ChristiaNet.com readers are horny smut lovers!
As part of Internal Monologue's puritanical hypocricy watch, I feel I must pass along this tidbit from ChristiaNet.com. They claim to be "the world's most visited Christian website" (it looks like a bunch of ad links to me), and recently they did a survey of their readers. Here are the results (HT: Direland):
I find this line in the press release rather telling:
Christians (and other puritcans) seem shocked, shocked, to discover sexual urges within themselves and each other. This is because they have a fundamentally pathological model of sexuality: It's like alchoholism or heroin addiction to them; it's a sad affliction that strikes an unfortunate few, and it must be stamped out and prevented from spreading. I've espoused this theory before (here and here).
To anyone who has a reality-based view of where humans come from and the forces that shaped our development, such a twisted model of sexuality seems absurd. Of course we're sexual and have "problems with lust", we're built that way for a very good reason: those of us who weren't tended to have fewer babies in the ancestral condition. Now of course that doesn't mean we have to act like we did back then, or that all restrictions on sexual expression are bad. I don't want to fall into some naturalistic "sex is all good" fallacy. But it is stunning to me that people can still be so surprised to find sexual urges in "good" peopole. That is the notion I'm attempting to destroy. People should assume "problems with lust" are the norm, and find their absence pathological (and a good indicator of the need for pastoral counseling), rather than the other way around. Until people start thinging that way, puritanical hypocricy watch will be a regular feature on this blog.
"The poll results indicate that 50% of all Christian men and 20% of all Christian women are addicted to pornography," said Clay Jones, founder and President of Second Glance Ministries whose ministry objectives include providing people with information which will enable them to fully understand the impact of today's societal issues. 60% of the women who answered the survey admitted to having significant struggles with lust; 40% admitted to being involved in sexual sin in the past year; and 20% of the church-going female participants struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis.Ha ha ha ha. Now there are huge chunks of salt to consider here: this was an online survey, so maybe only online Christians like Inernet porn so much. And maybe it's just an alarmist screed designed to generate money or votes or feelings of guilt or calls for censorship. And goodness knows what they consider to be "addiction", "pornography", and "sexual sin". It doesn't sound like their survey methodology was all that rigorous.
I find this line in the press release rather telling:
If there could be one place protected from the cancerous infection of pornography and sexual misconducts, one would assume that the Christian church would be that sanctuary.Um, why would anyone assume that? Are Christians castrated? Do Christian churches exude libido-inhibiting pheremones? When you become a member of a Christian church, does the committe for decency install nanny-ware on your computer? No? So why should Christians be any different than other people on this matter? Is there any evidence or data to support this assumption that Christians wouldn't be into porn? Oh, I guess it's because of the moral teachings of Christianity. It's because when you let Jesus into your heart, you're supposed to be cured of the Satanic taint of lust. This species of naivete galls me to no end.
Christians (and other puritcans) seem shocked, shocked, to discover sexual urges within themselves and each other. This is because they have a fundamentally pathological model of sexuality: It's like alchoholism or heroin addiction to them; it's a sad affliction that strikes an unfortunate few, and it must be stamped out and prevented from spreading. I've espoused this theory before (here and here).
To anyone who has a reality-based view of where humans come from and the forces that shaped our development, such a twisted model of sexuality seems absurd. Of course we're sexual and have "problems with lust", we're built that way for a very good reason: those of us who weren't tended to have fewer babies in the ancestral condition. Now of course that doesn't mean we have to act like we did back then, or that all restrictions on sexual expression are bad. I don't want to fall into some naturalistic "sex is all good" fallacy. But it is stunning to me that people can still be so surprised to find sexual urges in "good" peopole. That is the notion I'm attempting to destroy. People should assume "problems with lust" are the norm, and find their absence pathological (and a good indicator of the need for pastoral counseling), rather than the other way around. Until people start thinging that way, puritanical hypocricy watch will be a regular feature on this blog.
Comments
Maybe you should try reading the Songs of Solomon in the Bible some day and you would see there is nothing wrong with sexuality, it is the lack of respect that we have for ourselves and each other these days. Gee I think STD's and youth pregnancy has gone down over that last 50 years. NOT!!! So please understand what Christian views are before you try labling hypocrisy on everything.