Introduction
Before we discuss the moral arguments that have been made against Christians engaging in the use of porn, I want to make it clear what kind of arguments I am debunking.
I am NOT taking the position that it is OK for Christians to look at all forms of porn.
The position I am defending is that it is not wrong for us as Christians to enjoy imaginations of heterosexual sex whether simply in our minds or enjoying paintings, sculptures, still images or moving pictures(movies) of heterosexual sex. My position is that God has designed us as human beings, and especially as men, to enjoy thoughts and images of the opposite sex and heterosexual scenarios.
So what I am essentially arguing against is the popular Christian position that it is morally wrong for a Christian to enjoy any type of porn, even just nude images of the opposite sex or men and women engaging in normal heterosexual sex.
And with that said as in introduction I will now debunk 10 common Christian arguments against the use of any kind of porn by Christians.
10 Common Christian Arguments Against Any Porn Use
Argument #1 Porn is wrong because men are to only take sexual pleasure from their wives
“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?”
Proverbs 5:15-20 (KJV)
The argument that some try to make from passages like this is that God requires that a man receives all his sexual pleasure both physical and imaginary from his wife and her alone. That means not only is she to be the only woman he has physical relations with, but also, he is only to be turned on by her form. He is only to have sexual dreams or thoughts about her. All of his sexual energy is to be focused on her.
Now one can imagine how such a philosophy sounds great to women because most women desire these things from their husbands. Most women want to be the center of their husband’s universe in the same way that children often desire to be the center of their parent’s universe.
But this is not what this passage is saying. It is referring to a man having sexual relations outside of marriage. One of the many purposes for which God designed marriage was for the protection of men, women and children. Keeping sexual relations within marriage protects women from men simply taking advantage of them and then leaving them with an illegitimate child to support. Keeping sexual relations within marriage also protects men from the jealousies of other women’s husbands. If a man has sex with another man’s wife, he is literally taking his own life in his hands.
This what this passage is addressing. Men should not be running around having sex with women they are not married to and potentially producing bastard children who run the streets with no father to guide them, protect them and teach them.
But this passage does not restrict men from deriving sexual pleasure from any woman other than a woman they are married to. It restricts men from having sexual relations with women they are married to and there is a big difference.
In fact, just think of the absurdity of such a position that men may only derive sexual pleasure from viewing women they are married to. What normal red-blooded man did not have sexual thoughts about his wife when she was his girlfriend and then fiancé before they were married? If he did not, I submit to you that he was either asexual or homosexual. But some Christians actually take the position that premarital sexual arousal and sexual thoughts (as opposed to premarital sexual relations) are a result of a corruption of the sexual nature from the fall. They actually believe that God originally designed us with a sort of switch that would only turn on our sexual attraction to our spouse AFTER we were married and then we would only have sexual thoughts of them.
In summary, the answer to this first argument is that the Bible does not call on people (either men or women) to suppress their sexuality until they are married. Instead they are called to channel their sexuality and experience it within the bounds of God’s law. That means no sexual relations (be they physical or virtual) between them and another person before marriage. It does NOT mean no sexual arousal, no sexual thoughts and no masturbation before marriage as is so often falsely taught in Christian circles.
Argument #2 – The Bible says Christians are not to be involved with porn based on the word “porneia” in the Bible.
“Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication [Porneia], but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.”
I Corinthians 6:13 (KJV)
The Bible condemns Christians being involved in “Porneia” which is the root of our English word “porn” therefore Christians should not be involved in the production of or use of pornography – or so we are told by opponents of porn.
The Greek word porneia originally referred to people using prostitutes but by the time of Christ and his Apostles the meaning of that word had expanded to include all forms of sexually immoral behavior including incest, homosexuality, orgies, adultery and bestiality. The writer of Hebrews tells us that all sexual relations outside the marriage bed where considered sexually immoral activities:
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)
Hebrews 13:4 also shows us that even consensual monogamous sex between a single man and single woman outside of marriage is a sin. Only sexual relations between a man and woman within the bounds of marriage is honored by God and every form of sexual relations outside these bounds are a sin against God.
The Bible condemns sexual denial in I Corinthians 7:5 and Exodus 21:10-11 making denial another form of sexual immorality or porneia.
