Bouncing between Mr. Atheist and Girl Defined over Raunch Culture!

[Moral Orel]

Ok. Let's relax.

Yes, I agree with you (and @Silmarien) that to say that some person's remaining a virgin until marriage constitutes "purity" is somewhat dubious.

It's not just "somewhat dubious". It's an implicit dig. If they're pure, then I am impure. If you're pro-life, then I'm pro-death. I'm pro-choice, so you're anti-choice. The labels we choose are implicit digs on our opposition. You said that you couldn't see the "diss", that's all I was pointing out to you. The girls aren't hypocrites because they falter on some other moral front, or because they've had naughty thoughts before too. They're hypocrites because they're complaining about being shamed for being virgins, while choosing language that shames everyone else for not being virgins. It doesn't matter if they're perfect in every regard of their sexuality, they're still being hypocritical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not just "somewhat dubious". It's an implicit dig. If they're pure, then I am impure. If you're pro-life, then I'm pro-death. I'm pro-choice, so you're anti-choice. The labels we choose are implicit digs on our opposition. You said that you couldn't see the "diss", that's all I was pointing out to you. The girls aren't hypocrites because they falter on some other moral front, or because they've had naughty thoughts before too. They're hypocrites because they're complaining about being shamed for being virgins, while choosing language that shames everyone else for not being virgins. It doesn't matter if they're perfect in every regard of their sexuality, they're still being hypocritical.

So, God is 'ok' with everyone just tossing their Virginity into the gutter? (Everyone, get your hook-up apps out and primed..................ready ................... SET .........................................GO!!!!!!!!!!)

.....er, somehow that doesn't quite sound right either!

 

[Moral Orel]

So, God is 'ok' with everyone just tossing their Virginity into the gutter? (Everyone, get your hook-up apps out and primed..................ready ................... SET .........................................GO!!!!!!!!!!)

.....er, somehow that doesn't quite sound right either!

I didn't say anything about that.

 

[Silmarien]

If it's any consolation, my primary thrust is on male concupiscence (yes, that is a pun!) and the male driven commercial sex industry that culls out and attracts financially starved women. It's just that some attention (correction?) is to be applied to women because, well, let's face it, they are the fairer sex and some of them are being excessively complicit in the various male-driven sex industries. And it only takes one Playmate to hook a bunch of male kids ... for life.

I don't think women are faultless when it comes to sexual misbehavior. But we're talking about two different things, since I am focusing on the problems presented by Girl Defined's picture of sexual purity, whereas your focus seems to be secular culture instead.

If we're talking specifically about the inappropriate contentography industry, then yeah, women are complicit too. Though I would be a bit suspicious of approaching sexual industries in a way that is exclusively male-oriented, since it's not as if women don't consume sexually explicit material also. We're not always passive players who are just looking for money or validation from men--there's a reason smutty romance novels exist, after all.

This is probably the one point on which I will somewhat differ with you. I think the idea of waiting for marriage is beneficial, but only for Christians.

Oh, I wasn't criticizing the idea of waiting until marriage. It's the phrasing I don't like: "saving" yourself until marriage. It ties too much value and self-worth into the virginal state, so I'd prefer to find a way to talk about this stuff that isn't going to give people a complex even on their wedding night.

At the least, I mean by raunchiness what Ariel Levy means by it, and as you may know, she is a non-christian, Jewish, Lesbian feminist. So, if I can agree with at least her definition, I feel I'm on to something.

I've never read Ariel Levy, so saying that you agree with her definition doesn't really help me. Looking her up on Amazon, though, it looks like her focus is on things like the inappropriate contentography industry?

But seriously, the Bible does judge women who persist in a particular lifestyle or immoral attitude just as surely as it does men (who it may identify as 'harlot-mongers'.......ew!) And yes, yes, I know all of this is troublesome emotionally these days, but it is for most of us. We all have to pull the immorality 'out' of us if we want to be Christian. I don't expect non-Christians to be able to do that very well, if at all.

The Madonna-harlot dichotomy refers more to the inability of some men to even really feel sexual attraction to their wives, since they have divided women up into those who are virgins and thus pure, and those who are sexual objects. They can't simultaneously respect a woman and want to sleep with her, because their focus on virginal purity is so strong that sexual activity is always something that demeans a woman, even in the marital context.

If we count the thinking of persons like Ariel Levy, then yes, I suppose so. But I'm not seeing it take hold on a wide scale yet, unless you're somehow counting the #me2 movement. You may have to enlighten me further on what way you're seeing this 'progressive creeping' which you're talking about.

