather than enhancing the marriage it would be detrimental to it.

I saw some statistics when I looked up porn addiction on the net and this is commonly what I saw.

47% percent of families said pornography is a problem in their home. 67% of people reported that viewing porn has decreased their sex drive and negatively affected their attraction to their partners.

[Fist and Faith]

I haven't read the article, but the concept seems pretty far from being in keeping with any definition of Christianity I'm aware of. Sure, many people of many branches of Christianity watch porn. But that's not nearly the same thing as having porn officially sanctioned by even a single one of those branches' ruling bodies.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

"Instructional" videos to educate on the 'varied' pleasures that can be had within the confines of a committed and decidedly Christian relationship? Possible.

However, to my poor little brain, the mere act of labeling it Christian would suck nearly all the enjoyment out of the concept. Probably my own hangup - or pehaps I'm missing the point. If it's instructional, the need to educate might trump the idea that it would be 'fun'.

To me, that sounds just as 'fun' as a Bible-themed amusement park would be, "let's put some fun in fundamental!", or perhaps going on a romantic cruise with your spouse, and having your Puritanical dyspeptic grandparents come with you.

I suspect my wiring is messed up, but the idea that my religion would sanction an activity is like the kiss of death for it -- pretty much guarantees that it can't just be fun, it has to be both fun and Jesus-centric. In my experience post-childhood, there is nothing fun about religion. just a big pile of obligations, with some vague promise of a reward after you die.

I'd much rather go about doing all the good deeds that can be done in my life without feeling obligated to do them - that way they are done because I want to do them, instead of a celestial deposit account for getting me into heaven. Seems more genuine to me.

dw

[Fist and Faith]

I can certainly imagine some saying sex should be fun and Jesus-centric. rus has spoken on the subject. Problem is, the moment you have pictures of other people having sex, no matter how you try to present it, it's going to be used the ways all other porn is.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Oh, I know -- require that it be viewed with your parish priest present, giving extra pointers from his book of proctor's notes. That will guarantee that is purely instructional, and cannot be used in prurient ways. Gotta ensure it stays Jesus-centric.

dw

[DukkhaWaynhim]

[double-post deleted]

[SoulBiter]

We had a seminar at my Church that delved into this kind of stuff. Of course only married people were invited because you arent supposed to be having sex if you arent married.

There weren't pictures but it was very open about sex. Some of the topics that were discussed were oral sex, vibrators, etc etc etc. So just because people are Christian doesn't mean they don't talk about these things.

[Fist and Faith]

Ah, but that's a whole new can of worms, Soul! Which Christians think oral sex, vibrators, etc, are forbidden?

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I don't remember the part in the Bible that talks about vibrators.

[Harbinger]

Hahahahahahahahaha. I'd almost forgot about this site. (My laptop crashed and I lost all my bookmarks). It always makes me laugh.

[Harbinger]

[EDIT] This is not a double post. Someone (I won't say since they evidently took it down for a reason) removed their post that was between these two.

Basically, it said that I had already started a thread about this in 2009.

[END OF EDIT]

Yeah. Someone else pointed that out. I'd forgotten about it. Although the other thread led to the page that was "anal sex and God's will."

I swear that wasn't intentional. I actually don't think it's the funniest one. I just linked the site and that's what I got.

A Proposal for a Christian Pornography was actually the first article I found on the site. I actually googled "christian porn" to taunt my business partner who is a forty-seven year old virgin. He swears he had sex with a live girl twice when he was twenty-six, but I don't buy it. The funny thing is he's attractive and witty and lots of girls like him. He is not gay. I don't know what his deal with sex/dating is.

Oh well. I found the site and have read all the articles; some of them several times. They crack me up. They are well written and well thought out.

[rusmeister]

Ah, but that's a whole new can of worms, Soul! Which Christians think oral sex, vibrators, etc, are forbidden?

Thinking carefully about whether to post at all, what to post...

In the interests of explanation rather than debate:

Just looking at the OP and thinking about the years I've spent here, one would think many people here thought that anybody could declare themselves to be anything at any time, and then to go making pronouncements about what they ought to do. Trouble is, this ignores what the established collective tradition sees itself to be, and how aspects of life are understood within at tradition. The problem is compounded in that what we see in the West today is something that, over the last 500 years, really did fragment into what we now call "denominations" and take them for granted, with little consideration of how they developed. And how they developed produced the modern idolization of the supremacy of the individual to determine everything without reference to tradition. IOW, the big mess of divisions in the West made possible the kind of thinking that fails to see tradition, and so people no longer consider how Christians understood truth and authority 500, 1,000 and 1,500 years ago, and how, for the logical Christian, that teaching would have to remain consistent. The one thing by which even the modern may measure this is by what remained constant even across the divisions right up to the 20th century, and on most things until a mere few decades ago - which, if we ignore all that came before, adds up to a mere 1.5% of Christian history.

Thus, the idea at things are "forbidden" fails to grasp what even Western Christians largely understood until quite recently - that the teachings are holistic; that they proceed from a holistic world view that sees a definite place for sex - not as a fragmented detail of life, but as part of the complete understanding of what the nature of man, and the nature of God is. So speaking of "rules" and "forbiddings" that seek to kill joy miss the historical point entirely; it is a kind of tunnel vision that can only see what is now, at the moment, "the 'now' of wolf thought".

And I'll say, it is a wonderful thing to not need to "protect" myself from my own wife, nor she from me, and that general need to protect oneself from one's beloved - if they ARE beloved - has arisen from this fragmented view of sex that has been darkened, and does not understand it's true nature or how it ought to be.

Not sure how many can understand me. Again, questions - yes, debate - no.

[Fist and Faith]

No need to debate. Even though I don't agree with your rules about who is allowed to be called a Christian, since I don't consider myself to be one, I have no reason to fight about it. But the fact remains that some groups that everyone but you (and, perhaps, Chesterton and the OC) consider to be Christian say such things are forbhdden.

[rusmeister]

No need to debate. Even though I don't agree with your rules about who is allowed to be called a Christian, since I don't consider myself to be one, I have no reason to fight about it. But the fact remains that some groups that everyone but you (and, perhaps, Chesterton and the OC) consider to be Christian say such things are forbhdden.

That no doubt is true.
The other fact that remains is that I did say I was not sure how many people can understand what I am saying.