My Thoughts on Fighting inappropriate contentography

[McScribe]

Just to set the context of my thoughts a bit: I was having lunch with my cousins and I saw that the tv in the restaurant was showing music videos. I don't really watch television and so I was shocked at how sexual the dancing was. Like barely one in ten videos didn't have women in lingerie or bondage clothing dancing enticingly. I thought it was just me but my cousins, who are not particularly Christian, were shaking their heads as well. Most of us don't watch tv too. Preferring to read or watch movies. And they are mostly younger than me, so it's not an age thing.

I believe that inappropriate contentography is way more than just obvious people shown having sex. It's a way of SEEING sex that is corrupt. I think that while out and out inappropriate contentography has been around for ages that there have rarely been culture that presented sex the way ours does. For example the Romans and Greeks, the Egyptians, the Chinese all had descriptions of sex in books, art and theater, but here is serious pause for thought: ours is one of the few cultures in history that overwhelmingly encourages extra marital sex in many contexts.

For example consider: how often have any of us seen the following depicted in mainstream film?
1. A married couple lovingly being sexual together.
2. Normal nudity depicted with a married couple.
3. A couple who wait for sex before marriage in spite of temptation, and whose sexuality is ONLY depicted after marriage?

You see, I think that a huge part of the problem is that sex in the context of marriage or the human body simply being the body of a human being is so rarely depicted that we have this overwhelming avalanche of inappropriate contentographic images versus anything that encourages us to see other humans as inherently valuable that we shouldn't be surprised by the dysfunction.

So the first part of my solution is this: encourage changing the rating system for movies.

1. NC-17 should be all films that show disturbing and dysfunctional sex, even if it is not viscerally depicted. Rape, prostitution, strippers, coercion, adultery, nudity in violent scenes, should all be given the highest rating with it illegal to admit anyone under 17.

2. R rated films should be all films that show things like promiscuity, sex out of wedlock, seduction, voyeurism.

3. Mature or 14a should Be films that show sexuality or nudity between married couples. The idea being that it should be easier to see this than what I've described above.

Second, I think it's important to start learning to see that attraction and inappropriate contentography are different. It's such an obvious difference, really. Attraction just is, it's normal, and we can do with it what we will. inappropriate contentography is where the deliberate intent is to arouse, and we should frankly look upon it with disapproval. The videos I was watching involuntarily today were inappropriate contentographic in intent. It actually isn't enough to say that it's adultery: we need to realize that it degrades the human spirit. It affects both men and women, one way or another. We need to see that there is not a lot of difference between a Lady Gaga video and a pay per view sex channel.

 

[prophecyistrue]

Ha! not to many takers on your topic, folks love their TV, how dare you talk bad about it.....lol.....I don't know how any young people will make it to heaven growing up in this world.....quite honestly Islam see's America as the great satan, if one were to step back and see it from their perception I would have to agree, they think all America lives like Hollywood, and it seems were all moving in that direction, culture is changing the church, the church has lost its light, its saltiness. In fact some churches you don't know whether your at church or a rock concert until they pass the collection plate

 

[dallasapple]

Well Prop give it a chance on the takers..only 8 mintues had elapsed when you posted..I like to watch t.v on occassion ..well acutally a littel everyevening but I watch my HBO specials and series or I on demand a movie I havent seen..

But I agree Mcscribe its the way that inappropriate content makes sex out to be..But anyway the only hump or problem with your suggestion ..is there ARENT many movies that are even made that restrict all the sex in it..or nudity to married only sex..and mairried only (as in nudity in the intimacy of marraige) nudity..they dont really exist..

What it woudl boil down too..is individuals policing them own selves..and refusign to watch ..well ...80% or 90 % of the movies out there..

Thsi is the point..you made it..

For example consider: how often have any of us seen the following depicted in mainstream film?
1. A married couple lovingly being sexual together.
2. Normal nudity depicted with a married couple.
3. A couple who wait for sex before marriage in spite of temptation, and whose sexuality is ONLY depicted after marriage?

You see, I think that a huge part of the problem is that sex in the context of marriage or the human body simply being the body of a human being is so rarely depicted that we have this overwhelming avalanche of inappropriate contentographic images versus anything that encourages us to see other humans as inherently valuable that we shouldn't be surprised by the dysfunction.

