Is all sin equal?

[mkgal1]

Allow me to clarify. There is indeed a difference between true romantic fiction, and erotic fiction. However, it is my opinion that a large amount of what is called romantic fiction today is in fact little different than erotic fiction. Not all, the Love series by Oakes would be one of the exceptions, but a large portion.

But as I've said before, in the same what they erotic fiction and inappropriate content can cause problems in creating a fantasy version of what sex looks like, stories like Love Comes Softly and the like can cause problems by creating a fantasy version of what love looks like. And to sort of tie this back to the OP, in both cases it's a sin to expect real life to look like the fantasy version.

What I'm asking about is what sets them apart in your mind.....what is the distinction between "true romantic fiction" and "erotic fiction"? The physical details given? How descriptive they are or what?

By "fantasy version of what love looks like" do you mean something other than what is being experienced or what?

 

[chaz345]

What I'm asking about is what sets them apart in your mind.....what is the distinction between "true romantic fiction" and "erotic fiction"? The physical details given? How descriptive they are or what?

The presence of detailed descriptions of sexual acts that can reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader is what, in my opinion, makes something erotic.

By "fantasy version of what love looks like" do you mean something other than what is being experienced or what?

Not really. More a case of something other than what's possible between two flawed humans. The almost fairly tale perfect "and the lived happily ever after" sort of thing that those stories portray.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The presence of detailed descriptions of sexual acts that can reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader is what, in my opinion, makes something erotic.


Not really. More a case of something other than what's possible between two flawed humans. The almost fairly tale perfect "and the lived happily ever after" sort of thing that those stories portray.

I believe that romance novels, romantic comedy movies, and Disney princess movies all fall into the same fault, though not in the same way. The novels and romantic comedy movies present romantic love as the same as married love. They all present a fairy tale as life. You can tell how raunchy a romance novel is by looking at the cover (same thing with men's magazines and women's magazines-Playboy type and Cosmo type).
Many romance novels fall to the borderline of inappropriate contentography. The story lines of romantic comedies do, too. Disney princess movies present the wrong idea to young women-that they can go against authority, get away with it, and get rescued every time. Don't get me wrong, I watch Disney princess movies with my grandkids all the time, but I use them as teaching moments.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Lust/coveting is inappropriate desire to have something that is not rightfully yours to have. IMO, whether the medium used is inappropriate contentography or romance novels to deliberately provide the indulgent fanciful scenario, it's sin.

BTW, some women rail on inappropriate content, feeling it is unfaithful, adultery. I wonder if these women have ever fantasized sexually about men other than their husband. If so, wouldn't that be the same thing, like the pot calling the stove black? Or as in the OP, are there degrees of sin (he's done it more than I have)? I think not, sin is simply missing the mark, and a miss is as good as a mile.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lust/coveting is inappropriate desire to have something that is not rightfully yours to have. IMO, whether the medium used is inappropriate contentography or romance novels to deliberately provide the indulgent fanciful scenario, it's sin.

BTW, some women rail on inappropriate content, feeling it is unfaithful, adultery. I wonder if these women have ever fantasized sexually about men other than their husband. If so, wouldn't that be the same thing, like the pot calling the stove black? Or as in the OP, are there degrees of sin (he's done it more than I have)? I think not, sin is simply missing the mark, and a miss is as good as a mile.

James says that there is sin that kills you and sin that doesn't. It's not a question of how many times you do it. If you know it's a sin, and you do it anyway, it's mortal. For example, there are curse words. If you purposely make them part of your speech, and you know you shouldn't say them, it can be grave matter. But if you drop a coffee cup on your toe and scream the same words, it wasn't a willful act, and thus just something you have to get right with God about. It's the act of the will which makes the sin deadly.

 

[chaz345]

I believe that romance novels, romantic comedy movies, and Disney princess movies all fall into the same fault, though not in the same way. The novels and romantic comedy movies present romantic love as the same as married love. They all present a fairy tale as life. You can tell how raunchy a romance novel is by looking at the cover (same thing with men's magazines and women's magazines-Playboy type and Cosmo type).
Many romance novels fall to the borderline of inappropriate contentography. The story lines of romantic comedies do, too. Disney princess movies present the wrong idea to young women-that they can go against authority, get away with it, and get rescued every time. Don't get me wrong, I watch Disney princess movies with my grandkids all the time, but I use them as teaching moments.

