Her.meneutics: Why Sex Ruins TV Romances

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

email to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Women Take Election Spotlight | Main | Actually, It Takes Much More Than a Village »

October 26, 2010

Why Sex Ruins TV Romances

And it's not for the reasons you think.

Gina Dalfonzo, guest blogger

If you’re a fan of USA’s Psych, as I am, chances are you went berserk when Shawn and Juliet finally kissed in the summer finale. Fans shrieked and squealed; message boards were overrun with ecstatic crowds; my best friend sent me multiple e-mails in all caps. It was big.

Yet for all the excitement, something felt a little . . . off.

It had to do with the fact that during the episode, Juliet had already slept with a new boyfriend and now was planning to go on a trip with him. It was in the foyer of this man’s home, while he was in another room, that she kissed Shawn.

For some viewers, maybe these circumstances would have added an extra thrill to the proceedings. For many of us, it put a damper on them.

I’m not just dumping on Jules here, because Shawn has been in bed with other women throughout the show. It’s not as if these sexual encounters have been overemphasized or graphic. But they happened — and that matters.

I don’t just mean it matters in a moral and spiritual sense, though it does. It also matters to the story. In fact, I believe American culture’s widespread acceptance of premarital sex is wrecking many of our most popular love stories.

Consider some of your favorite shows, and you may recognize the pattern. Some modern unwritten rule decrees that couples mustn’t marry until the end, or nearly the end, of a TV series, because it would ruin the all-important sexual tension. Yet this doesn’t preclude sex. They are allowed and even expected to have plenty of that, with each other and with others.

And that can warp a love story. Instead of being able to get emotionally invested in a couple’s growing attraction and root for them, we are stymied over and over again as one or the other ends up hopping into bed with someone else. Or we watch them share a bed for so long that actually making a lifelong commitment seems like an afterthought.

The makers of these shows still try to adopt the lingo and feel of traditional romance, sometimes with ludicrous results. I remember my faint incredulity when, late in Gilmore Girls’ run, one of the characters claimed that Luke had “waited” for Lorelai for many years. The speech was meant to be significant and moving, but all I could think was, Waited? In what universe does cohabitating with, marrying, and divorcing other women constitute waiting?

Even if the central couple finally ends up at the altar, the audience is often sick of the whole business by the time they get there. We are losing the idea of what “waiting” for the right person really means — of exercising patience, hope, and self-control while moving toward a strong, lasting relationship. Just about the only place on TV to find a romance like that anymore is Turner Classic Movies.

And the more you watch those old-fashioned stories on TCM, where quiet longing or playful bickering takes the place of bed-hopping, the sadder and shoddier the modern stories start to look. In a romantic comedy like The Shop around the Corner, remade decades later as the tedious You’ve Got Mail, one glance or remark or love letter conveys more genuine passion than a sex scene on HBO (and has the added advantage of being less squirm-inducing).

Even when there’s a promiscuous lead character in a classic film, as in An Affair to Remember or, perhaps my favorite romantic film of all, Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious, promiscuity is not without consequences. Sometimes it has grave consequences. And when the character really comes to love another person, an important part of that process is seeing the error of his or her ways and desiring to change his or her way of life. By the end of Notorious, Ingrid Bergman’s Alicia, who started out sullen, self-centered, and sexually reckless, has learned to feel and to inspire genuine, selfless love. And that leads to a final breathless, glorious scene with Cary Grant that I’ve been known to rewind and rewatch three or four times in a sitting.

I rarely feel like doing that with scenes from current TV shows.

Perhaps some of the current trend can be put down to the fact that the very nature of love stories has changed. Nowadays, instead of being found in one self-contained unit like a book, a play, or a movie, most of the love stories that our culture enjoys and discusses are spun out over several years, because that’s how TV series work. Television writers, given a beginning but lacking any sort of clear middle or end, have to search for ways to keep the drama going and audience interest high.

But, contrary to the wisdom of Hollywood, forming and breaking and re-forming sexual bonds doesn’t seem the best way to do that. Honestly, how many Friends fans do you know who weren’t ready for Ross and Rachel to just go away by the end?

