Dating and Porn
By Ben Merkle
A large part of the problem that young Christian men have in the area of
dating has to do with their misunderstanding of what they group under the
subject of sex. To begin with, we have let the world define for us what
constitutes sex. When the
word is mentioned, what images pop into the head of the young, single man?
Perhaps he thinks of the covers of magazines at the checkout stand, peeking out
from behind pieces of cardboard placed to appease angry mothers. He’s reminded
of those movies that either he’s refused to see or regrets having to admit
that he has seen. In general, the young man has a difficult time thinking of sex
outside the context of pornography.
This is what I was alluding to a moment ago when I mentioned that we have let
the world define what constitutes sex. The American culture is stuffed full of
pornography that it deceitfully calls sex. We see men and women on the covers of
magazines and appearing in films prostituting themselves, all the while dubbing
their fornication "sex." But even worse, Christians have swallowed
this lie and allowed the world to define sexuality for us. Now the Christian
might change the setting slightly. He will eventually have sex, but only within
the bounds of Christian marriage. But he still believes that what he saw on the
screen will be what he will some day experience with his wife. But to believe
that the consummation of the marriage covenant is anything like Hollywood
fornication is to swallow an epic lie. The pornography that we see in the world
around us is an abomination. Why would a Christian use these images to set his
mental stage for the marriage bed? This perversion in no way resembles
covenantal sexuality.
At this point, perhaps this article appears to be addressing the subject of
the Christian’s struggle with pornography. But the world’s deceit can be
much more subtle than the issue of porn addiction. For instance, let’s take a
hypothetical young Christian man. Let’s call him Joshua. Joshua has swallowed
the lie that sexuality consists merely of the forbidden skin scenes that he has
obediently avoided since birth. Joshua is deceived on several levels.
First, he has bought the lie that sex is two-dimensional, impersonal, and
takes place entirely within one’s own imagination. None of these things are
true and they are all implied by pornography. Pornography lies about what women
are like. It tells us that they come on eight and a half by eleven glossy stock
or video cassettes who only ask in return that you "be kind and
rewind." There is no texture to this kind of woman, no temperature, no
smell, no conversation. These women are just plain fake. But Joshua, whether he
watches these videos or not, thinks that this is what a sexual relationship is
like, and he is tragically mistaken. Real sex involves not only the intimacy of
nudity, but the intimacy of having breakfast, lunch and dinner together. Real
sex aims, eventually, towards childbirth, kindergarten graduation and trumpet
lessons. It requires sleeping next to someone who snores, holding the trash can
during morning sickness, and all other kinds of joys (and if sexuality is
understood rightly these things really can be joys). Real sex is an intimacy on
countless levels. And tragically, most boys expect the world’s definition and
come to the true marriage bed ill prepared for the depth that genuine sexuality
brings.
But there is a second lie that Joshua has swallowed. Being a fine and
upstanding young Christian gentleman, Joshua has vowed to never enter a sexual
relationship until he is lawfully wed, unity candle and all. But, because he has
bought the lie of the world about what constitutes a sexual relationship, Joshua
believes that in order to keep his vow, he need only to refrain from running the
proverbial bases. But because he has defined sexual intimacy on such a narrow
level, Joshua is free to be quite promiscuous in a number of different ways.
Joshua’s skewed concept of sexuality can run him into trouble on several
levels. First, Joshua is allowed the opportunity to run the physical
relationship right up to the edge of consummation as long as he merely teeters
on the brink without falling in. Christians in these sorts of romances begin to
invent the kinds of creative justifications that we once thought could only come
from the White House. In relationships like this we meet an endless stream of
sexual technicalities. (If the zipper remains at least half-way up, then she is
still technically clothed. If one foot remains on the floor, then we weren’t
technically in bed. And, of course the question we all struggle with, are you
really naked if your socks are on?)
It’s amazing how many Christians start with the idea that they will never
progress past an innocent kiss and end up parsing the definition of "slept
together." (After all, who could sleep with all that sex going on?) But,
how can a little kiss take someone that far? The answer is simple, kissing is
sexual. I don’t want to confuse categories too much. A kiss is not the same
thing as sleeping with someone. But a kiss is part of the sexual progression.
For example, it’s a bad idea to thaw the pot roast unless you are planning to
cook it. The thawing is a necessary preparation for cooking. In the same way, it’s
a bad idea to start a physical relationship, unless you’re willing to let it
go all the way.
The second type of trouble that Joshua’s skewed sexuality can run him into
is much more subtle. This is the wicked world of backrub circles, coed prayer
partners, and Christian side-hugs (full-frontal if you go to a state school).
This is the world of the Christian cheese. Many Christians are aware of the
difficulty that a physical relationship will lead to and manage to steer clear
of them altogether. But they substitute an emotional promiscuity for the
physical. Generally, in non-Christian circles, the couples may very well be
fornicating, but at least they are honest about what they are doing. Christians
have a habit of pairing up, but refusing to admit what they are doing.
For example, you observe young Susie and our hypothetical Joshua sitting
close together at every function you have attended for the past month. You begin
to notice them at movie theatres together. You find out that Susie makes Joshua
dinner quite frequently and does his laundry. Finally, you approach Susie to ask
her, "What gives?" Susie explains that she and Joshua are "just
friends." You think that seems a little odd, so you push her a little
further. And she produces what she believes to be unquestionable proof that
their relationship is purely platonic. "I know we’re just friends,
because we stayed up until two in the morning three nights in a row last week
talking about it."
Now let’s break from the Susie/Joshua story for a moment to run a thought
experiment. How often have you had to have a long talk with your good friends
about the boundaries of your relationship? "Bob, you know we’ve been duck
hunting together for twelve years now. And I’ve really gotten attached to our
time together. I really feel like I can share with you and all. But you know,
that’s really as far as it goes. I mean, we’re just friends, right?"
If you have to have long talks discussing just how far you feelings go, then
you are conducting your relationship in a way that implies more than just a
friendship. This kind of emotional promiscuity is rampant within Christian
circles. Often, either one or both of the people involved really don’t have
the desire to take this relationship any farther. But it never should have been
brought this far to begin with. It’s amazing how many of these relationships
end in either a breakup that is every bit as painful as a divorce, or a shotgun
wedding.
This brings us back to the point where I started. Because we have let the
world narrowly define sexuality for us, we don’t see the sexual nature of a
physical relationship that hasn’t reached the point of consummation or an
emotional friendship that hasn’t even gotten physical yet. All of these things
are connected to sexuality. They are all things to be shared with your spouse.
But, because the world has a two-dimensional view of sex, Christians have fallen
into the same error. However, sex is something much deeper and richer than
anything Hugh Hefner can capture in a centerfold. It’s the mystery that
describes Christ and His church, which should tell us that any conception of
sexuality that can be represented by the Playboy Channel is a tremendously
shallow representation.
|