I agree completely.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Lust/coveting is inappropriate desire to have something that is not rightfully yours to have. IMO, whether the medium used is inappropriate contentography or romance novels to deliberately provide the indulgent fanciful scenario, it's sin.

BTW, some women rail on inappropriate content, feeling it is unfaithful, adultery. I wonder if these women have ever fantasized sexually about men other than their husband. If so, wouldn't that be the same thing, like the pot calling the stove black? Or as in the OP, are there degrees of sin (he's done it more than I have)? I think not, sin is simply missing the mark, and a miss is as good as a mile.

If women are fantasizing about having sex with other men then they are absolutely just as guilty. What I actually find interesting is that when people are trying to minimize what they themselves call a male sin, they usually try to claim that other sins that they term as female sins, are just as bad. Those sins being ones like gossip. Here is the funny part though, I have yet to see a man steeped on inappropriate content, who doesn't also gossip. The point is character isn't specific to gender which is why there aren't male and female sins. Anyone can commit any sin, na dyes women can be unfaithful just as often as men can. But faithfulness among both is also possible.

 

[JaneFW]

Absolutely true. I have noticed that it is typically the inappropriate content user that makes this comparison, to try to excuse their own sin as in - look, these people sin too. The other thing they try to do is blame the other person in the marriage, usually the wife, for her failings, which we know is not going to cut it with God, who is looking at the heart of each sinner, and isn't interested in anyone's "excuses". The reality is that we all know that everyone sins, and I will hold my hand up to my own sins, but it's a shame that those Christians who are using inappropriate content can't just say, "yes, I know it's a sin, and it's my sin" and just leave it at that point of accountability? To me, it's denial and typical IWM to start pointing the finger back at everyone else and saying, "but - but - but she sins, and he sins, and they sin .." Yeah .. we know. We figured that out already.

 

[JaneFW]

Disney princess movies present the wrong idea to young women-that they can go against authority, get away with it, and get rescued every time. Don't get me wrong, I watch Disney princess movies with my grandkids all the time, but I use them as teaching moments.

Are you going to take them to see Brave? I really want to see that movie. I don't think that there is anything wrong with letting girls see bravery in women. There is plenty of bravery in women. Anyone who conceives a child is brave, imo, because that is some scary stuff. But anyway .. I want to see this.

 

[mkgal1]

The presence of detailed descriptions of sexual acts that can reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader is what, in my opinion, makes something erotic.

Well......that puts us back where we were awhile back in the thread---where you said there's "about zero difference between erotic fiction and inappropriate content" and that the effects on the consumer are the same. I disagree. That would place the SOS in with what you are calling "erotic fiction" then, and I absolutely disagree that has the same effect as inappropriate content. One should be able to read about healthy sexuality (that is based on marital love and devotion) as in SOS, and be able to be self-controlled about it. What's harmful about inappropriate content is that it's not based on love---it's lust parading as "normal" sexuality.

Not really. More a case of something other than what's possible between two flawed humans. The almost fairly tale perfect "and the lived happily ever after" sort of thing that those stories portray.

Don't most novels have some sort of conflict? Wouldn't that blow the "perfect" portrayal?

 

[JaneFW]

Didn't we used to have a poster here who wrote fairy tales and thought of herself as a princess and her husband as a prince? I don't remember seeing her being condemned. Ah, but it's different for some people ..

 

[chaz345]

Well......that puts us back where we were awhile back in the thread---where you said there's "about zero difference between erotic fiction and inappropriate content" and that the effects on the consumer are the same. I disagree. That would place the SOS in with what you are calling "erotic fiction" then, and I absolutely disagree that has the same effect as inappropriate content. One should be able to read about healthy sexuality (that is based on marital love and devotion) as in SOS, and be able to be self-controlled about it. What's harmful about inappropriate content is that it's not based on love---it's lust parading as "normal" sexuality.

Not at all. The language in SoS can't reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader. And while I agree that part of what makes inappropriate content harmful is that it portrays lust as normal, that's absolutely not the only problem with it. It seems to me though that you want that to be the only problem for some reason. Is it possibly because you want there to be no problem with reading explicit sex scenes as long as they are in the context of real love? But let's get real. How often, in what's called romantic fiction these days, are the steamy sex scenes between two married people?

