Sexuality, the Church and America -- Part 2 -- Pornography

I originally was going to talk about the issue of homosexual marriage as part two but the issue of pornography and public nudity have a link that needs to be considered. The issue involves the definition of pornography and what changes would be made to that definition if women are allowed to show their breasts in public. Suppose in ten years ladies of the 'topfree' movement have won a national decision that allows them to be 'topfree' in any public places a man can. What then happen to all the pictures involving women with exposed breasts? Are they still considered porn? Probably not. What that means is that certain covers of magazines would change. For example (once again I am not trying to freak anyone out with this picture but I need a real life illustration to make my point), here is a cover from Maxim magazine:

This cover is indicative of a lot of men's magazines that do not necessarily contain naked pictures but if 'topfreedom' is achieved this lady would be allowed to drop her arm and hand without fear of prosecution for the magizine. Now, I pass the magazine racks everyday at my job and when I shop as well and so do a lot of other people. If women can be 'topfree' in public, then the covers of magazines would then be allowed to do the same. The issue I have is suddenly being forced to explain to children what is going on and why that women can show her breasts now and what are they? If I was a parent of small children and did not want my child to be exposed to this kind of thing, I would be out of luck. The store could say: "no shirt, no shoes no service" but I still have to go by the magazine rack where breasts would be visible.

Another issue would be Internet porn. What I mean is suppose you are using a filter of a secular nature and the filter does not allow you to filter out exposed female breasts because of the changes in the law. Your kid could be doing a report on some famous female celebrity and wham there is a picture of that celeb with herself exposed. Happens a lot these days.

That then brings up the question of then what does constitute pornography -- pictures of sexual genitalia and sexual acts only? This leaves a lot of wiggle room for a lot of other things because you dealing with the fine line of when exactly does an image become sexually explicit. That line would be even finer and more difficult to see.

The Church has never dealt with this issue well to begin with and this would make it even worse. Gentlemen we are going to have to live in a world when the sexually suggestive poses are going to be less suggestive and more overt and this going to mean a necessary change in the way we deal with this temptation. Ladies understand that your competition level for your husband's or boyfriend's attention will become more difficult. The 'topfreedom' movement may have a few good points, but I don't know if they see all the ramifications of their actions should they succeed. Pornography would be one issue that will certainly be affected.

Christians need to be ready for this change and not get overly bent out of shape about it, but take action that shields ourselves from the temptations that will be associated with these possible changes. I don't think we can stop this from happening in the very near future and the plan need to be one not of protest but one of reaching people (despite their ethical differences with us) for Christ with the life changing gospel.

IMHO

Next: Homosexual Marriage ( I mean it this time)