Yeah, I'm thinking specifically of the #metoo movement. Despite its hedonism (or perhaps because of it), the secular left has become obsessed with consent in a way that I think is really constructive.

Found one. Mr. Atheist seems to eschew the idea that having to go to the Bible to support a notion about sexual propriety means the notion itself should be seen as questionable [between minute 6 and 7]? NOT! What's questionable is 'how' people apply hermeneutics to their understanding about social principles seen in the Bible, not whether or not they go to the bible for social principles.

Oh, yes. I disliked that part in particular, because you don't actually have to go to the Bible to defend some form of sexual propriety. I certainly came to my own conclusions independently.

I was also disturbed when he said he was glad he had had sex early, before marriage, because his ideas about sexuality and gender roles were messed up. I feel like this is a very good reason not to immediately rush to sexual experimentation, since I've known multiple women who were abused, coerced, and exploited in those sorts of early relationships.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was also disturbed when he said he was glad he had had sex early, before marriage, because his ideas about sexuality and gender roles were messed up. I feel like this is a very good reason not to immediately rush to sexual experimentation, since I've known multiple women who were abused, coerced, and exploited in those sorts of early relationships.

I'm pretty sure he said that he was glad he didn't wait because he was too horny. If he didn't rush into sex, he was going to rush into marriage to rush into sex.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not just "somewhat dubious". It's an implicit dig. If they're pure, then I am impure. If you're pro-life, then I'm pro-death. I'm pro-choice, so you're anti-choice. The labels we choose are implicit digs on our opposition. You said that you couldn't see the "diss", that's all I was pointing out to you.

No, I understand the complaint, but Mr. Atheist makes it sounds like Christians such as Girl Defined aren't wanting to touch 'ungodly' people with a ten foot pole, and I doubt very much that that is the case. Some atheists simply react without proportion to the comments that some Christians make. Of course, some people may say that 2PhiloVoid does that same thing. Oh, well. (It's not true, because I use an 11 foot pole....so, no dice!)

My point is that I don't count Girl(s) Defined as hypocrites in this instance as much as I count them as being in need to rearticulate their position more accurately. The truth, as far as I can see it, is that they probably should have just admitted that there is a kind of values/culture battle going on in our society, has been for a long time, and that what they have to say about virginity and sexual propriety will not sit well with a number of non-Christians, and they should then proceed to share what it is that they perceive is God's Will on the matter of 'sex before marriage' and 'saving oneself for marriage' as expressed and/or inferred in the Bible.

So, I have no problem with these two young ladies saying something, but they should be prepared for the fact that it WON'T be received by a number of folks in their audience, one of whom appears to ardently be...................Mr. Atheist. And for him to think they should perhaps just 'shut up' and get with the Democratic program of hyper-pluralism (and no, he didn't say that specifically, but that what it comes down to) is asking too much and something that's just not compatible with the prophetic tradition of the Christian faith.

The girls aren't hypocrites because they falter on some other moral front, or because they've had naughty thoughts before too. They're hypocrites because they're complaining about being shamed for being virgins, while choosing language that shames everyone else for not being virgins. It doesn't matter if they're perfect in every regard of their sexuality, they're still being hypocritical.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm pretty sure he said that he was glad he didn't wait because he was too horny. If he didn't rush into sex, he was going to rush into marriage to rush into sex.

Yeah, I just wonder if the other party there was equally glad after the fact that they didn't wait. Often people can say that they learned and grew from an experience, without having to worry about the trail of suffering they might have left in their wake.

If someone isn't emotionally ready for marriage, I really don't think they're ready for sex either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think women are faultless when it comes to sexual misbehavior. But we're talking about two different things, since I am focusing on the problems presented by Girl Defined's picture of sexual purity, whereas your focus seems to be secular culture instead.

If we're talking specifically about the inappropriate contentography industry, then yeah, women are complicit too. Though I would be a bit suspicious of approaching sexual industries in a way that is exclusively male-oriented, since it's not as if women don't consume sexually explicit material also. We're not always passive players who are just looking for money or validation from men--there's a reason smutty romance novels exist, after all.

It does appear that we're talking about two different aspects of all of this, and you are correct; I am referring to the overall culture, even if only cursorily to that of the inappropriate content industry, but I'm not specifically meaning to focus on that itself. No, in my estimation, and reflecting what Ariel Levy states, 'raunch' is a moral attitude toward a particular expression of an ethical view point (hedonism???) And you're right, women are not just passive players, or at least not to the extent they used to be [or had to be]. In fact, I became fully aware of the trends back in 2004 when I took that class on "the History of American Sexuality." Although it's slightly dated now, one of the books we had to read was by Paula Kamen [feminist] (2000), Her Way: Young Women Remake the Sexual Revolution.

