Well, we are coming up on “Pornography Week” at thousands of churches across the nation … and if that doesn’t weird you out, nothing will.

Our church is joining the discussion, and will discuss the increasingly prevalent issue of pornography this weekend. The issue itself is as old as society, and efforts to stop it (and, I suppose, efforts to keep it) are nothing new. It does seem, however, that shifts in the cultural landscape (fuelled, one could argue, by technological forces) have carried this debate into more “living rooms” than ever before.

Two new books help fan the flames. Pornified : How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families (by Pamela Paul) uses primarily anecdotal research in an attempt to blast some of the ways we “excuse” pornography. As an example, one reviewer at Amazon writes:

“Saying that porn is an inevitable guy thing is like saying men truly believe they are helpless in the face of pornifed images, have no say in their fantasies or in what turns them on, that porn is the only way they know how to deal with repression and silence about sex, that what they learned at age 13 is good enough for the rest of their lives, or that they are incapable of distinguishing between the ‘forbidden’ and their own internal standards.”

The other title Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (by Ariel Levy) takes what I view to be a more interesting look at the issue, arguing that we have re-defined our culutral language, where a term such as “sexy” is “defined by a pervasive raunch culture wherein women make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.” (Publishers Weekly) She contends that this mechanical, forced sexuality – which suddenly seems so ubiquitous – really isn’t very sexy or empowering.

An insightful debate on these two titles can be read over at the “Book Club” at SLATE (yes, I know). Three contemporary feminist commentators discuss the implications and conclusions of these books, along with the cultural presence of porn. One comment from this debate that gets at what is – for me – the most interesting (and important?) facet of the issue:

“What I was struck by in each (book) was how difficult it was for the authors—for all of us—to get past their (or our) own assumptions about porn and sex. There are many truly intricate issues in play: not only the usual debates about the role of biology and culture, but questions about just what it is we think porn is, and what role we want sex to play in our lives.”

There’s the rub! (pun intended)

“What it is we think porn is.” Such a fundamental question, and yet one which is often glossed-over in the rush to get to the debates about moral decay (if you’re anti-) or free speech (if you’re pro-).

To start things off with a common example – is this pornography? Or what about this one, here? Does the fact that we have a renaissance nude hanging in our bedroom mean we are tumbling down the slippery slope toward addiction?

Of course, most people will either chuckle (or sigh exasperatedly) at the images there shown, and say “of course they’re not.” But as the logically competent and philosophically astute among you will realize, this implies that somewhere there is “a line”. On one side is porn, and on the other art. Or, if you are perhaps more realistic, there is a continuum … at one end is art … perhaps progressing into what one may term “erotica” … and ending up at hardcore porn at the opposite end.

But as a society – as advocates of faith, for those to whom it applies – how do we address that continuum? (Or where do we draw the line?) Many of the modern feminist (and “post-feminist”) proponents would advocate a pretty liberal view, so long as women are the ones calling the shots. (pun intended) The gals over at CAKE definitely support the idea that as long as the issue of “control” is shifted into the hands of the women being depicted, that the primary difficulty with pornography has been solved. (And, from a purely secular standpoint, there may be a strong case for this view.)

Let me change gears, here.

I think – as Meghan O’Rourke hinted in the SLATE debate – there are “truly intricate” influencing factors, here. This entire discussion is so far from cut-and-dried as to almost provide limitless opportunity for dialogue. Case in point: I ran across an essay written from the perspective of linguistics. The primary goal was to consider the cultural metaphors which help to define pornography.

Yes, it’s a bit high-brow, but raises some thought-provoking questions. From the essay: “Pornography is in fact a complex and fuzzy category, involving prototype effects and implicit value judgements.” The author contends some of the terms used are cultural constructs, and probabaly less specific than they appear. As an example, comparing the terms “pornography” with “erotica” where he suggests “the difference between the two terms, apart from the moral/aesthetic judgement, largely rests on the intention of the person doing the making.”

This touches upon one of my FAVORITE “pet subjects” (when discussing art). The relationship between “intent” and “content”. In my opinion, it is the balance of these two forces which ultimately determines not only the quality of the statement, but whether or not a work can be said to be “ART” in the first place. Curious, indeed, how this very discussion seems to have a direct bearing on the issues of pornography, sexuality, morality, and culture.

Well … I certainly didn’t expect to go much of anywhere with this little rant. As I said, it’s complex enough for many long discussions! I suppose, at this stage, I am in a place where I want to challenge assumptions and boldly (foolishly?) dive into the trickiest of subjects.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!