But here is the problem with including the production of or use of pornographic materials as a form of porneia. Unlike other sexual sins like incest, homosexuality, orgies, adultery and bestiality, premarital sex or sexual denial in marriage – the Bible never condemns the production of or enjoyment of sexually related imagery.
If it could be proven by other words in the Bible that the production of or enjoyment of sexually arousing imagery by believers was wrong behavior then it could be considered porneia but that simply is not the case.
Argument #3 Christ and his Apostles would have disapproved of porn if they had it back then
Some might say “well of course the Bible does not address porn because they did not have porn back then but they would have condemned it if they had it”. But the historical fact is that porn existed during the time of Christ and his Apostles in the form of nude statues, explicit sexual wall murals and tablets. Many oil lamps which adorned average Roman homes have been discovered with various sexual poses sculpted on them (some of them are feature here in this article). In fact, these types of erotic images existed thousands of years before Christ going back to the time of Moses.
The tablet above was just one of many ancient Mesopotamian small tablet pieces of erotica found and put on exhibit at Israel Museum’s archaeology wing. It is more than 4000 years old.
Not only does the Bible not condemn the production of erotic imagery, it actually uses erotic imagery through word pictures in the Song of Solomon. I invite any reader of the Bible to look up word symbols being used in the Song of Solomon for sexual activities – it will make you blush.
Some have raised the question as to why erotic art seems to missing in ancient Israelite and Jewish culture. Was it because they had a specific prohibition against making erotic imagery? The answer is no.
Their prohibition was against making ANY visual art at all.
The Ancient Jewish Rabbinical authorities interpreted the following passage as a prohibition on all forms of visual art:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Exodus 20:4 (KJV)
What they failed to see is that God was forbidding them from making art for the purpose of using that art as idols to worship. This is shown in the following passage from Leviticus:
“Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.”
Leviticus 26:1 (KJV)
It is extremely sad from a cultural and historical perspective that the Jewish authorities so badly misinterpreted God’s law in the area of making art. Imagine the great artistic talent in Israel that was simply wasted for centuries.
Argument #4 Porn is wrong because it causes people to lust
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)
“Porn is wrong because it causes people to lust and Matthew 5:28 says we should not lust” – this probably one of most common arguments that Christian teachers employ against the use of pornography. The problem with this argument is it rests on a false understanding of lust from a Biblical perspective. Most Christians (and even non-Christians) believe that lust means “to become sexually aroused looking at someone” but this is not the Biblical meaning of the term. The Apostle Paul tells us what lust is in his epistle to the Romans:
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”
Romans 7:7 (KJV)
According to Romans 7:7, lust is covetousness. Covetousness in the Bible is a “thought” sin which proceeds many other “action” sins like theft, murder, adultery and fornication.
Before a man ever steals another man’s car, he had the covetous desire to unlawfully possess his car.
Before a man ever kills a man for his position or power, he had the covetous desire to unlawfully possess that man’s position or power.
Before a man ever has sex with another man’s wife, he had the covetous desire to unlawfully possess that man’s wife.
So, does pornographic imagery cause sexual arousal in the same way we get hungry when we see a picture of our favorite foods? Of course, it does. But sexual arousal is NOT synonymous with lust Biblically speaking. Using the food analogy – if I am aroused by the site of food and I even imagine how good that food would be to eat that is not then same as me desiring to go and steal that food.
Am I saying that it is impossible to cause someone to lust sexually speaking? No. Let me illustrate with two examples.
Let’s say I go to a restaurant and there is a beautiful waitress serving me my food. Just because she is not wearing a bed-sheet over her entire body (as some Muslims and other religions advocate women do so men will not lust) does not mean she is trying to cause me to lust. Even if her outfit shows some cleavage that does not mean she is trying to cause me to lust. She may believe that by showing a little cleavage she will cause some arousal in me and get a bigger tip but that is not causing me to lust, that is causing me to be aroused and there is a difference.
Now let’s take that same waitress and instead of her acting in a normal manner she begins to talk sexually to me and bend over sexy in front of me or press her cleavage together in front of me – now we have moved from mere sexual arousal to someone trying to invite lust. And this is not just inviting lust anymore – it really is a form of sexual relations even if they are only virtual and not physical and this is restricted by God to marriage.
