Hermenuetics

Comments

I get your point, but porn is the wrong word unless it's strictly about the act of sex. We just want the sensitive guy, and admittedly that is pretty unrealistic. But I don't think it's porn to imagine that there are good guys out there.

Posted By: muse | March 5, 2010 12:11 PM

Actually, I think porn is an excellent choice of word. It's a substitution for the real thing, used to elicit an emotion or reaction. Of course, in our family, we call trips to a massive home improvement store an indulgence in "tool porn," even though the trips there made by my husband and father-in-law are often useful (in that they serve to further a current project). It's that these men are often distracted by other "cool" tools while in the building.

Posted By: Sarah Webber | March 5, 2010 1:48 PM

Thanks, Laura. I love them, too! However, I think that while these movies can be dangerous (if we let them) for single women, they can be as destructive for married women, too. I have often found myself thinking, "Why can't my husband be more like this?" And instead of enjoying a fun romantic story, I am comparing the tangible, wonderful man God has given me to the characters I wish he could become. Great post!

Posted By: Bonne M | March 5, 2010 2:53 PM

I've heard the same to be said of fiction romance novels. They can have the same effect on women's emotions too, giving us unrealistic ideals.

Posted By: Christy | March 5, 2010 3:46 PM

I agree with Sarah Webber and Bonne M. Thanks for the great article!

Posted By: Andrew | March 5, 2010 4:01 PM

Now I'm single for the sake of ministry, I've never particularly liked chick flicks, and I grew up in a world that said romantic novels and movies, even Anne of Green Gables, were sinful, so that is the background I'm approaching this with.

I'm not certain we should compare something like this to porn - porn is clearly sinful based on Jesus' words in Matthew 5, whereas chick flicks are not.

Besides that, it strikes me that the romances in most chick flicks as well as those in Christian novels are not that "perfect". Usually there is "conflict" of some sort - that's what makes it a good story! And while we shouldn't romanticize marriage so that we expect too much out of a dating relationship or wish our own husbands were someone else, that comparison could just as well happen between two real women if one is in a happy marriage and the other were not.

I have close friends who do have wonderful marriages - perfect, of course not. But wonderful! And too many of those most concerned about the "danger" of romantic movies and novels were the ones who were in unhappy marriages or if men, weren't loving their wives well.

Posted By: Ann | March 5, 2010 4:02 PM

I think that the phrase "emotional porn" is a bit strong. I do understand the concept, however. I agree that "chick flicks" (I really dislike that phrase!) present romance/love/life in an unrealistic way. Unfortunately, much of our viewing material does the same thing, be it a romantic movie or an action film. The key is that they are fiction - made-up, a figment of someone's imagination. Yes, romantic movies foster in us unrealistic desires and can lead us to depreciate and even destroy our relationships, but I find the same danger in some of our supposedly innocuous reality shows such as those on HGTV, that can foster in us dissatisfaction with our homes and with our lifestyles. We Christian women have to realize and accept that we don't have to (nor should we want to) watch everything that's out there, no matter how popular it is; and when we watch those films and shows that we have investigated and deemed "acceptable", maybe we can do so with a discerning eye and grateful hearts.

Posted By: Nina | March 5, 2010 5:05 PM

"Any time we say, or even think, “I wish I could find a guy like that” (and who hasn’t thought that about Mr. Darcy, or Laurie, or Gilbert?), we are buying into a dangerous ideal of romance and marriage that just does not exist."

I beg to differ. I did find a guy that met my romantic ideal, and if I ever got to stay in a chick flick, he would be my lead. Perhaps too many of us settle for something less when we don't have to? Or perhaps too many of us want the "bad" traits we often see in men in romantic films. I mean, would I want someone as snobby as Mr. Darcy was in the beginning? Not at all. Would I want someone as insufferably romantic as Edward in Twilight? Ewww, no. I would probably burst out laughing if some guy was like that with me. Do I want the love-hate thing that I often see in Chick flicks? Nope.

Do I want the feeling of being loved and having fun that one often sees in chick flicks? Yup... and I have that. So I don't think chick flicks are damaging, as long as one watches them with discernment.

Posted By: SaraL | March 6, 2010 3:49 PM

If chick flicks are "porn", then so are a whole lot of male recreation.
Buddy-buddy films (an idealized picture of male friendships) are porn.
Sports films (an idealized picture of male sports) are porn.
Video games (an idealized world of heightened stimulation) are porn.
We could go on and on, if we're silly enough to call things 'porn' that really aren't.

