you say po-ta-to, i say po-tah-to

before i get started, let me first throw this out there:  webster's dictionary defines pornography as
the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

okay, now that we have that clear, i want to address something that is not a new concept, but one that has recently gained notoriety through a book and a movie:  mommy porn.

i have seen numerous blog postings by females on the subject, both for and against, by both CHRIST-followers and secularists alike.  these blog posts seem to either condemn or justify the reading of books or watching of movies by women, that are blatantly sexual in nature.  the purpose of this post is not to address these arguments, but rather to actually look at the materials and give them a proper classification, because once we can strip away all the hooplah and actually look at something for what it is, then we can make an informed decision on the morality of indulging in the materials.  again, it is not my motive to condemn anyone for any behaviour, but to simply speak the truth, and then allow persons who enjoy such materials to make their own decisions. 

the first item up for discussion is the latest craze among women entitled, say it with me, "fifty shades of grey".  now, i have not read the book personally, but i did see a rather disturbing youtube video of gilbert gottfried reading excerpts from it.  let me just say this, i was embarrassed at having seen the 20 seconds of the video i did, because i know the images that popped into my head, which with gilbert gottfried reading it, were rather horrifying!  now, there are those that would argue that they are reading the book for the story, which is always a perplexing argument to me.  if someone is reading it for the story, and the story is about sex, then what is the redeeming factor in that argument?  it goes along with the man who says, "i only read 'hustler' for the articles", when, if the pages the articles are in between are filled with sexual images, then likewise, where is the redeeming factor in that?  i postulate that the story is classified as pornography.  now, before anyone gets all bent out of shape, i ask you to refer to the above definition of pornography:  the depiction of erotic imagery (in pictures or in writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.  it is a well known psychological fact that women are not turned on by pictures to the extent that guys are, but more so by their imaginations based on emotions.  as a guy, i can honestly say that a romantic comedy does nothing to get me going, nor does reading erotic writing.  so it is clear that this book is targeted towards women (if it were for men, there would be pictures with the story underneath in captions!)  now, if it is targeted towards women, we have to ask what is the motivation of the author?  you can find articles that address the topics of s&m, as well as sexuality, that are designed to be informative, rather than gaining a sexual response from the reader.  the author clearly stated that the book was the author's own sexual fantasies written down in narrative format, to excite others.  so, the author admits that her work, by definition, is pornography.  next, is the responses by the readers.  one female critic is quoted as saying, "guys, buy this book for your wife, and you will not be disappointed", insinuating a sexual favor in return based on the wife's reaction to what she reads.  so women define it as pornography, by definition.  so, if it is pornography, as the evidence shows, then what makes it different from the erotic magazines, movies, and websites that men visit on a daily basis?  is there a double standard here? 

the next piece of entertainment (no pun intended) is a movie entitled "magic mike".  this movie is about, and this is no secret, male strippers.  the fact that it contains actors that are known for their looks further solidifies the appeal to women.  women who would never dream of darkening the door to an actual strip club are flocking in droves to see this movie.  again, based on the above definition, i postulate that this movie is also pornography.  it is designed to elicit a sexual response in women.  there was a movie along the same lines that came out a few years ago with elizabeth berkley, of "saved by the bell" fame, entitled "showgirls".  i always thought it ironic that berkley went from playing a girl who fought against the objectifying of women, to playing a role that objectified women, but i digress.  any male who went and saw that movie in the theaters, was classified by women as perverted.  i know, because in college i witnessed the treatment of guys who went to see it by girls that were their friends.  they were classified as perverts.  now, again i ask, is there a double standard here?  women are going to the movie, objectifying the men in a sexual way, and getting aroused by the images on the screen.  as one facebook picture posted by a female said, "i don't know what happened in that movie theater, but i think i'm having channing tatum's baby!" 

now, as said before, erotic fiction geared towards females has been nothing new, it has just been thrust into the limelight.  harlequin romance novels have been around for decades, and all are designed to elicit a sexual response based upon the imagination created by the emotions within the novels.  however, it has always been acceptable for women to read these, yet reprehensible for men to read "playboy" or any of the other erotica that is out there. 

based on the above items fitting the definition of pornography, should someone who calls themselves a follower of CHRIST partake in this sort of entertainment?  or does Jesus' admonition about a man "looking upon a woman with lust in her heart" only apply to males?  should a man lower his standards as the spiritual leader of his home and buy these materials for his wife in hopes of sexual repayment in return?  or, should our sexual desire be excited by, and only be for, our spouses?  when counseling a married couple, sometimes the excuse is, "the excitement is gone out of the marriage bed, so i (we) use erotic materials to excite us".  my response is, if the excitement is gone, then you must be doing something wrong!  and, if it takes another person to get you sexually aroused, then are you not lusting after that person when engaged in sexual relations with your spouse?  if so, how is that not adultery, based on Jesus' definition? 

like i said before, the purpose of this article is not to condemn anyone for watching or reading these forms of entertainment, but to strip them down (again, no pun intended) and pull the curtain back to see what they actually are, and then for people to make their own decisions.  one of satan's primary tools, as the father of lies, is deception.  if he can wrap up a hook in some harmless looking bait, then the undiscerning will take it.  there are millions of males whose lives and homes are wrecked each year because of the detrimental effects of pornography, and now it seems that satan has his sights set on the females.  "be vigilant and watchful, for your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour!"