Hermenuetics

Comments

Prosecute the CEO of CBS, managers, directors, producers, production staff, advertisers, and actors. Prison is warranted. Register these sexual offenders.

Posted By: george | January 22, 2011 12:23 AM

Change the bloody channel if you don't like it. This is what has other people in this world annoyed with you, Christians think because it exists in this world if they hate it they must protect everyone from watching it. There are world thing children see online.

Some people dont want to live in a puritanical world created by you, your constituants and your god. It's cable television dont like it there are blockades to make sure your children don't see it. I'm perfectly fine with you deciding whats appropriate for them, just quit making up my mind for me.

Posted By: Damien | January 22, 2011 6:28 PM

I'm so thankful that you took the time to write this article. I babysit two young boys who like to channel surf while watching tv. The other week I came into the living room to find them watching the commercial for 'Skins' and had to quickly change the channel and let their parents know what they had seen. It is ridiculous that television companies and executives are allowed to get away with filling their shows with such explicit and filthy material all in the name of "acting." While the comment above me suggests changing the channel, I would argue that it's NOT just about flipping the channel. Changing the channel doesn't make the problem of tv executives exploiting young actors simply "go away." Changing the channel doesn't negate the fact that there are men and women out there who push the boundaries of child pornography laws. I like how you pointed out that these shows AREN'T simply acting. It's easy to say "oh well it's alright because they are just acting," but we tend to forget that those actors are real men and women/boys and girls who are taking their close off, kissing their cast mates, indulging in every act that the show portrays. It is anything BUT acting. What goes on behind the camera is real life for these young adults and if they are being exploited by these producers, then something needs to be done. Just because there are blockades for what tv shows can show up on your screen, does not justify allowing pornography to be aired on television. If you are going to allow things to be shown on tv based on the excuse that it is "just acting," then where do you draw the line?
Personally, I think that these producers and executives, along with MTV need to be punished and investigated. We wonder why kids these days are behaving like wild adults at younger ages.....well, just take a look at the show 'Skins' and you've got your answer. Young children and adults see these shows as definitions of the "normal" lifestyle, as what society expects of them and (being extremely impressionable at this age) they imitate. While you may have the option of "changing the channel if you don't like something," I would agree with the article in that something actually needs to be DONE about these producers and execs who see nothing wrong with excusing child pornography off as "acting." An "anything goes" attitude is exactly what the media wants us to have because (ultimately) their goal is to make money, NOT to protect the minds of you or your child.

Posted By: Julia Saavedra | January 23, 2011 10:32 AM

"Yet it’s not only the actors who are implicated in the sexual behavior required to create the show. Skins’ 10-minute promotional trailer introducing the cast of characters, through camera work that slowly scans the nubile bodies of the players, tranforms the camera lens — and the eyes of any adult watching — into the gaze of a pedophile."

Excellent, pointed argument about the real issues at stake here. Thank you for this.

Posted By: Kyra | January 23, 2011 1:08 PM

Good grief! I had no idea there was a show like this on our airwaves, targeted at teens and using teens. And I thought Gossip Girl was bad… I think the blog is very well-written and effective, particularly the use of the acting coaching scene. The argument comes down to one we theatre folks have had for years about kissing scenes. One side argues that stage kisses are just flesh against flesh and aren’t “real” kissing because you’re just acting. But those who’ve had to do it know, even if they don’t admit it—that it causes very real sensations (whether pleasant or unpleasant), no matter what the purpose. The idea of someone coaching these minors on how to "act" sensually and what to experience or imagine experiencing is just reprehensible. Thank you for these excellent and well-argued observations, Karen.

Posted By: Yvette | January 23, 2011 6:06 PM

I've actually seen a couple of episodes of the original BBC "Skins" when it was on BBC America - the episodes I saw contained drug use and drunkeness, but no sex (I vaguely remember the characters talking about it) - now whether that's because it just happened to be the episodes I saw, it had been cut out, or the original wasn't as focused on sex as the MTV version is... I don't know. What I do know is that the original was so nihilistic that it was dis-heartening. The characters had no understanding of what love truly was; they lived in an incredibly immoral, psychotic world and these teenagers where trying to survive. It was a very eye opening take on what a lost and fallen world looks like without the love of Christ.