Posted By: kathleen | March 6, 2010 9:01 PM

I would consider the modern western concept of "romance" and dating to be inherently sinful and unbiblical. We as Christians should be culture-makers not culture-modifiers. The "outdated" concept of courtship and the form of arranged marriage practiced in Indian culture are vastly more biblical than any chaste romance portrayed in Hollywood films.

Posted By: Preeti | March 6, 2010 10:25 PM

While we can argue over whether or not chick flicks set women up for unrealistic expectations, whether christian women should or shouldn't watch them, let's get real. Porn is porn! The big thing about it is a person can indulge in the excitement of sexual pleasure without the connection of relationships. No way idealized romances of chick flicks are porn. Like any other form of entertainment, some are better, more realistic, or more wholesome than others. I think most women realize they are fiction and idealized, but I think there can be a problem when women are in marriages to men who are unaffectionate and inconsiderate try to use them to fill the emotional void.

Posted By: Elizabeth | March 7, 2010 11:20 PM

I very much liked this article.

To respond to some of the comments made, I do think calling these movies porn is an apt title. There is a connection in the subject material of these movies and that of visual "male-oriented" porn: they both deal with the part of ourselves God designed to interact with and draw closer to a romantic partner. Both romance and sexuality belong in this category of self. In that way, you can call these movies porn as they are dealing with same area-of-self that visual porn does. This may be a weak metaphor, but one way to look at it is if one person becomes overweight by eating too much bread and another person becomes overweight by eating too many sweets you are still talking about overeating, even if what they have taken into themselves were different things.

"The big thing about it is a person can indulge in the excitement of sexual pleasure without the connection of relationships. No way idealized romances of chick flicks are porn."

Could you not consider the idealized romance (or perhaps perverted romance) of chick flicks to be indulging in the excitement of romantic pleasure without the connection of a relationship?

Posted By: David | March 8, 2010 11:38 PM

THANK YOU to those who have already pointed out that there are many genres that fall into some kind of "porn" category, including "guy" movies. If "The Notebook" is emotional/romantic porn, then "James Bond" is action porn. "James Bond," "Mission Impossible," etc, are ridiculous, unrealistic fantasies, with, arguably, a worse portrayal of women than many chick flicks' portrayal of men. At least chick flicks present ideal men as loving and sensitive, however "unrealistic" that is. James Bond? Women are pawns.

Also, as a literature major I take issue - sorry! - with lumping adaptations (good ones, anyway) of classic literature in with "emotional porn" such as "Valentine's Day." Pride and Prejudice is considered to be one of the most important English novels of all time. Innumerable volumes and articles have been written by thousands of scholars over the centuries about the complexities in P&P. Walk into a university library and you will find whole aisles devoted to her. The difference between P&P and Valentine's Day is that P&P is an original and intelligent work of art. The soundtracks for the movies have been composed by world-renown composers and performed by similarly prestigious orchestras. Movies like Valentine's Day don't hold a candle to P&P. I'm shaking my head just thinking about it.

Not to mention, I thinking calling P&P an emotional movie simply inapt. I watch P&P for the wit, humour, intelligent conversation, and beauty. The only reason I ever watch chick flicks is for the humour, and sadly, they usually disappoint.

Finally, (and this is my last point, I promise) when the directors of these movies are overwhelmingly male, why are women receiving the focus of criticism? And why is this blogger, if he really wants to "get inside" the minds of females, watching movies directed by males? In my opinion, that nullifies his whole project. All he is doing is getting inside what men think women want. Which brings him back to square one.

Posted By: Nadine | March 9, 2010 1:27 PM

"If "The Notebook" is emotional/romantic porn, then "James Bond" is action porn."

I would tend to disagree. There is a similarity between what is normally considered porn (visual porn) and chick flicks that does not exist in action movies: namely, both "chick flicks" and what is normally considered porn deal with our sensual self - the area of ourselves God created to interact with and draw closer to a romantic partner. While there are perhaps many issues with action movies and the themes they contain, they may not be necessarily considered porn. However, you may be right. Perhaps we can call them pornography. That does not, however, take away from the the damaging and pornographic effect of many "chick flicks." It simply adds to the list.

"Also, as a literature major I take issue - sorry! - with lumping adaptations (good ones, anyway) of classic literature in with "emotional porn" such as "Valentine's Day.""