Oh, I wasn't criticizing the idea of waiting until marriage. It's the phrasing I don't like: "saving" yourself until marriage. It ties too much value and self-worth into the virginal state, so I'd prefer to find a way to talk about this stuff that isn't going to give people a complex even on their wedding night.

Feel free to expound a little more on what you think that way might be ...

I've never read Ariel Levy, so saying that you agree with her definition doesn't really help me. Looking her up on Amazon, though, it looks like her focus is on things like the inappropriate contentography industry?

If you're interested, you can just listen to the interview she did a while back on N.P.R. [in three parts on the OP.]

All those female chauvinists pigs of....today's Raunch Culture?!

[Actually, I can't remember, but you might have said you've heard it already back when I posted it those many months ago. Be that as it may, it's here if you want it.]

Anyway, I'll get to the remainder of your previous post later. As always, thank you for your substantive comments, Sister Sil!

 

[Moral Orel]

My point is that I don't count Girl(s) Defined as hypocrites in this instance as much as I count them as being in need to rearticulate their position more accurately.

So... They spoke incorrectly.

So, I have no problem with these two young ladies saying something, but they should be prepared for the fact that it WON'T be received by a number of folks in their audience, one of whom appears to ardently be...................Mr. Atheist.

But it's the listener's fault for not receiving it well. Gotcha.

 

[Silmarien]

Feel free to expound a little more on what you think that way might be ...

I really don't know. I think more of a focus on the sacramental nature of sexuality and marriage would be helpful--instead of trying to scare people away from having sex by insisting that it's something dirty that will ruin them forever, the stress should be on sex, love, and relationship in a joint fashion. Figuring out a better way to approach the body in general would be good too, since I think there are strong tendencies in all camps to instrumentalize it.

[Actually, I can't remember, but you might have said you've heard it already back when I posted it those many months ago. Be that as it may, it's here if you want it.]

I don't think I have, actually.

 

[bèlla]

Mr. Atheist is probably consuming said material and doesn’t want to diminish the supply. I could only handle him for 4 minutes before my brain began to spasm.

I think its evident that raunch is inappropriate for young viewers and shouldn’t be normalized. I think its equally clear we saw things going in this direction with the infamous Girls Gone Wild videos. Letting your hair down and wearing your sexuality on your sleeve is liberating at first and a black hole in disguise.

I’ve been in that subculture and the line keeps moving and everything under the sun is normalized. That’s how heinous acts become arousing and no one questions it because their minds are unhinged. Lawlessness is the rule and the race to the bottom is moving fast. How low can we go?

There are things I don’t need to know, see, and do. That doesn’t make me religious, prudish, or repressed. I’m none of the above. My awareness of our capacity to cross the line gives me pause. I understand the danger of leaven and its impact. After a while the unthinkable is not so bad and the cycle repeats itself.

Perhaps this is why I value boundaries and tradition. Maybe its why I need a partner who isn’t dancing on the edge or desiring to see where it leads. Some things are off limits and should remain so. Indecency is a drug that’s hard to escape. And you never forget.

I don’t think the purity culture is the solution. I believe frank discussions are a must. Men and women need to see themselves as valuable and worthy of love and respect. If we tell them they’re commodities they’ll treat others the same.

Objectification isn’t love or regard. Its debasing and diminishing their humanity in exchange for physical enjoyment at their expense. And if that’s the lone way to catch someone’s eye or elicit a hello; you’ve got bigger problems.

You need a holy recalibration and better attire. In that order.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Madonna-harlot dichotomy refers more to the inability of some men to even really feel sexual attraction to their wives, since they have divided women up into those who are virgins and thus pure, and those who are sexual objects. They can't simultaneously respect a woman and want to sleep with her, because their focus on virginal purity is so strong that sexual activity is always something that demeans a woman, even in the marital context.

I haven't hear about his specific dichotomy as yet, so thank you for 'putting it out there' for our consideration. From the way you've defined it, I can see the relevance in it. The only caveat I might add is that when things like Playboy and its ilk are added into the equation, the conceptual and aesthetic confluences involved (for want of saying it more simply and overtly) can unfortunately render a man with even more complicated distortions that dowse his arousal toward his wife, and not because she's "pure" or "impure."

End of story.

Anyway, excellent point, Silmarien!

Yeah, I'm thinking specifically of the #metoo movement. Despite its hedonism (or perhaps because of it), the secular left has become obsessed with consent in a way that I think is really constructive.

Yes, I suppose the heightened emphasis on consent can be a boon in helping bring about more respectful relational interactions.