Promiscuity in TV shows seems no more conducive to real, heartfelt, long-term romance than it is in real life. Every time I find myself wanting a TV couple to get together, I simultaneously find myself dreading the inevitable emotional and sexual roller coaster that will ensue. Apparently it wasn’t enough that the culture of casual sex has done so much to deprive us of good real-life role models; it had to take away all the good love stories, too.

Gina Dalfonzo is editor of Breakpoint and Dickensblog. She wrote "The Good Christian Girl: A Fable" and "God Loves a Good Romance" for CT online.

Comments

I sort of agree with this rant. I definately think that all the premarital sex takes something away from romances in modern media.

However, old fashioned romances, in my opinion, were just as bad. They may not have had sex, but the way the women were written and treated in them was unfortunate. I personally can't watch too many old movies because I cannot at all relate to the female characters and I find myself wanting to smack the male characters for how they treat the women.

So, I think love stories today and in the past are all not that great, though for different reasons. I guess in the end, though, I'll take the sex because at least in these stories I feel like the women have a say, are on equal level to the men, and are making relationship choices just as much as the men are.

I agree! Maybe this is why I love Jane Austen movies so much. The characters are chaste, for the most part, and those that aren't are reflected as having a bad end or they see the error of their ways and repent. The beautiful love story of Darcy & Elizabeth is one of my absolute favorites-- and they only kiss at the end of the movie, after they're married. Yet P&P continues to be one of the most popular, re-done, and adapted (P&P and Zombies, anyone?) of Austen's books.

Thanks for this post!

I was disappointed that that actors who play Shawn and Jules had lived together for years.

Considering human history as a whole, the culture today is almost unique--to a fault.

I have to say I liked You've got mail. Didn't find it tedious at all. I don't like the sex in our current shows and movies either. I also don't like the illegitimate violence. A story worth being told does not need any of those things to hold viewer interest. Our problem is Hollywood's view that these things are normal. Maybe because in Hollywood it is normal. The stars evidently buy into it with their own life styles. In fact, sex and romance in movies is getting very ho hum. They need better writers.

I think this is why I like the relationship between Penelope and Agent Morgan on Criminal Minds. Their love/relationship/bond is not sexualized. Now some would say that this is because Hollywood could never pair an overweight woman with a hunk, but I think in this case it works. They will never sleep with each other, which means their relationship won't be subject to the show's writers wanting to create conflict (break-up etc) and drama, and so in many ways it will last longer than the actual romantic relationships. Because the relationship is not sexualized the relationship is actually deeper.

I can't believe that Christians actually see nothing wrong with watching tv shows and movies with all this garbage! Jesus said that light of the body is the eye! How can we expect to live holy and goldly and constantly be entertained with Hollywood? How can we expect our children to have the right morals while we let all this junk in our home? I just don't understand the whole view that we have to have this kind of entertainment in our lives. We need to go back to the Scripture, Hebrews 12:14, Acts 2:38!

Question: is anyone who doesn't have a problem with premarital sex on TV allowed to admit it on a Christian women's blog?

I have mixed feelings about it, especially because of the unrealistic ways bodies are often represented.

And yet, I'm not sure that I really buy the argument that extramarital sex makes all the stories worse. Sometimes an emotional and sexual rollercoaster can make for a good love story.

Yes, TV sex too often ruins the romance. It plays against God’s intention for sex. And it usually ignores the natural result of such activity – unplanned pregnancy, and, all too often, abortion. Half of pregnancies in American are unplanned, and 40% of those are aborted (coming to over a million abortions a year). The NAE Generation Forum (www.naegeneration.com) is exploring how reclaiming a biblical theology of sex would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. Check it out.

100% on target. Not only does it ruin the movie or TV story, but the real people stories too. But the $64k question is why watch the stuff, then? You don't have ANYTHING better to do???