This is only true if Pride and Prejudice can be considered as not pornographic. Its status as a classic, its level of prose, its wit, its humor, its intelligence, and subsequent film adaption's score's are irrelevant to whether it should be considered pornographic. It's simply a separate issue. I am not trying to say that Pride and Prejudice definitely is pornographic, I am simply trying to introduce the possibility that it MIGHT just be very well written, rather intelligent, rather humorous porn that also happens to have some pretty good music.

"Finally, (and this is my last point, I promise) when the directors of these movies are overwhelmingly male, why are women receiving the focus of criticism?"

Because the focus of his personal study is not on the gender of the director but on the gender of those who comprise the audience. Regardless of whether a man or a woman directs any given chick flick, it is likely the the audience will be primarily female,thus indicating that there is something about these types of movies that corresponds with or appeals to the, as you put it, "female mind." That is the relevant point.

Please don't think I'm trying to pick on you or argue with you in a mean-spirited fashion. It's just that what you wrote prompts certain questions in my mind and I figured I would ask. For all I know you'll never read this, haha. :)

Posted By: David | March 9, 2010 4:29 PM

David:

You said:

"While there are perhaps many issues with action movies and the themes they contain, they may not be necessarily considered porn."

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy

3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction (the pornography of violence)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography

You said:

"[Pride and Prejudice's] status as a classic, its level of prose, its wit, its humor, its intelligence, and subsequent film adaption's score's are irrelevant to whether it should be considered pornographic."

From dictionary.com:

por·nog·ra·phy

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

You said:

"Regardless of whether a man or a woman directs any given chick flick, it is likely the the audience will be primarily female,thus indicating that there is something about these types of movies that corresponds with or appeals to the, as you put it, "female mind." That is the relevant point."

I should have put quotation marks around "female mind" myself. How much do these movies influence women's wants, rather than reflect them? Where does this "female mind" that is drawn to these movies come from? Indeed the writer of this article herself suggest that these movies are mentally influential, otherwise what would be the danger in watching them?

Posted By: Nadine | March 10, 2010 2:22 PM

Thank you for responding!

To respond to your first point, at the end of my first paragraph I concluded by stating that your assertion that other forms of entertainment could be considered pornographic might actually be correct. It is certainly worth looking into. The main point I was trying to make was to address the (at least to me) flawed argument that chick flicks cannot be considered porn because then other things must considered porn. The conclusion of that statement does not follow from the premise. Perhaps we should look at the potential pornographic effect of action movies, however that in no way detracts from the need to consider the potential pornographic effects of chick flicks. At the very least, all of this shows the pressing need for people to stop accepting entertainment as just entertainment and start realizing that the themes contained within what we enjoy actually do have an effect on us.

Perhaps it would help the discussion to define pornographic. You give the dictionary definition of the word, and that is most definitely valid. It does, though, beg the question of how do we define "obscene"? Further, in light of the whole point of the original article, we are perhaps using the words "porn" and "pornographic" in a slightly different sense. We seem to be referring to a harmful effect caused by indulging in said types of media. When we ask "are chick flicks pornographic?" we are really asking "does watching chick flicks negatively effect women in the same ways we believe watching sexually stimulating imagery negatively affect men?" In my own observances and thinking on the matter, I have concluded that they do (to fully explain how would, at this point, require too much space, and I don't want to hit you with a wall of text).

"I should have put quotation marks around "female mind" myself. How much do these movies influence women's wants, rather than reflect them? Where does this "female mind" that is drawn to these movies come from? Indeed the writer of this article herself suggest that these movies are mentally influential, otherwise what would be the danger in watching them?"

If I am reading this correctly, I would have to say that the process is most likely cyclical. Many of the themes in these movies reflect and influence the "dark side" of the female romantic drive, at the same time. These movies are made to make money. Therefore, they must appeal to their audience (in the case of chick flicks: women). Given the huge success the genre has, this indicates there must be something typical of most women to which these movies appeal. From this we know that the themes in these movies in some way reflect the "female mind." However, I would go further, stating that in repeated exposure to and enjoyment of these themes, the result is an emphasis or encouraging of them within the "female mind." Thus, the movies are also influential. It's a damaging cycle.

Though we are speaking in terms of gender exclusives, it must be noted that while that sort of generalization is necessary to have a discussion such as this, it is not absolutely true. While it is perhaps true, due to the number, that these movies more accurately reflect the female capacity for romance (whether the good parts of that capacity or the bad), there are men drawn to these movies for the same reasons women are, and they too would be open to the same pornographic effect. I am one of them, to be perfectly honest. Though I believe many of the movies to be pornographic, I do find that I enjoy many of them for their romantic content. As such, I include myself in my critique. The flip side of this is that there are women who indulge in visual pornography and are open to the same struggles inherent to that as men.