Oh, yes. I disliked that part in particular, because you don't actually have to go to the Bible to defend some form of sexual propriety. I certainly came to my own conclusions independently.

True enough. But I'm not sure men have either heard about this possibility for education in this matter ... or they may not care enough to really find out, despite what many of them may say otherwise. Somewhere in our culture is a secret penchant, perhaps not shared really by the women, that all this new hook-up, Playboy freedom can be construed as a "good thing." (To which I retort: NOT!)

I was also disturbed when he said he was glad he had had sex early, before marriage, because his ideas about sexuality and gender roles were messed up. I feel like this is a very good reason not to immediately rush to sexual experimentation, since I've known multiple women who were abused, coerced, and exploited in those sorts of early relationships.

.... yep! Me too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mr. Atheist is probably consuming said material and doesn’t want to diminish the supply. I could only handle him for 4 minutes before my brain began to spasm.

I think its evident that raunch is inappropriate for young viewers and shouldn’t be normalized. I think its equally clear we saw things going in this direction with the infamous Girls Gone Wild videos. Letting your hair down and wearing your sexuality on your sleeve is liberating at first and a black hole in disguise.

I’ve been in that subculture and the line keeps moving and everything under the sun is normalized. That’s how heinous acts become arousing and no one questions it because their minds are unhinged. Lawlessness is the rule and the race to the bottom is moving fast. How low can we go?

There are things I don’t need to know, see, and do. That doesn’t make me religious, prudish, or repressed. I’m none of the above. My awareness of our capacity to cross the line gives me pause. I understand the danger of leaven and its impact. After a while the unthinkable is not so bad and the cycle repeats itself.

Perhaps this is why I value boundaries and tradition. Maybe its why I need a partner who isn’t dancing on the edge or desiring to see where it leads. Some things are off limits and should remain so. Indecency is a drug that’s hard to escape. And you never forget.

I don’t think the purity culture is the solution. I believe frank discussions are a must. Men and women need to see themselves as valuable and worthy of love and respect. If we tell them they’re commodities they’ll treat others the same.

Objectification isn’t love or regard. Its debasing and diminishing their humanity in exchange for physical enjoyment at their expense. And if that’s the lone way to catch someone’s eye or elicit a hello; you’ve got bigger problems.

You need a holy recalibration and better attire. In that order.

Thank you for sharing your insights on this, LaBèlla! It all rings true.

But, what do you think about Girl Defined? Are they just a little too uppity, or are they saying something that is of service from a Christian angle?

[Again, thank you!]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't know. I think more of a focus on the sacramental nature of sexuality and marriage would be helpful--instead of trying to scare people away from having sex by insisting that it's something dirty that will ruin them forever, the stress should be on sex, love, and relationship in a joint fashion. Figuring out a better way to approach the body in general would be good too, since I think there are strong tendencies in all camps to instrumentalize it.

The Church, particularly the Evangelical segments, needs to overhaul their approach to handling, mentoring through, and treating the various issues that go into human sexuality across the board. As it is, I think too many of them feel prohibited and inhibit by a misapplication of biblical verses like:

Ephesians 5:12

It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
​

I can see how an overdose of bad hermeneutics could really hamper Christians from dealing with human sexuality in productive, effective and compassionate ways, even such as it is in the U.S. Of course, some of this rigidity is loosening up in various churches and also among younger Christians, but then again, it's perhaps not always liberalized in ways which remain necessarily faithful to the Church's original Kerygma. So, I don't know. It's a mess right now (and always has been, really).

You mentioned that you think there are tendencies to instrumentalize all of this? How so? Can't 'raunch' also be seen as a form of instrumentalization from the 'other' side of things? Maybe that's what you mean by "all camps"?

 

[bèlla]

Thank you for sharing your insights on this, LaBèlla! It all rings true.

Thank you for the compliment.

But, what do you think about Girl Defined? Are they just a little too uppity, or are they saying something that is of service from a Christian angle?

I think they’ve illustrated why God’s way is best. And they reminded me why I rejected secular lies and prefer a Christian man at my side. In spite of my frustrations. ;-)

I have met a lot of men like Mr. Atheist. They believe their way is best. And the notion of that in my ear is too much. That isn’t what good leadership looks like or the manliness I respect.

Our partners are supposed to challenge our beliefs and be wise sounding boards. They aren’t meant to validate every ridiculous notion in our head.

And that begins when we’re single. It starts with saying no when everyone around you is doing otherwise. Even believers. It starts with drawing a line in the sand and staying the course. Come what may.

You can’t follow God and think like others or the world. You can’t yield to Him if your ideology is front and center. We’re married to our labels. We defend them more than Him and the principles He’s set.