But the mere act of a woman, or a married couple photographing themselves nude or having sex and distributing that image via a website or other publication is not synonymous with a person trying to cause others to lust. Now could the distribution of an image be done with the intent of causing another to lust? Absolutely. But it truly does come down to the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Argument #5 Porn is wrong because we are enjoying other people’s sin
“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;”
Ephesians 5:3 (KJV)
The last phrase “let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints” means that the unsaved world should never think that we as saints would engage in fornication, uncleanness or covetousness. It has nothing to do with what we read or watch. In other words, we are not forbidden from reading a story or watching a movie that has people fornicating or doing other sinful activities like murder or theft. If we were forbidden from watching or reading stories that had people sinning in them then we could not read the Bible because it has stories of people doing all these sinful things.
When I was growing up in strict Baptist churches this passage from Ephesians was mishandled badly in this way telling Christians they could not watch a movie or TV show if it had one swear word, one act of a couple even having simulated sex outside marriage, murder or theft. Basically, by their standards you should not watch TV or movies because they contain people committing sinful activities.
However not one Scripture passage including this one from Ephesians 5:3 tells us that we cannot watch a movie or read a story that has people sinning it. We are surrounded by sin because of the world we live in. The point is – we should not be engaging in these sins, not that anything we read or watch cannot have any one committing sin in it.
Having said that, the Bible is clear that we are not to take pleasure in watching other’s sin.
“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
Romans 1:32 (KJV)
So how does this relate to pornography? If we look at and enjoy an image that has been created of a man and woman having sex and if the couple who were photographed were not married are we not taking pleasure in other’s sin?
Before we answer this question, we need to talk about what porn actually is and how it is produced.
There are really several ways porn is produced. Sometimes a woman just takes nude selfies with her cell phone and uploads it to a website. Perhaps a married couple will photograph themselves having sex and upload this to a website. In these first instances there are Christians that would agree neither of these two things are sinful or wrong in and of themselves.
But what about unmarried couples producing images of themselves having sex and then posting those images online? Or to further this point what about the professional porn industry that pays people to have sex so they can capture those images and distribute them through various media?
If a Christian were to enjoy watching one of these movies or looking at a still image of one of these unmarried couples having sexual relations are, they not doing what God clearing condemns and taking pleasure in people sinning together?
I submit to you that the answer to this question is NO. Let’s go back to Biblical times for why this would not be wrong.
Let’s say we have an artist in the city of Corinth, which was a city that the Apostle Paul founded a church in. This artist is not a Christian. He likes to create erotic works of art for people. He gets his inspiration from going down to the brothel district where a lot of sexual activity takes place on a regular basis. He sometimes can see in the windows of various houses as couples are engaging in illicit sexual activity.
The artist takes a flat piece of smooth stone and paints a beautiful image of a man having sex with a woman. When he is finished, he ads this piece to his collection which he sells in the market place. If you were to come by and buy this erotic image, he has produced would it make any difference what the inspiration for that piece was? Whether he was inspired by watching a married couple have sex through their window or a prostitute having sex with a man not her husband is the image of sex between a man and woman itself sinful? I would argue the answer is no.
The reason is because you would not be taking pleasure in others acting sinfully, but rather you would be taking pleasure in an image of sex which we are designed by God to be aroused by and enjoy.
Let’s compare this to food. If you were to see an image of one your favorite plates of food would it be sinful to enjoy the image of that food if the ingredients to make that food in the image were stolen? Of course not. And if the image of that dish made you want to go out and buy the ingredients to make that dish for yourself you would not be condoning the theft of materials to make that image of that dish that aroused your hunger.
The problem we are talking about is called “guilt by association” or “source criticism” which many Christians and even non-Christians engage in. When I was growing up in Baptist churches they often taught us this method to declare that many things were sinful to enjoy.
We could not enjoy a certain song not because the song itself was bad, but because the person who made that song made other bad songs or they lived an immoral life and we should not support their work.
We were told we should not go to movie theaters even if we were going to see a “good” movie because we would be supporting the same movie companies that made bad movies.