Posted By: David | March 10, 2010 5:23 PM

"The main point I was trying to make was to address the (at least to me) flawed argument that chick flicks cannot be considered porn because then other things must considered porn."

I DO consider many chick flicks porn in a way; I simply contest that P&P is a chick flick. In fact I shudder at the idea. My point was that chick flicks should not be singled out as a uniquely “pornographic” genre. If you're going to label chick flicks pornographic, you must also include a whole host of other genres, a fact which points to a larger social issue of indulgence that is not exclusive to women. It sounds like you would probably agree with that anyway.

I have no idea what you mean by the “‘dark side’ of the female romantic drive;’” whatever it is, I probably wouldn’t agree with it, although I appreciate you acknowledging gender generalizations in some of your points.

Posted By: Anonymous | March 10, 2010 9:13 PM

That last comment was me.

Posted By: Nadine | March 10, 2010 9:14 PM

Pride and Prejudice is a tough one, to be sure. I've read it but am by no means an expert on what Austen was trying to convey. I do sometimes worry at the devotion many women seem to have with it, and how sometimes Mr. Darcy and the whole romance of the story become one more idealized/perverted romance that men have to somehow live up to.

The term "dark side" is confusing (and perhaps too reminiscent of Star Wars). What I am basing the idea (though I certainly did not come up with it) on is the fact that we are imperfect, fallen beings living in an imperfect, fallen world. There is in us a "light side" - the part of us that yearns for God and to do right - and a "dark side" - our sin nature. I find this dichotomy can be found in nearly ever aspect of who we are as people. When I say the "dark side" of the female romantic drive I am simply saying that your romantic drive (and our, as men, romantic drives) are in and of themselves a good, God designed thing. However, as with everything in this reality, it was tainted by original sin. Because of this, there is now the potential to be romantically stimulated by harmful things that, were we still living in the original state of perfection, would not be stimulating and perhaps even repulsive. This is the "dark side." It is my feeling that many chick flicks appeal to this part of the female (and sometimes male) romantic drive.

Posted By: David | March 10, 2010 10:04 PM

I am aware of the Christian doctrine of sinful nature. You still haven't explained exactly what a "dark side of the female romantic drive" is, or looks like, or even what a "female romantic drive" is. Probably you're not going to be able to do so without making generalizations, most of which likely won't apply to me. The doctrine of the "dark side" of humans is sufficient for me, without gendering certain manifestations of it feminine or masculine.

Posted By: Nadine | March 11, 2010 9:52 PM

"The doctrine of the "dark side" of humans is sufficient for me, without gendering certain manifestations of it feminine or masculine."

This only works if we are not gendered. Fact is, we are men and women and that carries with it certain innate differences. All I mean by the "dark side of the female romantic drive" is how the sin nature has affected a woman's capacity for romantic stimulation, as it affected all aspects of who we are. I don't want to go into too many details about the specifics of what this looks like because I honestly don't know and don't want to just make a bunch of stuff up. I think we can be reasonably certain, however, that part of sin tainting it means that it can now potentially lead you astray.

Bear in mind, men have a "dark side of the male romantic drive" as well. And we all have a "dark side" of many parts of who we are. Though I am speaking only of women (because the original article was speaking of women), the same principle applies to men.

Posted By: Anonymous | March 11, 2010 11:41 PM

The above was me.

Posted By: David | March 11, 2010 11:42 PM

"I don't want to go into too many details about the specifics of what this looks like because I honestly don't know and don't want to just make a bunch of stuff up."

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but again, if you don't know what it looks like I don't understand how you see it reflected in chick flicks.

Posted By: Nadine | March 12, 2010 9:23 AM

Perhaps if I rephrased it would help better express what I'm saying.

Do you think that you have to know something completely and absolutely before you can make any true statements about it? I do not. For instance, I do not know you completely, yet I am reasonably certain that you are female, are in or have graduated from college, and have at least an appreciation for Pride and Prejudice. If these are true statements, does that not indicate that we don't have to know something completely to be able to make true claims about it?

The point is that I don't pretend to understand completely the female romantic drive or how the onslaught of sin specifically affected it in all ways. However, I do think I can reasonably make some assertions based on the information I do have. I have said that I think that sin has negatively affected the female romantic drive (and most everything else), causing it to become imperfect. In its imperfection, it will now do imperfect things. It is likely to say that one thing it will now do is respond to certain negative stimuli it would previously have not responded to. This claim is broad enough to not get into nitty gritty specifics, but not so broad as to be overly-general. From this position, I am putting forth a theory based on observation. I watch a movie(s). The movie is defined by its being romantic (as in, the main point of the movie is the romance). Since vastly more women than men purposefully watch and enjoy these movies, I must think there is something about these movies that corresponds with something mostly uniquely female. Since the theme that ties all of these movies together is romance, it is most likely that this is what is appealing to women. Given that we are romantic beings, I think it likely that the romance in these movies is corresponding with the female capacity for romantic appreciation. When you analyze the romances in most of these movies, you find that they contain at best misguided romantic relational principles and at worse downright damaging romantic relational principles, yet it is these very things that seem to be appealing to women. Why is this? It must be because the female romantic drive is imperfect and will therefore respond to imperfect things. However, it is not completely imperfect as it was created in perfection. Thus, I use the terminology of "dark side" which implies a "light side."

There is a spectrum here, leading from broad to ultra specific. The broad claim is that we have a sin nature. The specific claim is how exactly that sin nature manifests itself in specific ways. However, there are points along that spectrum between those two end-points that are also equally true. What I am saying corresponds with one of the mid-points.

Posted By: David | March 12, 2010 10:59 AM

I judge it like this... Would I let my daughters watch porn? Absolutely not. Will I let my daughters watch some "Chick Flicks"? I hate that term, by the way... To an extent, yes. I can see your point, but coming from the point of view of someone who had a cousin stuck in the hard core porn industry, they are not even close.

Posted By: Steph | March 15, 2010 7:28 PM

Steph, I don't think anyone is suggesting Sleepless in Seattle is anything like an Xrated hard core pornographic film. I think Laura was using the word pornography in the basic sense, as somone noted the dictionary definition:

the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction (the pornography of violence)

In the same way "cult" is now thought of not as a sect or group but specifically as a fringe religious movement.

The very idea of describing chick flicks as emotional porn is to foster discussion and a change in perspective to examine our own reasons for deep allegience to fairy tale romance. I know girls back in college that watched Titanic over and over, and clearly not for the historical details of the ship. Some of these girls were very shy and felt much safer staying in watching a familiar movie than going out and making friends.

As far as the criticism about the guy and his 30 days of chick flick blogs, that guy is on the blog challenge trend in the same way the girl from Julie & Julia "cooked her way through Julia Child's cookbook," and went from an annonymous New Yorker to having an Oscar nominated actress portray her with another Oscar nominated actress in a film of her blogged life... if the idea sticks, there is money to be had!

Lastly, I would disagree in adding Little Women as a chick flick, because our precious Beth dies, and Laurie should end up with Jo but instead she's with that old professor. Just sayin'! ;)

Posted By: Stephanie | March 17, 2010 5:15 PM

I have not read all of the responses, but I would like to make the point that, every individual is different. I am in no way suggesting that morality is a relative thing, but, as uncomfortable as it might make a great deal of Christians, the reality is that some things are profitable for certain people and not for others. The truth is that one person might see a film and walk away with a sense of beauty that reflects God's character, while another might walk away with an unhealthy fixation that causes them to stumble. In a broad sense, porn for some might not be porn for others. I think that the question to ask one's self has to do with the potential merit of the piece in question. I know that, for me personally, I am not going to be able to view hard core pornography, and walk away edified. I might, if I am mentally and spiritually prepared, be able to walk away without entering into sin, but I cannot, personally see any benefit that can be derived. I believe that many rom/coms and, particularly romantic novels share the same problem. Even if one can avoid being degraded by the material, there is often no edification that can be derived. (And no, pleasure, while not wrong, is not necessarily edification.) 1 Corinthians 6:12: "Everything is permissible for me -but not everything is beneficial." We understand God's character through revelation of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. The best questions to ask are probably related to these. "How did xyz speak to me deep spiritual Truth. "Was is Beautiful in a way that helps me understand the nature of my Creator via my reflection on the created?" "Did it instigate in me a deeper understanding of how goodness or justice can be practically explored in my life and in the lives of others."

Regarding relationship, it is important for the Christian man or woman to remember that the desire for connection to another is intended to be a reflection of our ultimate desire to be one with Christ. If we understand this as we view things that bring about in us a longing for deep, true connection, we will understand that man and woman together still just approximates our ultimate satisfaction. It is a beautiful thing to find a measure of fulfillment in the marriage relationship, but ultimately the only true fulfillment has to come from God and God alone.

