Catholics, porn, and the meaning of condoms

Here's my second post of the day on Catholics, culture, and sexuality.

One conservative Christian magazine that I haven't mentioned recently is Touchstone. The politics are execrable but the writing is clever, and so I read it fairly regularly. The editors also have a blog, called Mere Comments, and this entry caught my eye. Entitled "The Pornographer's Insight", it was posted in response to this New York Times article on the attempt by Los Angeles-area state legislator Paul Koretz to pass legislation mandating the use of condoms in porn films. (This all goes back to the Lara Roxx story from the spring.) Not surprisingly, Koretz is running into heavy opposition from the adult entertainment industry.

The Touchstone editors write:

The people who consume such material (pornography) don’t want the actors to wear condoms, because, judging from what the story says, they want what they see to be real and they want it to appear spontaneous, natural, and passionate, indeed overwhelming. And in a world where such people as the actors portray may be carrying a virus that will kill their partner, completely trusting.

They want to see two people (all right, in the best cases, just two) give themselves to each other without hesitation or reserve. If all they wanted to see two (or more) people engaged in a variety of sexual acts with each other, why would they object to condoms?

Because at some level they want, I think, to see on the screen what in the real world will only happen securely and completely within marriage. The movies themselves will, of course, show people doing so outside marriage and indeed outside any commitment at all, but even a libertine will admit that people rarely achieve this kind of free sexuality in his world.

Huh? Who knew that the consumers of pornography were so eager to see relationships that are "completely trusting" portrayed on the screen? (And newsflash to Touchstone: there are married couples in America that use condoms as a method of contraception. Some of those couples are Catholics. End newsflash).

It's funny, but I have a very different intuition about why those who consume pornography don't want to see condoms. (And I think my angle is closer to the view of the Times story, to boot.) To a Catholic conservative who opposes artificial birth control, a condom symbolizes a lack of commitment. To more liberal folks, condoms symbolize the exact opposite. For those of us raised in a secular culture, condoms symbolize health; they symbolize caring for one's own body and that of one's partner; above all, condoms symbolize the recognition of the very real consequences of sexual intercourse. In a more progressive culture, to use a condom is to declare that pleasure and obligation are concomitant. For sexually active unmarried teens and adults who do not wish to make babies, the willingness to use a condom (particularly on the part of a man) is evidence of maturity, not irresponsibility!

Condoms remind us that sex has consequences. Porn is about fantasy and the flight from reality. It is about the self and the self alone. The consumers of porn don't want to see condoms, not because they want to imagine that the couples on the screen are giving themselves fully to each other, but because, I suspect, the last thing they want is the very real reminder that sex is about more than pleasure.

Then again, I don't imagine that the good editors of Touchstone have much occasion to reflect on either condoms or pornography.

Comments

[John]

I'm uncomfortable with condoms in general-They give a false sense of security for a start, and a false sense of responsibility. It's a little like a man saying, after he gets a woman pregnant: "But I paid for the abortion". It's an anaesthetic which gives the illusion of responsibility (without the substance) and an excuse to avoid thinking about the real harm which promiscuity and pre-marital sex can do. And I do agree with them that the attraction of porn is the illusion that it is spontaneous and natural-You have written yourself about that.

[Camassia]

I think what they're getting at is that people in porn movies seem to have sex without fear, hesitation or hedging. (At least, unless we're talking about violent porn, which apparently we aren't.) In real life, you don't feel that uninhibited around somebody unless you know and trust them (or are under the influence of something), so the fantasy is that you get the thrill of that kind of openness without any of the worries. Condoms signal fear, and thus mess up the fantasy.

[Hugo]

I agree with elements of what you both are saying, but the overwhelming popularity of condoms as a method of artificial contraception suggests that they don't have a solely negative meaning. To put it academic language, condoms are "dual signifiers" to which we can ascribe a variety of meanings.

[David Morrison]

Hugo, you're comment seems to make the assumption that the mere popularity of artificial contraception makes it positive meaning. I would posit the popularity of condoms, or of any contraception, merely indicates the accuracy of W.C.Fields observation that there is "one born every minute."

[Hugo]

Here's where religious and secular language lead to some serious divides. Religious language presumes that any sexual relation outside of heterosexual marriage is defective, and whether it is "protected" or "unprotected" by a condom makes no difference. Sin is sin is sin is sin.

Secular language doesn't let the best be the enemy of the good. Even if we assume that the "best" is sex with the practice of Natural Family Planning by a husband and a wife who are open to children, surely even the most entrenched conservative would prefer that two fornicators use a condom rather than have unprotected sex that is likely to lead to transmission of STDs and/or an abortion...

Or am I forcing a choice on conservatives that they don't want forced?

[John]

Yep. The Rev. Mr. Barclay made this argument in "Ethics in a Permissive Society", and I agree with it in so far as if a couple were absolutely determined to fornicate, then giving them birth control would only be sensible. Take the lesser evil over the greater one, but both are evil. But I don't think that anyone is absolutely determined to fornicate, insofar as they have only shouted down their consciences for long enough to ignore them. I think the "People will do it anyway" argument is weak and irrelevant to whether something is moral or not-I have the same position when people use it to justify the legalisation of drugs, the lowering of the drinking age, and condom distribution in schools. Bad things happen "anyway" every single day. It doesn't mean we should like them, tolerate them or promote them. Likewise, behind the presumption that people will "have sex anyway" is usually a mind-set that says either self-control is impossible (Not true) or not having sex is repressive and abnormal (Also not true). It's a nasty secular mindset, and the more I hear it, the more prophetic "Humanae Vitae" seems to me-And I'm as Protestant as you can get.

[Hugo]

Perhaps it's my defective theology again, John, but I don't see it as starkly as you do.

Theological faithfulness, to me, has always been like the game of horseshoes. Ideally, you want to hit a "ringer" every time. But if you can't do that, you score points by being close. It is closer to the mark to have protected fornication than unprotected fornication. From a traditional perspective, all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is defective -- but surely, surely, there are degrees of defectiveness.

I think we're more in agreement here than not.

[mythago]

I honestly think it's simpler than that.

1. Porn is overwhelmingly consumed by men.

2. Men don't like condoms because they reduce the physical sensations of sex.

3. Therefore, they do not want to see anyting that suggests the sex they are watching is other than 100% perfect, wonderful, and mind-blowing.

I'd also note that there is no scientific, unbiased survey showing porn viewers will stop buying anything that includes condoms. It sounds more like the producer in question simply doesn't want to deal with it because *he* doesn't like condoms.

The really sad part is that a law would obviate the problem. Nobody wants to be the first, so to speak, but a law would require everyone to use condoms--and then people buying/renting pornography will have no choice but to deal.

They give a false sense of security for a start, and a false sense of responsibility.

Isn't that like saying seatbelts are a bad idea because they'll just encourage people to drive recklessly?

[uscvtkl]

eKfTp0 xhqmbciagybz, [url=http://rgrwltvxbnwf.com/]rgrwltvxbnwf[/url], [link=http://udbiavulwgka.com/]udbiavulwgka[/link], http://deooszfradfk.com/