If you really want to play the “if I disagree with the way something was produced” game and not buy or use those products check out this government website that shows all kinds of products from coffee, to toys and clothing that were made with forced or child labor.
https://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods/
The fact is those who oppose the use of porn use arguments against porn that they would not apply to their favorite coffee or clothing item they like to buy. But no one bothers to substitute “coffee” for “porn” because then it would reveal the absurdity of their arguments.
The Apostle Paul told Christians how to handle a situation where you go to the market to buy something and you are worried about its source:
“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake”
I Corinthians 10:25 (KJV)
In this example Paul was talking about Christians worrying that the meat they were buying in the market had been sacrificed to idols before it was sold to them. He told them not to worry about the source and that it was simply meat.
In the same way it would be irrelevant for a man when he was buying that erotic sculpture to grill the artist as to his inspiration.
Would he prefer that the artist’s inspiration was not from watching a prostitute with a man? Of course. Would the man buying meat in the market prefer that the meat had not been sacrificed to an idol? Of course.
And now bringing this full circle back to this modern topic of the use pornography by Christians. Would we prefer that all images of men and women having sex were inspired by (photographs of) married couples? Of course, we would. But once the image is made, it is simply that – an image. Just as meat was just meat.
So I submit to you that when we as human beings (men or women) take pleasure in a photograph or movie of a man and woman engaged in normal sexual relations whether the couple that was the inspiration for these images was married or not we are not taking pleasure in sin – in either case we taking pleasure in the image of something God designed us to take pleasure from and that is the act of sexual relations between a man and a woman.
A follow up question that may be asked in light of what I just said is “Well if it is not sinful to look at an image that was “inspired” by a man and woman fornicating, then why would it be wrong to watch the same couple fornicating live in front of you?” Well if you were thinking this question that is a great question.
The difference between the two is that one is an arrangement of ink on a piece of paper, or pixels on a screen. It is not two actual people having sex in front of you. If you were to sit down in a room and watch a live man and woman who were unmarried have sex in front of you then you would be sinning on two fronts. First you would be sinning by enjoying not an image of sex but rather two real live people committing fornication in your presence. Secondly you would be sinning by the fact that even if you did not touch that woman who was having sex with another man, if you were making eye contact with her and interacting with her in other ways(like masturbating as you watched her) you are having a form of virtual sexual relations with her and that would be sin as well.
One other question that you may be thinking is “Well if this is the case then do you think all types of pornography are ok for a Christian to enjoy?” and the answer to that question would be NO. Any sexual imagination whether it be just in our heads, or whether it is on a paper or on a screen should be measured by the knowledge of God’s design of sex. If it does not fit with God’s design of sex, then we should not be dwelling on or enjoying such imaginations.
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”
II Corinthians 10:5 (KJV)
This means as Christians we should not be taking pleasure in or enjoyment from thoughts or images of homosexual acts, acts of incest, orgies, bestiality or rape images as God did not design us to enjoy such imaginations. If we do enjoy these types of imaginations, it is only because of the corruption of our God given sexual hunger and desire.
So, to sum up what I have just answered in this argument – when we enjoy an image of a man and a woman having sex the inspiration for that image whether it is a painting, a drawing, a photograph or a movie is irrelevant. It is the content that matters. If it is normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman that God has designed us as human beings to take pleasure in imagining, then there is no sin. It is only when we take pleasure in imaginations that go against the knowledge of God’s design of sex that we are sinning in enjoying such images.
Argument #6 Porn sexually objectifies women and therefore it is wrong
Now this argument that “porn is wrong because it sexually objectifies women” is one that even non-Christians use to argue against the production and use of pornographic imagery.
The fact is that not just in this area of sex, but in all areas when it comes to dealing with people men more naturally objectify people and women more naturally humanize people.
Most men see people first and foremost for their functional abilities and then only secondarily for their persons. When a man hires someone for a job it is because he sees in him the functional ability to do that job. What that perspective employee does outside that job is irrelevant to that man. Whether he has a family or not is irrelevant. The question is can this man fulfill the desired function?
This is why male managers typically are much better at firing incompetent employees than female managers.
In the military when a commander sends his men on a mission it is their function and capability that is his primary concern. The personal lives of his soldiers are of secondary concern. This is why men make better military leaders than women do in most cases.