Galfonzo is right on. That's why I don't go to love story movies. And tell my wife when I see ads for TV romances, "Remind me not to go see that one!"

i think if people are going to object to sexual content in t.v. shows or movies, etc. that they need to be consistant with the Bible and say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong.
i certainly do not want to watch others having sex, nor do i want to see them in bed together, married or not,but the non-christian world has chosen to follow their own ideas of morality and they are free to depict romance as they see fit. BUT that does not stop the true believer from declaring it to be wrong, as long as they do so scripturally , with God's leading.

The real confusion is equating lust and love. They are NOT the same, even though we are often told that by the media in stories, advertisments, reality shows, and just about anything else you might mention. As Shakespeare wrote: "Love is not Love that alters when it alteration finds." If you have ever experienced love, you are aware of the difference from lust. To avoid the constant bombardment by the media trying to "teach" us that lust is love, we would need to throw away most books, almost all newspapers and magazines, and stop going to movies or watching television, and we would need to stop using our computers as well. Then we would need to wear headphones to stop modern conversation, radio, cell phone use, and a few other things. Impossible! But if we keep true love in our hearts, refusing to take part in the mess around us, we may still keep our morals intact, despite what the rest of the world tries to tell us. We need to block out of our consciousness the worst of what surrounds us, and focus our attention on what is good. Not easy, but possible. If we continue to truly love one another, then lust will not make serious inroads into our consciousness or our behavior.

I wish we could "like" comments, Anna. :-)

I always point out that this is the difference between the soap operas today and the soap operas our grandmothers watched/listened to.

In the old days, the soaps had certain characters who were anchors--originally on _Guiding Light_, it was Rev. Rutledge, and later Papa Bauer--who lived stable, moral lives. And there were trouble makers, but there wasn't the rampant fornication, divorce and adultery they have today (there were a lot of serial widows).

But that was before contracts, and each year would feature some new set of young characters who'd go through their romances, and then marry and move out of town. Several things changed that: Lisa on _As the World Turns_ pioneering the concept of the "Vixen"; and later Roger on _Guiding Light_ pioneering the concept of a villain who wasn't killed off or imprisoned or reformed but kept coming back. And the idea of stars and supercouples which also arose in the 70s , so that they had to keep the story going rather than just let them marry and live happily ever after.

I don't know if there were similar things at work in primetime or just the desire to "keep up".

The real issue, though, is that Hollywood is run by people who live those kinds of lifestyles. And they genuinely see marriage and family as boring. In the old days, primetime TV shows didn't have this problem because they stuck to their purposes.

If a show was a police drama, it was a police drama. A medical drama was a medical drama. People acted professionally, and they didn't need to start jumping into bed with everyone they worked with.

But, again, the real problem (which also gets back to the soaps) is that executives think marriage is "boring" and, more importantly, they notoriously misread focus groups.

There is a common practice of some executives to interpret comfort with boredom. They want audiences to have strong feelings, so if audiences are comfortable with a character or relationship, the producers think, "boring!"

Anybody remember "Moonlighting"? Cybil Sheppard and Bruce Willis had us holding our breath for years waiting for their first kiss!!! So it is possible if there is a good story to be told to do it without sexual consummation. And it kept people coming back. All you need is a good cast, good story and classy production values. It worked then, but I don't know if it's now 20 years too late.

Even in real life I get much more excited at the wedding of a couple who did not live together, and at least waited until deep in the relationship before being intimately involved. (unfortunately, in this day in age in secular society, it's too much to hope that a couple exists that did not have premarital sex)

Those who shacked up, especially for 5+ years are forgettable. I don't remember their anniversary dates; I"m just glad they married before having kids.

TV is the same now. But the main question as concerns this blog is why are Christians watching this stuff anyway? Premarital sex and shacking up are passe now. Now, it's shacking up and having babies out of wedlock, or introducing bisexual characters that are "freed from societal role and expectations" (barf)

If anyone is really interested in good dramas, the Korean media has some great movies and dramas that are really inspiring. For example "Pure 19/Pure in Heart" is a beautiful dramatic love story. It's really long about 122 eposides, but it's worth watching. Another beautiful story is called "You're Beautiful" and is also a Korean Drama. It is really worth watching both of these dramas for comedy, romance, and thought provoking drama. They can be viewed on DramaCrazy on the internet. My family and I know we cannot rely on America media to produce much of anything decent these days. Check the site out for yourself

The premarital sex in tv shows/movies/real life is nothing more than a use and abuse program.