Posted By: Leslie | January 24, 2011 9:34 AM

I'm in the UK - take it from me the UK version does portray sexual activities between minors including popping out of a school class into a (conveniently) empty room; including drunken parties, including drug fuelled hazes, including with a teacher on a school trip. It affirms a hedonistic immoral lifestyle. If I put my child protection hat on I'd call it 'grooming'. That is, that the adult population that condones and lives out this kind of activity and its portrayal justify their own behaviour by it, and also groom the next generation into it. Whatever laws and protections we create there will always be needy or uncared for youngsters who get into wrong ways of course, but this promotes it. I'm afraid its what Isaiah depicted to a people facing judgement (e.g. ch 9) and what the wise Proverbs writers warned would lead young people astray.

Posted By: Robin Forrester | January 24, 2011 3:19 PM

To the writer of the article, your affinity with Sex in the City (edited) syndicated shows apparently seems somewhat prurient to you. That should tell you something about setting up a standard for teens to watch. By giving up such titillating programing yourself, you have a more credible authority to discuss and censor such programing for kids.

Posted By: Joseph | January 24, 2011 3:45 PM

Thanks Robin, I figured it did, but not having seen it myself I couldn't really comment on that particular topic. Its interesting that you used the word "grooming" as that is what its called when pedophiles choose a victim and start the process of victimization.

Posted By: Leslie | January 24, 2011 3:56 PM

Why in the world does it shock anyone that the secular media would poison our society with child pornography? It's the next logical step in their war against the truth. And why does it shock anyone that children justify watching this garbage when "Christian" adults admit watching garbage of their own? Condemning those who produce sexually charged media aimed at children while they themselves are filling the coffers of the pornographers by consuming the sexually charged media they produce for adults is hypocritical.

Make no mistake, Sex and the City, edited or not, is at its core pornographic. Pornography is more than pictures of naked people. Words are pornographic when their purpose is to inflame passions contrary to God's intent for sexual purity. Creating a sexual hunger within one for that which is forbidden by God by protraying illicit sexual behaviour in a positive light and sowing seeds of discontent within our relationships is also pornographic.

Sex and the City's intent is to trivialize marriage, love, fidelity, and sexual purity. It promotes materialism, hedonism, and mindless sex. It is pornographic, whether it's been sanitized by an editor or not.

Are Christians free to indulge themselves in media content that mocks, belittles, and ridicules the lifestyle of sexual purity we are called to live. Of course, but as one as wisely said: "We can choose our sin, but God will choose the consequences."

Posted By: Terry L Brown | January 24, 2011 4:44 PM

This show should be banned - according to the Wall Street Journal - actors range from 15-19

Posted By: Aidan | January 24, 2011 9:26 PM

I like Damien.

He/she advises "change the bloody channel if you don't like it". I suppose when we run out of anything wholesome to watch on any of the channels, Damien will tell us to "rent our own movies, etc.

A friend of mine told me once that when you turn the lights on and roaches scurry across the floor it was not the lights that created the roaches, the roaches were already there. If you were to turn the lights off again that would not make the roaches disappear, you just would not see them anymore.

So, Damien, switching the channel does not mean there is not filth on TV. And just as, I hope, you would want to get rid of the roaches which you see when the lights are turned on, there are good people who are appealing to the proper authorities to clean up the sexual mess that is public television.

Of course, like roaches hiding in the cracks and crevices of your home, the world of television is so filthy that cleaning it up seems to be already a "Mission Impossible".

Posted By: Steve Skeete | January 25, 2011 5:50 AM

Actually, a core theme of Sex and the City is that women often turn to casual sex because they believe it to be their only option. The show chronicles women who yearn for a deeper satisfaction than what is offered in modern dating.

Besides that, I think the point of this article is that even those individuals who not believe that all programming should fall within "Christian" guidelines should all be able to agree that child pornography must be eliminated. And the point is a good one -- one that I hope the readers won't overlook in their holy horror over Dr. Prior watching a show they don't understand and of which they can't cite the correct title.

Posted By: Mary | January 25, 2011 4:00 PM

Mary,

I'm assuming your comment was a response to my earlier posting.

If the point of the "article is that even those individuals who not (sic) believe that all programming should fall within 'Christian' guidelines should all be able to agree that child pornography must be eliminated" I would agree with that. Child pornography is despicable and those who indulge in it and particularly those who promote it should face the consequences for their actions.

But the point I was trying to make - however inadequately - was not that all programming should fall within "Christian" guidelines. Rather, Christians need to carefully scrutinize, not just for their sake,but for the sake of others, believers and non-believers alike, what programming (in whatever form of media) they choose to watch/read.

Prior admits her "pop-culture sensibilities are far from sensitive". I admire her honesty. But it also concerns me.

She states: "The problem with Skins isn’t just the elements that border on the pornographic or those that normalize rampant recreational drug use, same-sex relations, and various sexual experimentations." She then rightly points out that the main problem is these other problems are being carried out by children at the direction of adults.

I agree 100% that the main problem is the element of child pornography in this program. But that does not lessen the evil of any program that borders on the pornographic or normalizes recreational drug use, homosexual relations, and sex outside the confines of marriage between one man and one woman.

Thus, my problem with watching shows such as "Sex and The City". After reading your post about "a core theme of Sex and the City is that women often turn to casual sex because they believe it to be their only option" I checked the TV schedule for Wednesday night. There were two back-to-back episodes of "Sex and The City" scheduled. Their titles and descriptions of the shows are as follows (I apologize for the language): "No Ifs, Ands, or Butts" - "Carrie wonders if she's sending the wrong smoke signals to the lastest object of her desire." "Are We Sluts?" - "Carrie's zeal to round the bases with Aidan is tempered by his willingness to want for the right pitch."

I will leave it at that. I didn't watch the shows to see if your take on the core theme of "Sex and The City" is correct.

I believe Christians should be very careful what they allow to enter within their spirits through their eyes and ears because of the desensitizing nature of sin. Child pornography is both heinous and vile, but so is all pornography. The difference isn't that one is sin and the other isn't. The difference is simply a matter of degree.

I believe for a Christian to watch "Sex and The City" is a poor choice and do so significantly reduces one's influence when they raise objections to such shows as "Skins". My prayer is that the sensitivities of all of us will be heightened and that we will not compromise with evil.

Posted By: Terry L Brown | January 27, 2011 4:59 PM

I'm not going to say much about "Skins," other than this: minors portraying scenes of sex and nudity in film is HARDLY a new argument. The academy has been debating this for years. To be clear, though, I'm not sure the nudity is the problem with the show. To me, it's more unnerving (as an older brother) that MTV is saying to my younger sister and her friends, "Rampant and experimental sexuality is normal and healthy." It isn't; and even if it is, it shouldn't be.

But of course that raises the point: What IS the point of "Skins?" I honestly haven't watched an episode, so I don't know if there is any redemptive value to the show. I do know, however, there are sometimes instances where sex scenes and nudity are definitely called for, and redeemed by the context. For instance, one of the last scenes of Babel portrays a young Japanese girl who is naked and about to jump off the balcony. Her father comes in, talks her down, and wraps his coat around her. The nudity and subsequent covering of the child by the father is the point of this scene... it's also the point of Genesis 3.

I can already hear the complaint (because I often hear this) that all nudity is unnecessary and is to be avoided. But really, that is just Christians tending towards gnosticism. The body, in its proper context, is a thing of beauty. And there are times when its nudity can be a very powerful element of art.

Playboy is not art; but Michelangelo's "David" is.

"Skins" may be exploitative; but not all nudity on screen is. And each instance needs to be evaluated within its proper context.

Posted By: Brandon Ambrosino | January 29, 2011 4:43 PM

Terry,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my somewhat snarky post:). You raise some great points. I agree that as Christians, our standard for ourselves should be higher than the standard for what should legally be allowed on television.

However, I do strongly believe that Christians often miss out on truth and beauty because we are sometimes afraid of learning in non-traditional ways. While I don't think that watching Sex & the City is a necessary staple for growth by any means, its realistic and thoughtful analysis of how single women struggle with finding meaning is cathartic, educational, and sometimes instructive. I agree that not everything set out in the show is something all Christians should emulate, but it is beautiful to see that even these "worldly" women with whom we'd think we have nothing in common struggle with the same issues of low self-worth and loneliness and are struggling to find the greater meaning in life and relationships.
An interesting article was written a few years ago, before the show had finished, about the surprisingly conservative spirit of a show that is marketed as being scandalous (which is at times accurate). You may find it interesting: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200308/ai_n9266642/

Thank you for being willing to engage on this topic!

Posted By: Mary | January 29, 2011 5:31 PM

This is in response to Terry, who, like Alice who wasn't able to find a moral in the Duchess' ramblings, may not be able to find any value in "Sex and the City."

"Tut, tut, child!" said the Duchess. "Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it."

Posted By: Brandon Ambrosino | January 29, 2011 8:31 PM

Mary,

Thank you for your comments and your graciousness. I have read the article to the link above.