Additionally, I would like to make this small point. I know that these are gross generalizations, but, for the most part, the kinds of sin that men struggle with are much more overt and direct. As a result, it is easier for society to label those sins. Women often deal much more internally, and, as such, their sins are not so easily viewed and are often glossed over by society because they are not so overt. I have heard so many parents that have raised both boys and girls who have said the same thing. With boys, you know if they are getting into trouble. They practically announce it. They are what they are and there are few if any layers of subterfuge. With girls, they could be going down a completely wrong path, but it is often so much harder to know because they hold their cards so much closer to their chests. All of this is to say, sin is sin. I am in no way trying to lessen the problem of pornography, but, ultimately it seems that the women in the church seem to treat it as one of the "especially bad" sins. This is dangerous, destructive, and ridiculous. The dangers of pornography are exactly the same as those of women hooked on romance novels. There is no difference. Again, one is external and easily criticized, the other is more internal. The results are the same. Again, I am not saying porn is, in any way okay. I just wish that the church, and many women in the church would begin to hold gossip, overindulgence, and emotional fantasy to the same standard. Just my two cents.

Posted By: anon1 | April 11, 2010 5:32 AM

Very interesting article. Even more interesting is how "defensive" many of the responses are. Based on my own experiences, I'd say describing the 'chick flicks' as emotional porn is very much right on the mark. I've been re-thinking my own viewing patterns and thinking about my own track record re: relationships, and I can't help but feel that theses films are a big stumblingblock in my relationship with the Lord as well as finding the right man. So for the next 30 days I'm going on a "rom-com" fast and see if this will make a difference. With God's help I believe it will.

Posted By: Maria | June 1, 2010 8:55 PM

I am happy and secure about myself to know that if my partner is reading a romance novel or watching a movie like these mentioned, that it's fantasy and that she is happy with me. If she isn't I need to "up my game".

Are women the same way about porn? The secure ones are. If you are feeling down on yourself, it's easy to see how you could feel like you are competing with porn, to that I would say you should up your game.

These things are fantasy and are a harmless indulgence. It doesn't mean you want to marry Fabio or Jenna Jameson. If it does, I would say that individual has some problems.

It's a really good parallel because men fundamentally are sexual and visual beings, and women are emotional driven and want nurturing. Porn and romance novels or movies are widely different, but their effect on the consumer is very similar. Each couple need to make their own choices, for the health of their relationship.

I enjoyed this article. I don't think either are a problem unless there is insecurities, however I certainly understand if a couple decides to go without both of these for the good of the relationship. What I am happy about in the article is that it draws a parallel. The double standard is what I find frustrating. They both give unrealistic expectations, but if you recognise that fact they are fantasy harmless indulgences. There are risks and potential negative effects, but it all depends on the people involved. I am just happy that someone has been able to make that connection. Kudos.

Posted By: Jon | July 8, 2010 6:11 AM

http://newlife919blog.blogs.com/lamplighter/2010/07/chick-flicks-can-be-dangerous.html

Posted By: Erica Parkerson | July 29, 2010 8:20 PM

I think that movies like this just create bad morals in children giving them a false view of love and exposure to sexual thoughts to early in life.

Posted By: Frontierville Guide | September 24, 2010 8:00 PM

I completely agree with you Jon, fantasy is simply just that.

Posted By: Motel Townsville | September 26, 2010 2:32 AM

I agree that chick flicks and romance novels, usually are emotional porn. It's a fantasy. However, there is a huge difference between Jane Austen novels and the movies. Not all the women marry rich men and the suitors they dump are horrible men. Yes, many of the heroines marry rich men and no, Austen doesn't talk about what happens after the marriage. Still, the author of "You've Got Lies" hasn't read Jane Austen. She is basing her knowledge on what the movies choose to show. Austen covers a range of characters, social situations and what are good qualities in a man for marrying. Money isn't always the answer for all the characters. You can't just look at the heroine... and not all heroines marry for money... such as in 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Northanger Abbey'. Darcy isn't a dream boat. He's a stuck up jerk and Elizabeth doesn't want him. He changes who he is and becomes a better person because of her. Read the novels before making such a mess of it. Yes, many chick flicks are emotional porn and many are not. Many are about the long haul in life and the 'Notebook' is about the long haul and how we die together. It is about the marriage. Good grief, such blanketed statements.

Posted By: Jules | December 15, 2010 11:22 PM

i agree with you john.i also think like that.its a nice topic
thanks for sharing

Posted By: jully | January 22, 2011 5:55 AM