Even in the political arena men are far better at objectifying people when they need to. Take for instance if a disease broke out in a small town in the middle of nowhere. The leader is given the information that if this disease gets out it could kill millions across his country. In this case he cannot humanize those people in that small town, but rather he must look at them as objects carrying disease that must be wiped out to save the rest of the country and he must take action to wipe out these disease carrying objects(people) before they can spread the disease.
In the same way men more easily sexually objectify women then women do men. It is because men naturally look at people for their functions and attributes first, and then their person second. So if a man sees a beautiful young woman he sees her for her sexual function first, then her person second.
But both men and women do objectify people in other ways.
Many of us have actors or actresses that we think are good actors regardless of their physical appearance. Whenever that actor or actress has a movie come out, we want to see them in that movie to enjoy their acting. Does it matter to us how that actor lives in their personal life or what their political beliefs are? No, it does not. It is because we are objectifying them for their acting skills.
We do the same thing with athletes and musicians. Does the personal life of our favorite receiver in the NFL matter when he gets that touch down? Of course not. The pleasure we receive from watching him perform is no less because we are objectifying him for his athletic function. Do we get any less pleasure from our favorite musician’s song because of his political stances? Of course not. The pleasure we receive from hearing him sing is not affected by what he does in his personal life because we are objectifying him for his musical function.
The point is we all, both men and women objectify people in different ways. But it would be true to say that objectifying people for their various functions and attributes comes far more natural to men than it does to women especially in the area of sexuality.
And I would argue that man’s more natural ability to objectify people for their functions and attributes is by the design of God. It is what makes men better than women in the world of politics, business and science in many cases.
Argument #7 Porn causes men to become sex addicts
Now this is where we get into the oppositions to porn based on so-called scientific evidence that porn corrupts a man’s brain regarding sex and causes him to desire more and more corrupt forms of sex to feed his “addiction”.
Since we are now getting into the technical areas, I will let some experts speak for themselves.
What follows are excerpts from an article entitled “Porn is not the problem – You are” by clinical psychologist David J Ley Ph.D.:
“Porn is not addictive. Sex is not addictive. The ideas of porn and sex addiction are pop psychology concepts that seem to make sense, but have no legitimate scientific basis. For decades, these concepts have flourished in America, but have consistently been rejected by medicine and mental health. The media and American society have accepted that sex and porn are addictive, because it seems intuitively true – we all feel like sometimes, we might do something stupid or self-destructive, when sex is involved. But, this false belief is dangerous, and ultimately not helpful. Because when people buy into the belief that porn is addictive, it changes the argument, and all of a sudden, it seems like it is porn and sex that are the problems. Porn addiction becomes a label, and seems to be an explanation, when in fact, it is just meaningless words and platitudes that distract from the real issue. But sex and porn aren’t the problems. You are.
…
It is getting increasingly difficult to find men in our society, who’ve never viewed pornography. But, if porn were the problem – if porn were addictive, then the problems of porn would be far, far greater than they are. In fact, in recent studies, fewer than 1% of people report that they have had problems in their life due to difficulties controlling their sexual behaviors, including watching porn. Now – higher numbers, around 10%, report “feeling” that their sexual desires are hard to control, but it is very different to feel something, versus ACTUALLY being out of control.
So – if you are one of that 1%, then what’s going on? If it isn’t the porn, then it must be you. Something about you (more than one thing, usually) has led you to be a person who makes bad decisions about sex. Now in that, you’re not alone – it is in fact a universal truth that people tend to make poorer decisions when they’re turned on, whether it’s choosing not to wear a condom, or choosing to masturbate to porn when you shouldn’t. Call it “sex-goggles,” and recognize that human sexual arousal affects our decision-making.”
Here are excerpts from another article entitled “Trust a Scientist: Sex Addiction is a Myth” by Jim PFaus who is a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Concordia University:
“Self-labeled sex addicts often speak about their identities very clinically, as if they’re paralyzed by a scientific condition that functions the same way as drug and alcohol addiction. But sex and porn “addiction” are NOT the same as alcoholism or a cocaine habit. In fact, hypersexuality and porn obsessions are not addictions at all. They’re not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and by definition, they don’t constitute what most researchers understand to be addiction.