Don't most novels have some sort of conflict? Wouldn't that blow the "perfect" portrayal?

In the Love series the conflict is usually external to the main characters. That is it's source is from another person or some outside force. There's little to no conflict BETWEEN the main characters. And yes I know of what I speak, I've seen most of the movies in that series.

 

[chaz345]

Didn't we used to have a poster here who wrote fairy tales and thought of herself as a princess and her husband as a prince? I don't remember seeing her being condemned. Ah, but it's different for some people ..

Apparently she felt condemned enough over something to leave.

 

[mkgal1]

The presence of detailed descriptions of sexual acts that can reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader is what, in my opinion, makes something erotic.

I had something else to comment on this post. Do you consider arousal (of itself) to be wrong? Because I don't. As I said in my other post, I just think one needs to have self-control. I should be able to read about a lovely chocolate cake in full descriptive wording without needing to run to the local bakery.

There are a few "camps" when it comes to desires---the anorexic, the bulimic, and the self-controlled. Desires, themselves, are not "wrong".....it's what we do with the desire (and what we are desiring).

 

[chaz345]

I had something else to comment on this post. Do you consider arousal (of itself) to be wrong? Because I don't. As I said in my other post, I just think one needs to have self-control. I should be able to read about a lovely chocolate cake in full descriptive wording without needing to run to the local bakery.

There are a few "camps" when it comes to desires---the anorexic, the bulimic, and the self-controlled. Desires, themselves, are not "wrong".....it's what we do with the desire (and what we are desiring).

I consider arousal caused by or focused on someone other than one's spouse to be wrong. And that's what's going on when one reads erotic literature.

 

[mkgal1]

James says that there is sin that kills you and sin that doesn't. It's not a question of how many times you do it. If you know it's a sin, and you do it anyway, it's mortal. For example, there are curse words. If you purposely make them part of your speech, and you know you shouldn't say them, it can be grave matter. But if you drop a coffee cup on your toe and scream the same words, it wasn't a willful act, and thus just something you have to get right with God about. It's the act of the will which makes the sin deadly.

I think that's a very important point.

 

[mkgal1]

[

 

[chaz345]

I agree that focusing the arousal on someone other than a spouse is wrong.....but, what about Song of Songs, then?

Like I said I don't find that language arousing and don't see how anyone could.

But if arousal focused on one other than one's spouse is wrong, then we're back to what is the difference between inappropriate content, and erotic fiction, or explicit scenes in romantic fiction, especially since in much of it(romantic fiction) the sex isn't between married people?

 

[mkgal1]

Not at all. The language in SoS can't reasonably be expected to cause arousal in the reader. And while I agree that part of what makes inappropriate content harmful is that it portrays lust as normal, that's absolutely not the only problem with it. It seems to me though that you want that to be the only problem for some reason. Is it possibly because you want there to be no problem with reading explicit sex scenes as long as they are in the context of real love? But let's get real. How often, in what's called romantic fiction these days, are the steamy sex scenes between two married people?

Yes......I don't want there to be a problem with reading explicit sex scenes in the context of real love, because that's what SOS is. As I have said several times.....other than that, I don't read romantic fiction or erotic fiction, so I have little knowledge as to what the content is. I know enough to make a distinction between genuine love and lust (sex minus genuine love), though.

In the Love series the conflict is usually external to the main characters. That is it's source is from another person or some outside force. There's little to no conflict BETWEEN the main characters. And yes I know of what I speak, I've seen most of the movies in that series.

IMO.....that still would ruin "perfect". I don't see it as harmful to portray what is possible when two submit to God and genuinely love one another. I don't consider that as the impossible. Maybe to expect that w/o submitting to God....or with no effort would be detrimental.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Romans, I had/have no intention of minimizing or maximizing sin by anyone or either gender (did I seem to be doing that?). I've never seen the point I made about women's fantasizing brought out, although it may have been. But I've seen the men's use of inappropriate content thing ground to powder, did I do anyone dirt in making the point that I did? Did I gossip?

"What I actually find interesting is that when people are trying to minimize what they themselves call a male sin, they usually try to claim that other sins that they term as female sins, are just as bad."

And the same is true, and has been demonstrated many times, in reverse (certainly both ways), right?