And as far as old movies go? I'll gladly take them anytime. There was fun there. If you can't comprehend how "women were treated" then...what can I say? In most cases, I don't think it was so bad and it was far far far better than we are being treated today.

CHRISTIAN WOMEN would not want to watch the shows you are discussing. They would be doing things for the Lord. But,we are so desensitized most see nothing wrong or distasteful about watching these shows. The only wat to send a message that we want Family TV is to turn the set off until they they get the message. One REAL good example of desensitization is Dancing with the Stars It should be Dancing with the sluts.You may as well be setting in a strip joint,But hey! it's free on TV.But, Good old America is really into this. NO wonder We are in the mess we are in.First go the morals.

daisy - some people still wait.

Confusing love and lust is definitely an age-old problem, read the scriptures. TV shows attempt to masquerade lust as romance. (please overlook my spelling). We decided to stop TV in our home 10 years ago due to family economics and that has produced many terrific effects for our family. Do our kids watch TV elsewhere? Yes. At least I can rest in my own home not having to worry about what channel the TV is on or what commercial is coming up next. This is a respite for my children also. Now I get to monitor the computer use and DVD use. That has been much easier for us because we don't have wifi and the computer is in the kitchen. Is there a perfect solution? I haven't found it yet. I know that I live "in" the world but am not "of" the world. My children will realize that we are trying to make our home an oasis of Christian values in the desert of moral relativism.

Wow..I am so thankful for this post! It gives me hope. Our teens don't even know about romance and not a clue what love is..seriously. I look at the relationships around my high school and gosh there's no blushing and the couples act like they've been married for years. It's sad. I just saw the movie RED and I loved the romance in that movie and how beautiful it was that they did not kiss and that's all..until the end.I know, I'm old fashion.

That is why I do not watch this type of entertainment, it's tainted, pseudo-sex. I think it is voyeurism to want to watch others engaged in libido loco.

Lets get to the root of the problem. Abortion is bad right!? Why do the vast majority of women get abortions? They are pregnant and do not have a husband. How did they get pregnant? They had sex and were not married. So if you call yourself "pro-life" you need to be pro-No-sex-till-married! It goes with the territory. I went to a church that did not teach biblical sexual morality. Biblical sexual morality was not lived by the people in that church. I now go to a church that teaches Biblical sexual morality. Is it lived out by 100% of the people? No, but many do practice it and the mental and spiritual health of the Church is better. If you are a pastor or leader of any kind please do not assume that the people in your church or your group know or understand this teaching. It must be taught from elementary to middle school to high school and to the ENTIRE congregation.

Chris,

Does that apply to Shakespeare?

It is the build up to the Sexual relationship that matters, in Bones, it is the waiting to see if Booth and Bones become a couple and watching to see what happens; in Shakespeare it was R&J killing themselves. When sex is added to the show, the writers need to add something to catch viewers ~ hence the added fights and issues.

I have to say, the article may be good, but I'm rather perturbed by the tone of the comments.

I'm not in any way arguing that pre-marital sex is good, or right, or should be had. But the attitude towards it is not Christlike--it's Pharisitical. Saying things like a show should be called "Dancing with the Sluts"? Can you imagine Christ calling the woman at the well a slut? Instead He loved her and offered her truth and grace. How about the woman caught in adultery? Was she called a whore by Jesus? No. He told her to go and sin no more, He offered grace. Spewing hatred about what's on tv doesn't show grace, it shows judgement, and it's unappealing. No wonder so many people are turned off by "Christians".

It is also intellectually dishonest to say that many women have abortions because they do not have husbands. Abortion is a complicated, deeply nuanced topic with a thousand shades of gray, and I'm sure you'd be surprised by who's had one. She might even be sitting next to you in church. She doesn't need your disgust. She needs your love and grace, much as Christ would show her.