You do see that depicted..at least I do..but in the SAME film you will also see depictions of all the other sexual behavior in the other contexts..teeanagers..prostituion ..etc...Its a "mixed bag" in a lot of the stuff I see...

Dallas

 

[ArohaB]

my kids asked why EVERY programme they see on tv has kissing!

 

[Created2Write]

I like your ideas McScribe. I like them a lot.

The only movie I can think of that had nudity/soft inappropriate contentographic sex between a husband and wife was 300. But, also present in that movie was a rape scene, a lesbian orgie scene, and random unnecessary nudity. Definitely NOT good things there.

 

[McScribe]

Well Prop give it a chance on the takers..only 8 mintues had elapsed when you posted..I like to watch t.v on occassion ..well acutally a littel everyevening but I watch my HBO specials and series or I on demand a movie I havent seen..

But I agree Mcscribe its the way that inappropriate content makes sex out to be..But anyway the only hump or problem with your suggestion ..is there ARENT many movies that are even made that restrict all the sex in it..or nudity to married only sex..and mairried only (as in nudity in the intimacy of marraige) nudity..they dont really exist..

What it woudl boil down too..is individuals policing them own selves..and refusign to watch ..well ...80% or 90 % of the movies out there..

Thsi is the point..you made it..



You do see that depicted..at least I do..but in the SAME film you will also see depictions of all the other sexual behavior in the other contexts..teeanagers..prostituion ..etc...Its a "mixed bag" in a lot of the stuff I see...

Dallas

Well yes, that is my point, actually. That I think that these films send a huge message that promiscuity is more fun and cool than say being married and loving your spouse sexually. And I don't believe in total censorship per se, but I do believe that it should be harder to sell a film that has say an unnecessarily graphic rape scene or a scene of wild partying and nudity than a film that encourages people to see marital sex as good.

And Dallas is right. Movies like I'm talking about perhaps not nonexistent but are terribly rare. So leading into obvious full on inappropriate contentography even for people who were not exposed to it is an obvious lead in.

I'm wary of don't watch altogether, because the Bible does say be in the world but not of it. However I would say that for example in a film like 300 that you can remember that it is depicting pagan values, and that it is not how we are supposed to live. (another example is Beowulf. And for Dallas, fellow HBO lover, there is Rome, which is amazingly good, but meant to be shocking right down to what they used to eat. Remember the line "Want some mouse? Best mouse in town!" )

But we can keep our ear to the ground and back politicians who would alter the rating system where possible. We can speak truth when we have the opportunity, and consider ourselves what we pay for and encourage others to buy.

But most importantly, the concern about inappropriate contentography, it must be understood, starts with how our culture perceives sex. What are some things it insists upon, and what are the ways it affects marriage?

These are my thoughts.

1. It makes sex look too easy to enjoy. Whether it is the online raw movies or a raunchy teen comedy, sex is depicted as something that should be easily readily available at all times. It doesn't require learning about what is mutually pleasurable.

2. It sets up a physical standard that does not reflect reality. The countless breast inflations and male genital inflations, the rigorous diets that are meant to produce bodies suited to Greek gods and goddesses actually does have an effect on people's minds. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to be physically fit, clean and as attractive as you can be, but the standards set are impossible. Here is an unusual example of what I see as the inappropriate contentographic image distortion: a friend of mine and I were watching a movie, which was Master and Commander. Bear in mind that this is a film about 18th century naval warfare. It is not meant to be glamorous or sexy. Twenty minutes into the movie she says, "Why are the characters all so ugly? Where are the good looking people?" and I've encountered this before. This sense that if people don't look like matinee idols they are actually UGLY.

3. It suggests that good sex is always really exciting. Sex is never something that happens regularly between people who care about one another.

4. It attacks a sense of performance or worthiness in us. There are lots of ways this happens. It diminishes our sense that we can pleasure or attract our spouse.

Are there others people can think of?

 

[McScribe]

I like your ideas McScribe. I like them a lot.

The only movie I can think of that had nudity/soft inappropriate contentographic sex between a husband and wife was 300. But, also present in that movie was a rape scene, a lesbian orgie scene, and random unnecessary nudity. Definitely NOT good things there.

Just to clarify, it is depicting a pagan civlilization, that was how they lived, albeit with a lot of artistic license. I was more irritated by the historical inaccuracies and the weird way the Persians were depicted.

 

[Created2Write]

Just to clarify, it is depicting a pagan civlilization, that was how they lived, albeit with a lot of artistic license. I was more irritated by the historical inaccuracies and the weird way the Persians were depicted.

While that is true, I definitely think there is a difference in portraying something as "accurate", or using historical fact as an excuse to but a bunch of boobs and sex in movies.

One of my favorite movies is Quigley Down Under. The aborigines don't wear clothing and there are quite a few butt and boob shots. But they are not depicted in a sexual way, and in fact, when boobs are seen it is always in a respectful way. That movie is PG-13.

I didn't like the graphicness of the sex scene between Leontitis and his Queen, but I understood it's relevancy. I also appreciated the modesty of the rape scene. It could have been much worse. But the two other scenes were entirely unnecessary. And, honestly, really gross.

 

[McScribe]

Well, chacun a son gout, as they say. I think 300 as a movie was so generally gratuitous that the sex doesn't stand out for me. I mean it shows some very anime cartoon style violence. The rhino is pretty odd too. Properly in fact it showed have shown lots of swinging male genitals of the Spartans but didn't. The graphic novel the movie is based on shows way more male than female nudity. How would you have felt about that?

But my main concern is the rating system. I'd like say 300 rated NC-17 wherever it is sold.

 

[Created2Write]

Well, chacun a son gout, as they say. I think 300 as a movie was so generally gratuitous that the sex doesn't stand out for me. I mean it shows some very anime cartoon style violence. The rhino is pretty odd too. Properly in fact it showed have shown lots of swinging male genitals of the Spartans but didn't. The graphic novel the movie is based on shows way more male than female nudity. How would you have felt about that?

I think it's just as unnecessary, even if it was accurate. Just because something was accurate doesn't mean it needs to be shown, imo. I don't like having to look away from the screen when a man's behind or penis shows up in front of me. Nor do I like having to watch sex scenes to make sure there aren't any boobs, so my husband doesn't have to see it. That's not to say I don't like it when my husband looks away. On the contrary I'm grateful that he finds it as wrong as I do. But it would be nice not to have to exclude movies from our list just because it's rated R and is said to have a scene of sexuality.

Despite it's inaccuracies 300 is a good movie. It would have been great if it didn't have the nudity and sex.

But my main concern is the rating system. I'd like say 300 rated NC-17 wherever it is sold.[/quote]

 

[Autumnleaf]

inappropriate contentography is an inanimate object. Like a knife or a gun. What has to be fought is the human mind and the will to guard the mind from entertaining gratuitous sexual thoughts. By the time a man seeks inappropriate content or gets excited from it the battle is lost.

 

[McScribe]

I think it's just as unnecessary, even if it was accurate. Just because something was accurate doesn't mean it needs to be shown, imo. I don't like having to look away from the screen when a man's behind or penis shows up in front of me. Nor do I like having to watch sex scenes to make sure there aren't any boobs, so my husband doesn't have to see it. That's not to say I don't like it when my husband looks away. On the contrary I'm grateful that he finds it as wrong as I do. But it would be nice not to have to exclude movies from our list just because it's rated R and is said to have a scene of sexuality.

Despite it's inaccuracies 300 is a good movie. It would have been great if it didn't have the nudity and sex.

But my main concern is the rating system. I'd like say 300 rated NC-17 wherever it is sold.

[/QUOTE]

My system makes it easier, way easier. This way you KNOW what NC-17 means for sexual content and can avoid such movies. For Christians to whom that represents a serious temptation it can help you choose.

Out of curiosity, would you and your husband avert your eyes if it was any kind of nudity in a modern film? I mean you menion Quigley Down Under and so is it only sexually focused nudity that bothers you and your husband?

 

[McScribe]

inappropriate contentography is an inanimate object. Like a knife or a gun. What has to be fought is the human mind and the will to guard the mind from entertaining gratuitous sexual thoughts. By the time a man seeks inappropriate content or gets excited from it the battle is lost.

I don't agree with your conclusion. The battle can't be lost or Christ's redemption doesn't mean anything.

What I do agree with is that the human mind is the real battleground. Which is why I would, in order to make it more clear, change the rating system.

I can't do that at present until the governments of the United States and Canada abdicate and grant me my rightful place as Supreme Monarch, but until such time I encourage fellow Christians to learn to filter their thoughts. Jesus tells us that it is not what goes into the body but comes out that matters. We should be able to learn to watch for example a movie like Gran Torino and see the good message within it while not worrying about all the swearing and bigotry in it.

 

[Conservativation]

Or HR Puffn Stuff and not see it as Satanic

 

[.Iona.]

I find some of it annoying, but if something annoys me too much, I don't watch it. It's all about money, and sex sells, so it won't change.

It's not the films so much, but the 'glamour' models that flaunt themselves around as something special, when wearing next to nothing. So many young girls here dress and act that way because they think it's cool. I heard a story a few months ago about a 13 yr old who wanted to go into glamour modelling - so topless modelling, because she thought it would get her attention and fame.

 

[hijklmnop]

inappropriate contentography is an inanimate object. Like a knife or a gun. What has to be fought is the human mind and the will to guard the mind from entertaining gratuitous sexual thoughts. By the time a man seeks inappropriate content or gets excited from it the battle is lost.

I disagree because inappropriate content is made with the sole intention of making money off of people seeking sexual pleasure from it. There is no purpose for it other than arousal. At least knives and guns can be used for other things...like hunting, food preparation, etc. (Guns that are made specifically to kill people as efficiently as possible are another matter IMO but that's a whole different discussion). It exists, so yes, the battle for the rest of us is in the human mind...but ideally it shouldn't be made in the first place.

 

[McScribe]

I find some of it annoying, but if something annoys me too much, I don't watch it. It's all about money, and sex sells, so it won't change.

It's not the films so much, but the 'glamour' models that flaunt themselves around as something special, when wearing next to nothing. So many young girls here dress and act that way because they think it's cool. I heard a story a few months ago about a 13 yr old who wanted to go into glamour modelling - so topless modelling, because she thought it would get her attention and fame.

Well as I've been saying the blatant inappropriate contentography is just the tip of the iceberg. It's the idea that sex sells and that it should be okay to sell sex that degrades the very basis of sexuality in our culture. inappropriate contentography is just the most logical conclusion if you think about it. If it is okay for someone to advertise...well anything with scantily dressed women, and its okay to depict women as being objects of desire for purely sexual reasons in films and television and music videos, and that men should be depicted as abnormal if they DON'T respond accordingly, then inappropriate contentography as we understand it to be is just around the corner.

 

[Created2Write]

My system makes it easier, way easier. This way you KNOW what NC-17 means for sexual content and can avoid such movies. For Christians to whom that represents a serious temptation it can help you choose.

Out of curiosity, would you and your husband avert your eyes if it was any kind of nudity in a modern film? I mean you menion Quigley Down Under and so is it only sexually focused nudity that bothers you and your husband?

Well, to be honest, I don't like any nudity in films. Quigley Down Under is a rare exception, in that they didn't try to have as many boobs as possible. Given the storyline it would have made the movie far less accurate if they'd clothed the aborigines, but they didn't use that as an excuse to flash boobs every ten seconds. I have seen other films(and not finished them) that used historical accuracy as an excuse to just flash boobs. That's tacky.

To answer your question: Yes, we would still do our best not to look, even if it wasn't a sex scene. I really don't have any desire to anyone else naked, male or female. And since I have a perfectly good male body to admire, I shouldn't see other people naked imo. Likewise for DH. And it's not because we're afraid of what temptation might cause, it's because we really only have the hots for each other. He doesn't want to envision another woman's breasts while making love to me, and I would really like to not envision another man's junk while making love to him. It's just...yuck. We don't watch Quigley often because of the aborigines, unfortunately. And when we do watch a movie with nudity, like 300, we skip the scenes. Always. You can't really skip scenes in Quigley...the aborigines are scattered throughout.

If regular PG-13 movies didn't corrupt the idea of sexual relations between people, I don't think the nakedness of aborigines would bother me so much. But as things sit now it's difficult to get past any nakedness in a film. Even if it's just a butt shot.

 

[McScribe]

Created, you know I respect you a lot, so I hope you will take this in the spirit with which it is intended. When you say it's tacky I think it's your offense speaking. Some people are REALLY offended by foul language in a movie. Some are really offended by graphic violence. It's their perfect right to be offended, as it is yours. But when you say it's unnecessary I think that you and I are going to have to disagree. My rating system represents a sense of compromise.

