The recent release of the movie Magic Mike and the growing popularity of the book Fifty Shades of Grey have rightly prompted some serious reflection by Christians on the nature of the sexual revolution as it attempts to legitimize all forms of sexual expression. What makes such reflection even more necessary is that youth pastors and even pastors, in some cases, are touting these latest expressions of the sexual revolution as relatively harmless. In many ways, both the book and the movie are mere expressions of the sexual revolution, and yet they also contribute to its ongoing impact on the larger culture, an impact that is ultimately destructive to men, women, their sexual relations, and especially the children who result from such relations.
Let me explain what I mean.
First, it may be helpful to use Mary Elberstadt’s definition of the sexual revolution in Adam and Eve After the Pill. She defines it as “the ongoing de-stigmatization of all varieties of non-marital sexual activity, accompanied by a sharp rise in such activity, in diverse societies around the world.”
As the most recent proponents of the sexual revolution, Magic Mike and Fifty Shades of Grey reinforce values that turn men and women into consumer products, mere objects to be paid for and enjoyed by the highest bidder. In short, they objectify both men and women, and in the process, they turn children into inconveniences, the unfortunate consequences who prevent personal fulfillment. Finally, they destroy the joys of sex in marriage because when you employ alternative fantasies to bring about sexual fulfillment, you eventually only need the fantasy, not your spouse.
Fifty Shades of Grey is a postmodern fairytale that treats women as slaves who only live to serve their mates.
It has been described by media as “mommy porn” and classified as erotica, a sub-genre in modern fictional writing. It has also been panned by numerous critics. Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post says that the book puts the “rot” in erotica, calling its author, E.L. James (whose real name is Erika Leonard) “a precocious 14-year-old girl writing during fevered frenzies of self-abuse.”
Feminists are up in arms as well, because the book, astonishingly written by a woman, degrades women to the point that they have no identifiable self and become mere objects to be used over and over again by their male partners. It is purple prose at its worst, a phrase that refers to the use of extravagant language in the form of cliche after cliche (pulsing lips, throbbing manhood–you get the picture). Evidently, there has even been a parody of the book, Fifty Shames of Earl Grey written by Andrew Shaffer in just 10 days.
The main character, Christian Grey, is only interested in a dominant/submissive relationship with Anastasia Steele, whose desire for Grey compels her to sacrifice all forms of integrity and essentially enter into a kind of indentured servitude in which Steele plays sexual toy to all of Grey’s appetites. She is whipped with a leather riding crop, slapped, and stalked, among other things.
As one reviewer put it, “it is a sex book, it is not a book with sex in it.” In other words, the classification of erotica underscores that the entire plot revolves around sadomasochist sexual acts played out in a fantasy-type atmosphere that belies the truth. The “positive” side of the book–the Cinderella empowered side(!)–is that Steele’s complete surrender of self leads Christian Grey to “true” intimacy by putting away his handcuffs and engaging in less violent sex acts. Yeah, that’s normally how sex addicts recover, right!?
Although at a more sophisticated level, Magic Mike offers another postmodern tale that hides objectification behind lots of eye candy
Director Stephen Soderbergh, who also directed Traffic and Sex, Lies, and Videotape, likes to put his audiences into hardcore issues that have little resolution. He is the creative counter to Erika Leonard’s stale cliches. As some critics have noted, the movie has an ambiguity to it, moving between fantasy and reality with a clear preference for the fantastical as it attempts to normalize (a constant postmodern move) behaviors that anywhere else would be viewed as self-destructive. Soderbergh can keep up the fantasy by setting up the stripper club as a high energy club with show-stopping entertainment and putting it in Tampa Bay, Florida, which has a relaxed atmosphere with lots of beautiful bays. The scenario is gorgeous, the club is tantalizing–you get the picture.
The basic storyline follows Mike (Channing Tatum) as he strips at a Tampa nightclub on his way to fulfilling a dream of becoming a builder of custom furniture. On the way, Mike meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a 19-yr old whom he recruits to strip. Adam’s sister, Brooke (Cody Horn) is there to warn Mike to keep Adam from falling, although this does not happen. Instead, the young Adam crashes and burns in the hedonistic world with its free sex and drugs.
Brooke also becomes a potential love interest of Mike, the point of which is to force Mike to begin to consider whether the stripper road is the best path to his dream (why is it that women always have to bear the burden of savior?). At one point, Mike says of his stripping, “it is what I do, but it’s not who I am,” as though actions don’t shape character. Like Anastasia Steele’s “inner goddess” Mike’s internal self remains pure and untouched by what he does and how he lives, or so he claims. At the end of the day, the morality tale part of the movie that portrays the life of a stripper as a dead-end road gets lost in the glitz and glam.
So, what do these postmodern fairytales communicate to us?
- They reinforce a common myth taken on by women that they can “save” their men or be saved by them through sacrificing themselves (Shades of Grey is more beauty and the postmodern, sexually deviant beast than Cinderella and her prince charming)
- They place sexuality and sexual expression in a context where children are not even considered. In this sense, they reinforce a view that the sexual act has nothing to do with bearing children and hence nothing really to do with marriage itself. This ultimately hurts children.
- They reinforce objectification of human beings by turning them into toys to be used for the pleasure of the other.
- They reinforce a view of life that reduces personal fulfillment to material wants (sexual gratification, accumulation of wealth, celebrity status)
- They reinforce the falsehood that humans have an inner self that remains uncorrupted despite actions that corrupt
With a growing body of evidence that suggests a class distinction in marriage between the college educated and those without a college education, one can begin to see how these movies impact the larger culture. Recently, The Washington Post reported that the educated are getting married later and staying married longer. According to the National Marriage Project, marriage leads to higher levels of happiness in part because of the economic advantages of a two-person income per household and the fulfillment that raising children in an intact marriage brings. Those who do not have a college education are having more children outside of marriage and have a much higher divorce rate. Children in single-parent households also fare much worse overall in moving up the social and economic ladder than their peers from intact families.
On top of this, as Mary Elberstadt and Kay Hymnowitz have both argued, the sexual revolution is actually having an adverse impact on women, which is the opposite of what was originally claimed. The increased pornography has led to a longer period of adolescence for many men as well as actually reducing sex in the context of marriage. In other words, reading pornographic material may function as a temporary stimulus to sex, but it’s long-term impact actually destroys the joys of sex. It functions like a drug that initially stimulates and then finally destroys the capacity to be stimulated.
When you put these trends together, you can begin to see the damage. And here, I have intentionally avoided appeals to scripture in part because I want my readers to understand that the Bible’s endorsement and definition of marriage is not an outdated mode from some unenlightened culture. The adverse impact of the sexual revolution on American society leads us back again to the wisdom of scripture. So, tell your youth pastors and pastors that you’ll have none of this foisted upon your sons and daughters in the name of “cultural relevance.”
Tags: 50 Shades of Grey, Magic Mike, Sexual Revolution
I loved this! I have advocated for a long time that the Church needs to address sex much more explicitly in order to be engaged in relevant to the culture (beyond teen abstinence messages). What does a REAL healthy, passionate, nurturing sexual relationship look like for the married Christian? And is it appealing to those who are seeking personal/sexual fulfillment? SHOULD it be appealing to them (I would hope so)?
You mention postmodernism a lot. We should engage postmodernism on its own terms (in my view) in this conversation…by doing just that. Conversation.
Sex can no longer be a taboo subject in church. It certainly isn’t in the surrounding culture, and we aren’t offering a better (articulated?) alternative.
Thanks Matt. Yep, yep, and yep! And, I need to add that I don’t think postmodernism is a negative cultural development on the whole, but, as with any cultural shift, there is always a dark side.
Oh, no worries. I see more upsides to postmodernism than bad, but like you said, there’s always a dark side.
Thanks Dr. C.! Would live to talk to you a bit more about this. Culture wars puts pastor in a difficult position. On my desk is a copy from last week of a ministry blog with the title “Why Pastors Should Respond from the Pulpit to Fifty Shades of Gray.” At first, my thought was “Yea, I should.” But after thinking about it, I decided not to, at least not yet. I am always concerned that by sounding the alarm, I might be unwittingly giving profile to a specific piece of cultural expression that I do not wish to give.
The second concern I constantly grapple with in a traditional Pentecostal milieu is the notion of grace vs law/ spirit vs. letter where the latter is always in plenteous supply and the former not so much. People love shock treatment–when their pastor waves the flag of the defense of standards. Addressing specific current cultural as well as political, and economic concerns can be hazardous in that it can shift direction away from the gospel of grace. But I recognize that even that position is risky!
Ewen, Thanks for the post. Yes, let’s talk. I understand your concerns. On something as popular as Fifty Shades of Grey, though, I’m not sure you’re going to give much more profile. It all depends on how connected to the larger culture your congregants are. This is a call you have to make. If it helps, you might know that one thing a lot of married women are suggesting is that the book sparks their love life. Thus, if you do bring it up, I would do so within a broader context such as a Christian view of marriage and sexuality. Then the sermon ceases to be about one item from popular culture and Fifty Shades of Grey can simply be an illustration among several illustrations clustered around key points.
As to your second concern, I agree and I think it has not served the pentecostal community well. I tend to think of grace in two ways: 1) divine favor and thus forgiveness; 2) divine love and thus power to live. In the context of sanctification, which is what this would be about, you can always say that God extends grace to forgive through Christ and love to re-direct our loves (desires) through the Spirit that we might be conformed to Christ and so flourish as human beings. In both Christ and the Spirit, God is always for us. God wants us to flourish, to thrive and be all that we can be. This sets the context for the struggle to deal with these issues on a personal level. We deal with them in grace, i.e., in forgiveness and love, knowing that God always wills our good (that we flourish) when God wills his glory. You might then talk about the connection between sin and destruction (death). The point here is to get folks to see that some behaviors are destructive in the sense that they kill our relationships to ourselves, to others, and to God. And, we have to recognize that a short term pleasure does not translate into long-term flourishing. This was my point about using pornography to stimulate one’s sex life, even in the context of marriage. It all seems great in the beginning, but the long-term impact can actually prevent us from realizing our initial desire (to experience the joy of sex again with our spouse). I think the easiest way to do this is simply use some illustrations, sociological data, etc., to talk about the behaviors in question. My primary point in all of this is to suggest that there is a way to deal with these issues without folks thinking that “the pastor is just preaching judgment again” or without superficial shock that may get a quick AMEN but actually does little shepherding.
I cannot type all praise that I have regarding this article. I actually saw the book in Barnes & Noble before it became this huge crazy success. I thumbed through it and put it down. The writing was not great, at all. Of course, reading theoretical texts can do this to a person. BUt overall, I found a distate for this book as more of my Stroller Stride mommy friends were reading this book and saying their husbands were so happy now. Really? Sounds like porn to me. And bringing that fantasy in your house, bedroom, intimate relationships, etc does not make a person fantasize about their partner. No, it’s like placing another person’s face on our spouse to get this sexual fantasy going. It’s so dangerous, but it’s being chided as a simple fantasy that let’s you get away from reality once in a while – I guess, like a vacation. But just like a vacation, it costs, and you still have to return home. And whatever condition your home is in when you leave, it will still be there, if not worse (if you don’t empty the trash, clean the dishes, empty the washer of clothes, etc.)
I will write more, but thank you so much for helping me be able to express my position a little better in this book. If anything, as a woman, I knew I couldn’t stand for the book or the movie. Funny how none of these women were happy with the movie “Playa’s Club” but became a stampede for Magic MIke at theaters. Women are throwing 50 Shades of Gray parties with food in the shape of interesting items from the book (need I say more).
Thanks for the comments Candace. Your final paragraph is interesting. I did not know about that phenomenon, but it makes sense because people usually move in that direction around some immensely popular form of pop culture.
Thanks Dale. I have voiced similar concerns on this blog. The concerns come together in the larger realm of sexuality, pornography, marriage, promiscuity, masturbation and others, particularly as Christians. These all need solid Christian responses, more substantial than our blog can provide. But we need to start somewhere … So thanks for your voice…
Thanks Wolfgang. Yes, you have posted several blogs on pornography.
I thought this was an interesting point about what the books and movie teach or promote: They reinforce a view of life that reduces personal fulfillment to material wants (sexual gratification, accumulation of wealth, celebrity status). It is a dangerous path indeed. Blessings.
Thanks! Great reflections. Yes, it true that addressing current cultural events is better done in the context of wider discussion, in this case, on sexuality. Shock and awe tends to force people into an ultra- defensive mode where they want to close the shutters and hope that Jesus returns real quick!
I do appreciate you Church of God people with your healthy view of grace! Fundamentalist-tainted denominations can learn a whole lot from you!!!!
I think you’re a little too generous in your remarks about the COG. But we’re striving like everyone else.
Dr. Coulter,
Thank you for your well thought out and provocative assessment. A few thoughts I have on this issue is that it touches on several larger issues of marriage, procreation, etc. Of course the bible has much to say on this. We are told to be fruitful and multiply, and not to deny a spouse sexual but for a short time and with mutual consent. I recently spoke with a man going through a divorce due to sexual problems (his wife decided 7 years ago to stop having sex with him) and I have met several pastors hooked on pornography usually based upon the same dilemma. This article states that 54% of pastors have viewed porn in the last year and 47% of promise keepers have within 1 week.
http://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/how-many-porn-addicts-are-in-your-church-1336107.html I don’t envy pastors for having to council couples in such circumstances. Obviously you cannot condone divorce, porn or adultery; but what do you say to someone who is I such a marriage?
Not to sound like a broken record, but I think that when God’s model for marriage is thrown out and replaced with worldly philosophies such as feminism it opens up a can of worms which can crawl in several directions. We now have negative population growth as children are no longer valued. Not only have marriage relationships suffered, but mother/ daughter relationships are often the most strained in the family. Sex in marriage is often used as a manipulative tactic to gain power instead of the gift from God that it is. And of course things are worse in the younger generation where young people have become so promiscuous that they simply “hook –up” for sex and consider dating to be old fashioned.
Contrast this with say my wife’s Hispanic (Dominican) culture where children are considered a blessing from God; and the mother/daughter relationship is usually the closest one in the family. It is common wisdom that you cannot have a happy marriage without a happy sex life. There is no struggle over power and thus no need for sexual manipulation. Feminism never has made the types of inroads in this culture that it has in America and it shows. Sure each culture has its own unique problems, but I think the fact that modern western culture is dying off due to a lack of babies speaks volumes about its sterility and pathology.
Your brother in Christ,
Chris
Chris,
As always, thanks for commenting. The statistics at Crosswalk speak to the ongoing issue of sexuality within American churches. As to feminism, like everything else, there’s good, bad, and in between. I would not equate feminism per se with the sexual revolution even though some feminists have certainly promoted it. Nevertheless, we can learn a lot from Latino/as about the importance of family.
Sexual expression is a confusing issue. Society receives so many messages downplaying the negative implications of sexual expression. A whole generation is being indoctrinated into a different way of thinking.
One of the most interesting arguments I have seen drifting around social media sites is the idea that sexuality is viewed as something evil, while the media celebrates images of murder, torture and genocide. These issues are not neccessarilly correlated, and as such, these types of comparative arguments appear to be structured to confuse people who are considering such ideas. On the surface it appears to be something similar to a movement–and orchestrated series of events for the purpose of loosening the values associated with sexuality, perhaps to quiet our inner voices. The proper argument would be apposed to both unhealthy sexual liberalism and violence, but this is rarely the case in the debates I witness online.
That being said, there seems to be an inherent value system residing within the hearts of people that goes ignored, though it continues to nag at the soul, even among secularists–almost as if someone were trying to tell us something. If you don’t know what I mean, you might consider thinking of it in these terms. With statistics showing that the majority of people engage in viewing pornography today, it is easy to imagine that a fair number of those people have daughters. If they were asked if they would mind it if their own daughters were participants in the pornography, it is easy to imagine the overwhelming majority would say they would be strongly against it. Is it a wholesome, harmless expression of sexuality if one would respond with visceral anger when our daughters are participants? Clearly the answer is no.
That being said, as an artist, I feel there should be some Christian reinforcement of the idea that there can be, and should be, a recognized distinction between artistic expressionism which includes nudity, and the types of expression that promote sexual activity outside of a healthy framework. We all appreciate the beautifully painted frescoes of bare breasted angels and divine scenes from the Bible. We regard them as wholesome; and the paintbrush was the image capturing mechanism for real and imagined art for thousands of years. The modern age of technology can be employed to replace the mechanism while simultaneously preserving the wholesome sentiment. Digital imagery and paintings are not different in kind, but perhaps different by degree if one’s argument includes the idea that realism can pollute artistic expression, calling into question what art really is. On my view, the human form is a beautiful creation and can be captured in art in wholesome ways using any mechanism. That’s my view. Maybe your view is different. To this end, I have no problem with nude art, and I feel it is important to encourage Christians to draw distinctions between images that promote the appreciation of God’s creation, and images that distort what Christians believe to be God’s intention for his creation. I only mention this because Christians seem confused as to whether or not all nudity is a sin. In my view, the answer is no. That’s my belief, but I respectfully accept that others will disagree.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the world seems to be changing rapidly, and silence on these issues cannot be the Christian response. At the very least, a dialog should be open. I think that many churches are fearful of drawing attention to issues that are day to day conflicts between prevalent secular ideologies and the values of the church, which are often very different. The strained relationship between people with religious values and secularists seems to be more strained with time, and I believe many Churches worry they will alienate greater numbers if much emphasis is devoted to sexuality.
To that, it appear that in some ways the issues come down to whether churches are right to bend in order to focus attention on the values both Christian and secularists share, in an effort to leverage the approachability of a church. That is to say, any given church is more attractive to a prospective participant if the appearance of the church’s teaching are not perceived to be condemning the participants too harshly. Should a church maintain a solid unwavering adherence to age-old beliefs, or bend with the times? Good arguments can be made for both sides of that issue. However, it seems clear to me that unless some divine revelation appears, setting aside the rules of the past, as was the case for Christians at the inception of the New Testament, then Christians should hold fast to core beliefs, and openly engage in dialog regarding these beliefs both with the Christian flock and the word in general.