Its not about delivery or appearances. Are they in agreement with God or not? We are such a sick people that most don’t recognize how men and women conducted themselves in the past. They were poised, genteel, and polite. Not ignorant, rude, and combative.

You know the tree by the fruit it bears. His will lead to death. There is no life in the place he’s pointing.

 

[jardiniere]

I can't wrap my head around what "raunchy" means in this OP. Is it inappropriate sexualization, where inappropriate is defined differently for different "camps"? Or is in intended to be inappropriate sexualization for all of the culture? Or all of one type of religion? Or all of an age group? It seemed to me that the Christian couple was talking about what some Christians believe, and the atheist was talking about something broader, more like American culture. So the video seemed to be talking past each other.
How does one address an issue if the arguers can't agree on the premises?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can't wrap my head around what "raunchy" means in this OP. Is it inappropriate sexualization, where inappropriate is defined differently for different "camps"? Or is in intended to be inappropriate sexualization for all of the culture? Or all of one type of religion? Or all of an age group? It seemed to me that the Christian couple was talking about what some Christians believe, and the atheist was talking about something broader, more like American culture. So the video seemed to be talking past each other.
How does one address an issue if the arguers can't agree on the premises?

Good questions. Although I have my own view on what "Raunchy" is, in this OP it is allowed that there can be conceptually different ideas on it among different folks, depending on the ethical, ideological framework they may have, respectively, and there can be different, even disagreeing ideas as to how to deal with or ameliorate problems with "raunch" that are seen to reside within our (U.S.? Or other?) culture. These moral and ethical discussions typically go 'like that.'

So, yes. Being that there are disagreements not only on singular issues, but on 'how' all of this ethical stuff is to even be framed and understood, there are some nuances in the conversation where the various voices can be, as you say, "talking past one another."

On my part, I'm with Girl Defined, BUT as far as a working definition, I guess I'm going with one offered by non-christian feminist, Ariel Levy. Not that she has the last word on it; rather I think Jesus does, but Levy, probably because she's still Jewish, has some interesting sensibilities about it all.

Here's a quick summation of Ariel Levy's view, such as it was a decade or so ago [see specifically the first and second headings in the Wiki article below, Background and Levy's critique of raunch culture]:

Female Chauvinist Pigs - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So... They spoke incorrectly.

But it's the listener's fault for not receiving it well. Gotcha.

Well...not every audience is actually being the recipient of a comedy act, but rather a prophetic act. And the world will never seemingly be able to live it down, will they?

 

[bèlla]

Googling the word brings up a page full of inappropriate content sites and two definitions. There’s your answer.

 

[jardiniere]

(snip)

On my part, I'm with Girl Defined, BUT as far as a working definition, I guess I'm going with one offered by non-christian feminist, Ariel Levy. Not that she has the last word on it; rather I think Jesus does, but Levy, probably because she's still Jewish, has some interesting sensibilities about it all.

Here's a quick summation of Ariel Levy's view, such as it was a decade or so ago [see specifically the first and second headings in the Wiki article below, Background and Levy's critique of raunch culture]:

Female Chauvinist Pigs - Wikipedia

So I think you're discussing raunch along the lines of "raunch is inappropriate for some Christians". I'm fine with that. But I think this seems to be coming from a base point of "Some types of objectification are morally wrong (sexuality being one of the wrong ones)", maybe the topic should be about something that most people can agree about-"is the objectification of humans a good or bad thing?" In some cases it might be, in some cases it might not. Maybe some types of sexual objectification are good for people... like everyone having self confidence in one's body is a good thing; and some are bad, like believing one sex should be held responsible for the behavior of the other sex. Then one side or other of the argument doesn't have to rest necessarily on following directions from a book written for a religion, regardless of what topic we argue about.

For example, while reading this thread, I was reminded of the cultural celebration of beauty in women, which also includes things like beauty pageants, for women, girls, and infants. In some pageants, I consider some events to be raunchy, while I suspect the mostly Christian participants think it is nothing close to raunchy to show little girls in adult makeup deliberately aping adult "sexually available" poses to an audience. This is one of the most innocuous cultural displays of raunch--for me, personally. That it's not considered raunch to others is also obvious. So that in trying to argue that I think it's inappropriate, I would want to state that the objectification of children for displays of beauty is harmful to our culture. Not because it's against religious beliefs, it's not, but because it subjects children as a group (objectification) to stereotypes we use for adults in our society, and have deemed acting on these stereotypes is illegal if children are involved.

So I frankly don't think using religious objections to raunchy culture is a viable means to argue against raunch. I do think it's absolutely necessary to argue against some types of current society behavior, some of it is raunch.