Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Sex for Girls‘ Sake: Porn, Art, or Both?

What's the difference between a show that graphically explores all forms of the sex act and a movie that does the same?

by
Susan L.M. Goldberg

Bio

July 7, 2013 - 7:00 am
Page 1 of 4  Next ->   View as Single Page

Big surprise, I think not: There’s a porn parody of Girls out there. The real question is: What’s the difference between a show that graphically explores all forms of the sex act and a movie that does the same?

Depending on who you’re talking to the distinction requires the presence of one of two things: the demand for critical thought, or the presence of a penis on camera, something that is apparently a “strongly held taboo” in TV land. According to the show’s creator, Lena Dunham,

…a big reason I engage in (simulated) onscreen sex is to counteract a skewed idea of that act created by the proliferation of porn.

This defense is enough for critics and viewers who believe that since Girls isn’t doing sex for sex’s-sake it can be called art. The real question is, in a postmodern environment that produces an academic journal devoted to Porn Studies, can the demand for critical thought truly demarcate the difference between pornography and art? For the consumer, is there really a meaningful difference between HBO and the Playboy Channel? When does art about sex become porn? How should biblical feminists deal with the challenge of pornography that claims it’s art?

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Can a Harlot see miracle and become a Virgin again? With man it is impossible but with God expect miracles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMxBpPcoWf0
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sex and the City for adolescents...
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
I find Susan Goldberg's Biblical view of sex to be inspiring and informative. However, there are some points that need more clarity, especially for a non-Jew. So I will simply start firing away.

1. You refer to marrigage as a "covenant" and such terminology strikes me, indeed, as Biblical. I would hope to learn more of what is meant. It certainly must mean more than a mere "contract" between two people for the "primary purpose of sex", a contract that can be dissolved by mutual consent. Or? In other words, what is the difference between a "covenant" marriage and merely contractual one?

2. You write that "the primary purpose of sex is pleasure ...". The "PRIMARY purpose"? What purpose do children within a familial context have to do with sex? Your words seem to have excluded (pro)creation of life as non-primary. You do note that this primary purpose is accompanied "with the added benefits that include children". ??? My humorous med. doctor suggested, I think, somewhat in jest, that a couple of hours of sex in the evening would be good for me because it has the "added benefits that include" regulating blood sugar in my diabetis infested body. (I asked for a perscription that the insurance company would pay for, but was refused.) So, blood sugar control is, indeed, a possible "added benefit" to the "primary purpose" of sexual "pleasure". And children, just added benefits? This confuses me. Why?

You seem intent (and rightly so) of sepearting female sexuality from the duties of a fertility goddess or, at least, I so read you. In doing so I have the impression that you have reduced children with the ensuant family life to a mere "added benefit". If a person has no diabetis, said person does not need the "added benefit" of the lowering of the sugar content of one's blood. If two people, convenantly bound, only want the "primary purpse" of sex, how should they view children, viz., procreation? In other words, what is bothering me here is your reference to procreation seemingly as a mere accidental benefit to Biblical or non-Biblical sex. If my qualms are justified, then I conclude that your view of sex would coincide with interests of many men who just want some good old-fashioned "pleasure" as an "added benefit" for the day and who care not a wit what power phantasies that haunt mindless secular feminists.

3. I would like to pursue the matter a bit further as you seem to contradict my interpretation with the statement that "sex is an act that creates life". I think that his is not fully accurate. Sex can create life or can lead to mere "pleasure" without creating life (if contraception is adequate). So, following the notion of "added benefits", sex that creates life is, well, just a benefit that the partners can choose, but is not part of the "primary purpose" of sex. Or?

4. Try as I might, if I accept your definition of the "primary purpose" of sex as pleasure, then I can see no argument against homosexual marriage. Two men or women, who love each other, seemingly want the pleasure benefit of the "primary purpose" of sex withOUT the additional benefit (and cost) of creating life. I am trying to force you to conclude that a "covenant marriage" between homosexuals fits your argument above. Surely, you find my conclusion objectionable. Or?

I end my inquiry with much graditude for such an insightful article.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Question: "The real question is: What’s the difference between a show that graphically explores all forms of the sex act and a movie that does the same?"

Answer: The pornographic movie will have exceptionally hot women that men want to see naked while the feminist TV show probably will not.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Given its proclamation as a "feminist" production, is it a coincidence that Lena Dunham is, well, physically repellent?
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All