When I saw this Christian made depiction of the story of King David I was irritated by most of it. From Goliath seeming more like a castaway from Hercules to Bathsheba in a bathrobe. Yes, a bathrobe. Not bathing on the roof, just a pretty woman in a bathrobe. And he's acting poleaxed, like some fifteen year old. I had a hard time believing it. Bathing on the roof to me means bathing on the roof. They could have perhaps shown him talking about it, or something. Or they could have shown her naked, and I would have preferred the latter.

I actually think that for you and Jason that this intense sexuality thing is just that, a temptation, and that while it is obviously your choice to deal with it as you see fit as a couple that next time I would encourage you to have previously before watching any movie do the following:

1. Your research. You can always find out how much nudity or sexual stuff a movie has before you watch it. If you feel really strongly about it then consider not paying for movies like that.

2. Pray before you watch. Pray for strength and affirm your love and desire for your husband. It is very possible that if you do this on a regular basis that you will find that the images decrease in power. As Christians we can do this with anything, whether it be scary images, violent ones, blasphemous ones or sexual ones. We can resist wickedness in all forms.

 

[Created2Write]

Created, you know I respect you a lot, so I hope you will take this in the spirit with which it is intended. When you say it's tacky I think it's your offense speaking. Some people are REALLY offended by foul language in a movie. Some are really offended by graphic violence. It's their perfect right to be offended, as it is yours. But when you say it's unnecessary I think that you and I are going to have to disagree. My rating system represents a sense of compromise.

When I saw this Christian made depiction of the story of King David I was irritated by most of it. From Goliath seeming more like a castaway from Hercules to Bathsheba in a bathrobe. Yes, a bathrobe. Not bathing on the roof, just a pretty woman in a bathrobe. And he's acting poleaxed, like some fifteen year old. I had a hard time believing it. Bathing on the roof to me means bathing on the roof. They could have perhaps shown him talking about it, or something. Or they could have shown her naked, and I would have preferred the latter.

Or...they could have shown her bathing and not shown her naked. I agree that the bathrobe thing was just dumb. But it's no justification to intentionally show a woman's naked body. Plus, there are plenty of ways to imply nakedness without actually showing it. I just saw Cowboys and Aliens and they never once showed a boob or a but, and there was a moment when you know the chick is naked...and they don't show any nudity. Very tastefully done. It got the point across without showing nudity.

You don't have to jump straight to nudity. There are ways around it that aren't dumb, like a bathrobe, but also aren't extreme, like nudity. I prefer to not see nakedness. I prefer to imply rather than be blunt.

I actually think that for you and Jason that this intense sexuality thing is just that, a temptation, and that while it is obviously your choice to deal with it as you see fit as a couple that next time I would encourage you to have previously before watching any movie do the following:

1. Your research. You can always find out how much nudity or sexual stuff a movie has before you watch it. If you feel really strongly about it then consider not paying for movies like that.

Trust me. We do this already.

2. Pray before you watch. Pray for strength and affirm your love and desire for your husband. It is very possible that if you do this on a regular basis that you will find that the images decrease in power. As Christians we can do this with anything, whether it be scary images, violent ones, blasphemous ones or sexual ones. We can resist wickedness in all forms.

.....It's not about the images having power. Sure, there's an element of temptation(more so for DH than me) but honestly it's more about respect for each other, respect for ourselves, and respect for the people on the screen. There is no need for me to see another naked person, even outside of movies. When I go to the pool to swim and there are women changing, even then I don't look at them. It's uncomfortable, and I really don't see why I should. If I shouldn't look at naked people in real life, why should I look at them in movies?

I know my husband wouldn't like it if I sat, all comfortable and relaxed, and watched a scene in a movie with a man's penis. I know he would be hurt because, as my husband, I'm only meant to know his body in that way. I would be hurt if he watched a scene with boobs. This is what I liken things to: would I ever intentionally look up pictures of male genitals? If the answer is no, then I shouldn't watch a movie scene with a penis in it either. Would I be okay with my husband looking up pictures of female genitals? If no, then we shouldn't watch scenes with boobs and other things in them.