Here’s why: addicts withdraw. When you lock a dope fiend in a room without any dope, the lack of drugs will cause an immediate physiological response — some of which is visible, some of which we can only track from within the body. During withdrawal, the brains of addicts create junctions between nerve cells containing the neurotransmitter GABA. This process more or less inhibits the brain systems usually excited by drug-related cues — something we never see in the brains of so-called sex and porn addicts.
A sex addict without sex is much more like a teenager without their smartphone. Imagine a kid playing Angry Birds. He seems obsessed, but once the game is off and it’s time for dinner, he unplugs. He might wish he was still playing, but he doesn’t get the shakes at the dinner table. There’s nothing going on in his brain that creates an uncontrollable imbalance.
…
Such porn-shaming isn’t all that different from the guilt conservatives attach to sex, even though conditioning men to feel bad about their sexual behaviors only leads to the kind of secretive, damaging behaviors evidenced in the Duggar story. What’s worse: when sexuality is labeled a “disease” like addiction, guys no longer have to own their sexuality — or their actions. It’s unnecessary to explain why they cheated because it’s beyond their control. And so, the “addict” stigma is preferable because it’s one they can check into rehab and recover from. Being considered an “adulterer,” on the other hand, is harder to shake.”
The point that both of these men are trying to make is – there is a difference between compulsive behavior, bad decisions and addictions. Men can make bad decisions about engaging in sexually pleasurable things in the same way they make bad decisions about a variety of things that may or may not be wrong in and of themselves.
Applying the addiction model to male sexuality and porn does several wrong things.
It makes men, especially men with very high sex drives, to feel that there is something wrong with them when there is not. By comparing porn to drugs like cocaine they imply there is no way to responsibly use porn and that all porn use will lead to compulsive and destructive behavior. Lastly in applying the addiction model to porn they are absolving men of the responsibility for their actions.
Argument #8 Porn makes men desire less sex with their wives
This argument basically goes like this – if a man watches porn his wife both in her body and in her sexual performance will never measure up to those women. Therefore, he will become less interested in actual sex with her and only want to watch porn.
I have had many women write me telling me of these kinds of stories – “My husband would rather watch porn than have sex with me”. Some women have gone months or years not having sex with their husbands and they sincerely believe that his porn viewing habits are to blame.
But I want to take you back to the fact that according to a Barna Group study 79% percent of men ages 18 to 30 watch porn at least one a month. 64% percent of all men (that includes men over 30) watch porn at least once a month. So, if porn caused men to desire their wives less, we would be seeing an epidemic of men not wanting to have sex with their wives due to their viewing porn. But the opposite is true. Today surveys show that most men want more sex than their wives are willing to give them, not less.
An article from WebMD.com entitled “Sex Drive: How Do Men and Women Compare?” states the following about how strong the male sex drive still is today compare to that of women:
“Study after study shows that men’s sex drives are not only stronger than women’s , but much more straightforward….
In a survey of studies comparing male and female sex drives, Roy Baumeister, a social psychologist at Florida State University, found that men reported more spontaneous sexual arousal and had more frequent and varied fantasies…
“Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it,” Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and women”
No one wants to hear that the the situation they are in with their spouse is the rarity. But the truth is if a woman has a husband who would rather look at porn and masturbate than have sex with her this is not some epidemic problem that a huge chunk of women are facing in America. The truth is it is a small minority of women that face this situation with their husbands.
The reality is that for most men porn has no negative impact on their desire for their wives. The vast majority of men would much rather have sex with a real woman, especially a woman who cares for them, even if her body has more flaws or if she does not perform as well as porn-star in bed.
Again, I want you to think about this for a second. All of these anti-porn websites and studies that try and tell us how much damage porn is doing to marriages agree on one thing – the vast majority of men are looking at porn in some fashion whether daily or monthly. If their doom and gloom predictions about porn causing erectile dysfunction and men desiring to look at porn and not have sex with their wives was true, why are we not seeing this on a massive scale?
So how do we explain the men who would rather look at porn than have sex with their wives? The answer to that question is that it was not the porn that took away their desire but rather other psychological conditions that did this. The porn was simply a way to cope with their emotional and mental issues.