I will respond to that and your post within a couple of days when I have time to do so.

Blessings in Christ,

Terry

Posted By: Terry L Brown | February 1, 2011 5:32 PM

Mary,

As I read your post the words: “[I]ts realistic and thoughtful analysis of how single women struggle with finding meaning is cathartic, educational, and sometimes instructive. I agree that not everything set out in the show is something all Christians should emulate, but it is beautiful to see that even these "worldly" women with whom we'd think we have nothing in common struggle with the same issues of low self-worth and loneliness and are struggling to find the greater meaning in life and relationships,” kept coming back to me.

I don’t find it unusual that “worldly” women (or men) and Christian women (or men) share common struggles that pertain to life and relationships because these issues emanate from within the deepest part of their being – their spirit. Yet, because sin entered into the human race through Adam and Eve’s rebellion every man, woman, and child ever created thereafter was born spiritually dead. Thus, the intimate relationship we were meant to have with our heavenly Father was no longer possible because “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24 NASU).

Since then mankind has struggled to re-establish this most basic relationship with the Father, the relationship from which every other relationship and life itself finds its true meaning. The problem is fallen man wishes to establish this divine relationship by worshiping the Father through the agency of his soul rather than his spirit which is not possible. (I apologize for not being able to go into more detail here as to what I mean. Suffice it to say that the soul and spirit, while similar in many ways, are very distinct parts of our being.) The result is a life of frustration, desperation, and anger because he is looking for love, relationships, meaning, etc. in all the wrong places.

Christians also face these things, but the difference is our spirits have been raised from the dead (this is what being born again means) when we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This allows us to receive the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17). And as our relationship with our heavenly Father becomes more intimate as we worship Him in spirit and truth we can begin to overcome the struggles all of us face.

But something else came to me. It was Genesis 3:1-6.

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, “You shall not eat from any tree of the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”’ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (NASU).

Mary, please note that Eve looked at the forbidden fruit and saw something she thought was nutritious (good for food), beautiful (a delight to the eyes), and intellectually stimulating (desirable to make one wise). But it was a lie. The forbidden fruit was not nutritious – it was poisonous. Its beauty was only superficial – for under the skin was ugliness, corruption, and evil. And far from being a source of wisdom that benefited mankind eating the fruit produced a race of fools – rebels against the Father.

For me this is a picture of Sex in The City. It promises to satisfy the hunger within the soul that we all have to find meaning in life because these women struggle with the same issues Christian women do, as you pointed out; it is presented in a way that is “a delight to the eyes” by using beautiful settings and people; thus, making it visually enticing; and it holds out the promise that in the end these women will wise up and realize that true happiness and satisfaction does not come from a selfish or hedonistic lifestyle, but from relationships founded upon self-sacrifice. As the author to the link you mentioned in your post says about this show: “It is all moving towards a thoroughly conservative conclusion, and that is, moreover, the natural order of things. The 'forces of conservatism' always win in the end, because it is the natural order.”

But therein lays the danger. Conservatism is not the natural order because we all have an innate sinful nature that can only be overcome by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Outside of Christ the natural order of things is to go from bad to worse.

The world would have us believe, like the Serpent in the Garden, that if we just eat from its hand that we will experience a fuller life than those who deny themselves this “food”.

Please accept my apologies for this answer being so long and at the same time being so short. There is much here that could be said, but space is understandably limited in a forum such as this. With that in mind you may want to check out a couple of articles I wrote some time ago that address what we’ve been talking about. One is “Silencing the Witness of Demons” (http://whispersofthespirit.com/silencingthewitnessofdemons.aspx); the other is “Be Careful Little Eyes” (http://whispersofthespirit.com/becarefullittleeyes.aspx).

Any feedback you wish to share with me would be welcome.
Terry

Posted By: Terry L. Brown | February 6, 2011 3:03 PM

Brandon,

I don't recall saying I couldn't find a moral in "Sex and The City". I will say, however, that whatever moral "Sex and The City" is trying to communicate, if it's worth looking for, I can find it in a venue that won't violate my conscience. You are free to look where you wish.

Posted By: Terry L. Brown | February 6, 2011 3:10 PM

I hope they pull the plug on this demonic garbage. Don't people realize that once our kids are sexualized it is a terrible, terrible road? Ask me, my Mom and Dad own pornoshops and this stuff is awful. It is more addicting than morphine and even worse for the soul. Terrible.

Posted By: Joe | April 21, 2011 10:15 PM