Finally, teaching no sex before marriage? Great. I applaud that. But as someone raised in that kind of atmosphere at church, I think the emphasis should be MUCH more on, "this is what sex really means, this is beautiful and wonderful and created by God and sooo worth waiting for," and less of, "if you have sex, you will get pregnant and die" (in the words of the Mean Girls health teacher).

Good column! I think Jim and Pam on The Office are a wonderful example of a healthy relationship that continues to be winsome. But I agree that most TV shows are not creative enough to write storylines that don't devolve into the tedious. All too often, they get bored, run out of material and so conveniently make the characters commit adultery or fall out of love or whatever...I always say, "Oh, an affair! How original! How did they ever think of that plot line?"

The recent bit on Psych bugged me, in part because Psych has never been about the "who's sleeping with whom" drama that kills other shows. At worst it's been implied (and even then, rarely), but they generally seem to know that their audience doesn't want that stuff on the show.

Slightly unrelated, but it's interesting to see that Corbin Bernsen and Dule Hill have been more outspoken about their faith -- and some of that seems to be making its way out onto the screen.

I was going to mention Jim and Pam on the office but someone beat me to it. They are not a model for Christian virtue by any means, but it was a relief that they got married early in the show rather than (like Friends) drawing it out for years. I would also mention Stabler and Benson on Law and Order SVU simply for the fact they have been partners for 12 years but have never slept together. Stabler has had marriage problems but has never cheated on his wife with his partner.

Justin -- I've noticed that too, especially with Dule. Gus has been making more and more references to faith over the past several episodes. Such a breath of fresh air!

I won't go into the gist of these current shows, but I know that sex has been ruining TV romances since the late 70s. I remember this one particular soap opera that came on at night called Dallas with J.R. Ewing; this guy was straight ruthless, going so far as to have sex in the bedroom he & his wife shared at a wedding reception at the house! I don't really think we see the effects that this kind of TV has on our emotions & the more we watch it, the more our flesh will crave it. I constantly try to get my wife to see that our teenage daughter (my step-daughter) doesn't need to see this trash or listen to that sex provoking music, but she says "She's going to do it anyway" or "It's just for entertainment". Now, she has to deal with the disrespect that these shows & songs have imparted in her spirit, all in the name and for the sake of entertainment. There is nothing fruitful or entertaining about sex before marriage on any level or in any situation (be it fictional or reality). The older that I get, the more that I see why God gives us these certain commands to abstain from fornication. Look at the many people that get hurt, the children that are unborn & if they are born, how they grow up in confustion & rebellion when each parent moves on with their lives. It's all wrapped in selfishness.

The sad effect on the rest of the world:
America is wealthy(even with growing unemployment). The Sadducees in Jesus' time were the wealthy patrons; this world offered it all and they had no need to believe in a resurrection. World view has much to do with wealth or poverty. When Rome became wealthy, it inevitably became decadent. The wealthiest nations in Europe are the most sex-obsessed yet have the fewest offspring. Hollywood is merely the expression of this kind of thing. Script-writers and actors/actresses "earn" more than billions of hard working and even genial people on earth. They would include the results of this into their products. As poorer people world wide aspire to become richer, they swallow the rich man's world view lock, stock and barrel. Valuable cultures are broken up, the church has trouble explaining to its young people what marriage is, 'commitment' is becoming obsolete and has been replaced with 'what I like.' This is the challenge the church is up to and for what it must be prepared to be ridiculed, like Christ was ridiculed for folks who didn't realize He was dying for them.

Excellent article! I believe this is most clearly seen on Grey's Anatomy (as well as the spinoff "Private Practice"). It is absurd (and pathetic)how they have used sex on this show as a means to an intriguing storyline.

Nice information, i appreciate your efforts (specially the quality of content). I have bookmarked it to my list.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why Sex Ruins TV Romances

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Why Sex Ruins TV Romances

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives