The New Porn

As some of you may know I’ve been reading a book entitled “The Paradox of Love” by Pascal Bruckner, a French philosopher. Some people may find it strange that I would agree with anything a Frenchman has to say about sex because their view on sex and sexuality is quite different from those of Americans, but that is exactly why I am reading this book. I am taking my cues from Margaret Farley who, in her book on fire, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Ethics” encourages those truly interested in the discipline to vest themselves in cross-cultural studies. As someone who is planning a magnum opus on sex it is important for me to read Bruckner as it will be important for me to read Foucault’s History of Sexuality.  So let’s get down to business.

I have entered the section of the book where Bruckner writes about sex or the “Carnal Wonder” as he calls it. The first chapter in this section deals with Bruckner’s question of whether we are in the midst of a sexual revolution and he has spent a good portion of this chapter on pornography. Bruckner contends that pornography is, first of all, mediocre entertainment because it depends on the same cinematic moves from enlarged anatomic parts and second it almost normalizes sexual activity to the point of doldrums. He says,

The fall of prohibitions seems also to have contributed to the depreciation of the objects of desire. Porn tends to transform obscenity into a cliché: a decline in the rate of excitation, a rise in the rate of saturation. The most outrageous positions, the crudest expressions do not long remain and go stale like a wine that has been open too long. The vulgarity of a certain sexual lexicon, which has entered into ordinary language, ends by seizing up and sinking into kitsch. A dreary, mass-produced shamelessness that loses in intensity what it gains in extension.

When I read this my mind immediately went to some of the most popular songs being played on urban radio stations. Songs like, “I’ll Beat the Pussy Up”, “Birthday Cake”, “Strip”, “Wet the Bed”, “Motivation”, most anything by Trey Songz, and the list goes on, is the new porn. It depends on making the obscene cliché and therefore the norm for sexual activity. Most of the music you hear on those stations–at any time of the day–has a central theme that focuses on the sexual proficiency of a man or, as of late, that of a woman. They rap and sing about said proficiency using the “certain sexual lexicon” that Bruckner speaks of, and this lexicon, in many ways, has become a way of life in our culture. Realized or not or not, the repeated messages of men beating women’s pussies up; women singing about men coming to put their name on it–read that closely; men singing about wanting women to drip like leaky faucets and all other manner of explicit sexual talk, has turned our culture into one that trivializes sex.

It is said that familiarity breeds contempt and I dare argue that the aforementioned music, dependent on familiarizing people with sex and sexual prowess, has created a contempt of sex. The contempt is shown in the manner in which said artists approach the topic in their music. Sex is not a privilege but a right and with the right comes the desire to show others how well it can be done regardless of how licentious it is. At the point that the message is disseminated, over and over again, these images and views of sex cement themselves into the subconscious of our culture. Now the woman is concerned about how to keep her man going and the man is concerned about how to break world records. Now, lest you think I am being puritanical, I do believe it is important for both partners to focus on pleasing each other before, during, and after the sexual event. What I don’t believe in is how some music–and probably pop culture at large–trivializes sex and possibly has or could create a culture of people who believe this is a normative understanding of sex and then are altogether too inadequate to have the kind of sex they hear about day in and day out. My concern is about the effect of repetition of the obscene sexual lexicon and how that weighs upon the minds and the sexual expectations of people. I could go on about this, but I don’t want to take time away from the floor for discussion. So, here it is:

What do you think about this concept of urban music as the new porn and its influence on the sexual drive and the images it creates of sexual prowess? If you listen to this music, what does it do for and to you? Has the advent of this “pornpular” music changed the way you view or have sex? Should the music change? Should we change? Let’s talk about sex.

Sex vs. Love

Recently I started reading a book entitled, “The Paradox of Love” written by French philosopher-type Pascal Bruckner. The book focuses on the misconceptions of love that our society thrives on and the fact that love is one big paradox. It is beautiful and messy, to be desired and not…A few days ago I reached a chapter entitled “Seduction as Market” and Bruckner said something that resonated with me.

“…sexuality is an irresistible drive that has to be satisfied so that one doesn’t have to think about it anymore. Whereas the Frenchman says, ‘Faisons l’amour,’ the American in television series and film says: ‘Let’s have sex.’ The difference is not merely semantic, it reflects two worldviews: in the latter case it is a matter of a pressing, animal need, like hunger or thirst, and in the former of a complex act that gives rise to a whole erotics, love that makes us as much as we make it, a subtle construction rather than a physical evacuation. Ceremony on the one hand, bestiality on the other.”

Faisons l’amour translated is, “Let’s make love.” So Bruckner suggests that what we are dealing with is the tension between having sex and making love. It occurred to me that what many of us are fighting for, particularly Christians who want to argue that sex before marriage is permissible, is really just that, “SEX before marriage.” Sex, the culmination of our lust, as opposed to making love, the consummation of love.

Now I know that making such a distinction is difficult and, in a way, it trivializes some people’s understanding of sex. But, what I am getting at here is the fact that I think there is something to be said for Bruckner’s distinction and how we view our sexual activity and its purpose. To what end do we use sex? For what purpose? What do we really want when we want to have sex as opposed to making love? Because the reality of the situation is, it is easy to have sex but it is hard to make love. It is hard to do the latter because there are very few people that we can do such as act with and because there are very few people, a wait is imposed a upon us. A wait and a weight. The weight of having sexual needs and desires unfulfilled until that great day and a wait for the great day. There are very few people that we can make a ‘subtle construction’ with and plenty of people we can have ‘physical evacuations’ with. Even the language is indicative of something more, we “have” sex, we “make” love. To “make” is to participate in a new creation, to “have” is to possess something and possession is not always safe or healthy.

Yes, we can have sex and have it all day, every day. It demands nothing more of us than an ability to rip one another’s clothes off–or not–thrust and grunt and get it over with. But can we wait for love? Can we wait to make a new creation with someone? And lest you think I am campaigning for “True Love Waits”, I am not–but I won’t touch that in this post. But I’ll say this, as much as I dislike the “True Love Waits” campaign, I think I can see where it aims. True love does wait. Sex doesn’t wait, we don’t want to wait for sex. I can admit that as someone who wants to base her life’s work on possibly arguing that the wait is in vain. But, because of Bruckner I realize, the wait for making love will never be in vain. The rush to have sex with someone you probably only have lukewarm feelings for, probably in vain.

I want to hear from others though. Is there a problem with this distinction between sex and love? Can there be love in sex? Can there be sex in love? Is this semantic argument too granular? Let’s talk about sex.

The Unmarried, Single, Pregnant Gospel Singer: What This Says About Black Women and Safe Sex?

I find this video to be problematic and here’s why:

  • The headline, “The Unmarried, Single, Pregnant Gospel Singer: What This Says About Black Women and Safe Sex” is rhetorically charged to get the viewer to believe that pregnancy out of wedlock is wrong and black women aren’t engaging in safe sex.
  • Through their dialogue they are presuming that this young woman isn’t acting responsibly when they don’t know all the details–case in point is the fact that they published the video and then retracted a statement about her never being married when she was. Furthermore, there is a possibility that she could have been having safe sex and the condom broke because that happens.
  • Though they speak against the “judge mentality” they are sitting as judges against this woman presuming to know what is best for her.
  • What type of message does this send out to single mothers and the church’s view of them?

I can say much more about this but I want people to watch for themselves and critically engage this video. But, before I sign off I will say that we have to change the way we handle these situations. Conversations like this are the ones that start people on their way to leaving the church. We have to find a better way to engage this topic.

Do you think this could have been handled differently or are you okay with the way this was handled and the direction of the conversation?

Let’s talk about sex and the sanctuary.

The Prologue

I sat there watching him speak about things one should never speak of in church. Attraction, sensuality, sexuality, passion, love of both the agape and eros kind. I clenched my nonexistent pearls with every word, hoping that he would stop soon. I was in the middle of “Killing Me Softly”, feeling “all flushed with fever and embarrassed by the crowd.” I scanned the room to see if anyone felt as uncomfortable as I did. Was anyone else squirming in their chair or in the pews that ascended to the top of the room? Was anyone wondering whether his words about attraction of all kinds were appropriate to speak in the same space that where we worship God? Who green lit this poem that allowed a man to speak of his feelings toward a woman in any other way but a holy way? I was at odds with myself, wanting to fully embrace his language of love and attraction in this sacred space but also being acutely aware of the fact that this space was sacred. But then I thought: What better place is there for one to deal with all of their natures, both the spiritual and the carnal, but in a sacred space? What safer space is there to take refuge in than in this space? What purer space could there be to talk about these things and not enter into judgment? It is supposed to be in the sanctuary that we can lay our burdens down, right?

There’s a song from the son of a prominent pastor that says, “Why can’t we talk about love?” This was his sentiment after dealing with critiques on why he made a career of singing about “secular” love instead of sacred love–translation R&B over gospel music. Here at “Sex and the Sanctuary” I am going to riff off his question and ask, “Why can’t we talk about sex?” Why can’t we, as the body of Christ, talk about sex?

Let us now talk about sex and…the sanctuary. All are welcome.