In some cases, it has nothing to do with a wife’s behavior. She could have been the perfect wife and always willingly giving herself to her husband sexually. She keeps up her figure and does the best she can in the bedroom. In these cases, the husband has brought with him some psychological baggage into the marriage that makes him have difficulty with intimacy. So the porn gives him a way to meet his sexual needs without having to be intimate with his wife. For other men they use porn as a type of psychiatric drug to deal with their depression instead of getting professional help. But in all these cases where the porn use has nothing to do with the wife’s behavior porn is still not the underlying cause of the problem, but rather it is a crutch that is being used to deal with other problems.
But then we have to face the fact that sometimes when a man would rather look at porn and masturbate than have sex with his wife it has everything to do with her. If a woman has stopped caring for her appearance, gains 150 lbs. and lays around in sweats all the time some men are going to lose their physical attraction to their wives. But maybe a wife has kept her figure but not long after marriage she became an un-submissive and contentious wife or perhaps, she has regularly sexually denied her husband and tried to control their sex life. All of these things that have nothing to do with a woman’s appearance can drastically decrease or altogether eliminate a man’s desire to have sex with his wife. So the reason he may be looking at porn to meet his sexual needs is because of his wife’s physical appearance or her treatment of him or his sexual needs.
Argument #9 The Bible’s condemnation of sensuality and uncleanliness condemns pornography
“18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.”
Ephesians 4:18-19 (KJV)
“Lasciviousness” is an old word for what we now call “sensuality”. It is very common because of the ignorance of word meanings today for people to believe being “sensual” is equivalent to being “sexual” and that is not true.
Lasciviousness or sensuality as we call it today referred to the overindulgence with or obsession with any kind of pleasure, not just sexual pleasure. If a person is obsessed with drinking or eating, they are engaging in sensual behavior just as person whose entire life focuses on sex is engaging in sensual behavior.
But just as eating or enjoying the sights, smells and taste of food is not sensual in and of itself, neither is a Christian enjoying and exercising their sexuality considered sensual in and of itself. We simply cannot make our enjoyment of our sexuality, or exercise of our sexuality the central focus of our life. Just as our hunger for and enjoyment of food must be kept in check, so too our hunger for and enjoyment of our sexuality must be kept in check.
So again, the Bible’s condemnation of lasciviousness or what we now call sensuality is not a specific condemnation of the production of or use of pornographic images.
I want to revisit a passage below which we already covered in a previous argument, but this time from a different angle.
“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;”
Ephesians 5:3 (KJV)
Those who argue against porn use will say that the Biblical condemnation of all three of these words -fornication, uncleanness, and covetousness categorically condemns porn use for Christians.
In previous arguments I have shown that the Bible’s condemnation of porneia is a condemnation of sexually immoral acts, not the enjoyment or making of sexual imagery. I also pointed out that even if sexual imagery is made using means that are unethical or immoral by Biblical standards, in the end an image is just that, an image.
I have also covered what lust and covetousness are in a previous argument as well. The Bible does not condemn desire itself. We desire food, drink and many other things in this life. What the Bible condemns is WRONG desire. As I mentioned in my previous argument, covetousness (which is lust) is the desire to unlawfully use or possess something or someone. Covetousness is a thought sin which proceeds immoral acts like theft or extra-marital sexual relations.
So now let’s apply covetousness to watching porn and masturbating. Does watching a woman alone or a man and woman having sex cause sexual arousal, or desire in a man? You bet it does. But remember the man was already desirous of sex before ever saw those images. He can construct those images all by himself in his head. The images simply enhance and heighten his desire and this bring him more pleasure than just constructing images in his head. And this heightened desire and arousal caused by the images which eventually lead the man to masturbate and have an orgasm.
But none of what I have just described matches the Biblical definition of lust which is covetousness. Only if the man saw the woman in the image, and then he began to entertain thoughts of looking up where she lived and finding her and enticing her into having sex with him outside of marriage would he be engaging in sinful lust and covetousness.
Then we come to the term “uncleanliness”. And many Christian teachers try and put any sexually related activity they find distasteful into that word. But we cannot do that. We can only call unclean what God has called unclean. And does God every say in the Bible that it is unclean to produce or enjoy erotic imagery? The answer is no.
Argument #10 Would you want your mother, sister or daughter doing porn?
Now this last argument is one that is often used if all arguments against the production of and use of porn fail. As Christian men none of us would want our mothers, sisters or daughters to work in the professional porn industry that has women having sex with men who are not their husbands as this behavior violates God’s law and design of sex first and foremost.
But let’s take sex outside of marriage out of the equation which we agree is wrong. What if your mother, sister or daughter were to take a nude selfie and post it on a website? What if your mother, sister or daughter were to submit a sexually explicit photo of them having sex with their husband which would be either your father, your brother-in-law or your son-in-law?
This is where most men get tripped up and it is actually one of the most popular reasons men try to quit looking at porn and condemn themselves for looking at porn outside of religious objections to porn.
The trick is if you answer “no” to your mother, sister or daughter allowing sexual images of themselves to be produced and distributed then why is it ok for you to derive sexual pleasure from looking at images of other people’s mother’s, sisters or daughters? If you answer “yes” that it would be ok for them to make and distribute these kinds of images then you sound like a pervert – because after all, what normal man would want to see sexually arousing images of his mother, his sister or his daughter?
So, at first this question looks like a no-win scenario. But this question can be answered in the same way that Jesus answered trick questions. In Matthew 22:15-21 the Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. If he answered yes, then he would appear to a friend of Caesar whom the people hated for oppressing them and if he answered no then he could be turned over to the Romans for rebellion against Caesar. He answered their question with a question and then gave them the answer. This is how we need to handle this question.
So, when someone asks if you would be ok with your mother, sister or daughter making erotic photos or movies you should ask them the following question:
“What was God’s primary purpose in creating woman?”
You may get a variety of answers including her being created to be a companion and helper for man and a mother. This is where you can take them to the following passage of the Scriptures:
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)
The answer to what was God’s primary purpose in creating woman was that he created her for man. That means the default way we should view all women is as female human beings that God made to serve and bring pleasure to male human beings.
When we look at our mothers we should see them first as our father’s wife, and secondly as our mother. When we look at our sisters we should see them first as future wives, and secondly as our sisters. And yes, even when we look at our daughters, we should see them first as future wives and only secondarily as our daughters. That does not sit well with the world, but that is God’s creation order.
With that that said, the Bible tells us one of the reasons for which he created woman for man in the following passage:
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
The scriptures above reveal to us that sex is “the natural use of the woman” by man. When women use their bodies for their own pleasure and for the pleasure of other women or engage in bestiality these are by definition unnatural uses of their bodies.
The modern narratives that “women were not made to be sex objects” and “we need to desexualize women” that are taught in Christian and non-Christian circles alike are directly contrary to the express teaching of the Word of God and God’s design of human sexuality.
It is true that God created women for more than just sexual pleasure for men. He created them to be companions for men, helpers for men, to bear and care for the children of men and to care for their homes. But this does not change the fact that one of the reasons God created woman for man was for his sexual use and pleasure. This truth is humbling for women and in most cases requires them to let go of all their pride, but it is the truth of God’s Word.
Now we need to apply this Biblical truth to our mothers, sisters and daughters. The truth is that just like for all other women, one of the purposes for which God created our mothers, sisters and daughters was for the sexual use and enjoyment of man.
We need to accept that our relationship as sons, brothers and fathers to these women is a unique, non-sexual male/female relationship. We don’t see them as sex objects, but every other man in the world does. And that needs to be ok with us.
So on a practical level this means us as men going against what our culture teaches us. Our culture teaches us as men that we should be grossed out by and condemn our mothers, sisters and daughters whenever they dress in anyway that is sexually appealing to men.
Think your mom, your sister and your daughter going to the beach in a bikini. We are conditioned to be grossed out by this. But we should not be. We should celebrate that our mothers, sisters and daughters bodies were made for the visual and physical sexual pleasure of men just like all other women’s bodies were.
And finally we need to apply this to porn. If your mom, your sister or your daughter wanted to make nude or sexually explicit images with her husband (who is the only man who has complete sexual authority over her body) then such actions are righteous before God. You don’t have to view the pictures or movies, but you also should not condemn them.
Porn To The Glory of God 