MEPs to vote on EU ban on all forms of porn... Controversy has erupted over next Tuesday's European Parliament resolution "on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", meant to mark international women's day, after libertarian Swedish MEPs from the Pirate Party spotted the call for a ban in the small print. 
Both the world and the church are interested in combating pornography. Both the world and the church find it offensive. The world’s issue is varied. One group says that it would help 'eliminate gender stereotypes'.
This is a pretty stupid idea. Are they saying that it is a 'stereotype' that men like to see women, ummm, less than fully clothed? How would that ad campaign work out? "Men (ooops, sorry for the stereotype) you don't like to see women unclothed! It is just something that society has pushed onto you when you were young. Because you saw you father enjoying..." I mean, seriously? How far from reality do you have to be to consider this a 'stereotype'? To truly combat pornography you actually have to do the opposite. You have to recognize that it is a prevailing sin of man to lust after woman, and teach that it must be the job of man to protect woman. Anything else will, well, it won't work.
The second thing that the world has is that they will combat pornography by calling it ‘demeaning to women’. The problem with this is that the idea itself is demeaning to women, and that women know better. Let’s face it, in order for pornography to exist you either have to have some form of slavery, or women have to find themselves compensated in some way for presenting their bodies to be viewed. Most Western pornography is of the latter type. Women make money, probably good money, for posing undressed etc.
So the worldly social reformer is faced with trying to tell the women themselves not to act in demeaning ways. But let’s face it, they aren’t preaching to the choir. Like the issue of gun control it is the very people they want to reach that won’t be listening. Seriously, you are going to try to reach a porn star with the idea that what they are doing is demeaning? These people strip naked for a living!
And while stripping naked may be shameful, the women know full well that only certain women get invited to strip naked, or to pose in swimwear. They are typically given the number '10' and, at least given the categories they are using to compare themselves with, they don't think a '10 is 'demeaning'. A 9.5, sure. A 5 or a 2... definitely. But the girl who makes the modeling 'cut' is not the one who goes home in tears... however much she should be.
OK, so the world is nuts. We knew that. The problem is the church isn’t any better! Or not much. When the church isn’t parroting one of the world’s solutions, they are busy coming up with some super spiritual solutions… read your Bible more, pray, take cold showers.
And what they aren’t doing, indeed what they seem to be actively opposing, is following the actual, Scriptural, solution… indeed command… on this issue.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
But if they cannot contain While he advises to abstain from marriage, he always speaks conditionally — if it can be done, if there is ability; but where the infirmity of the flesh does not allow of that liberty, he expressly enjoins marriage as a thing that is not in the least doubtful. For this is said by way of commandment, that no one may look upon it as mere advice. Nor is it merely fornicators that he restrains, but those also who are defiled in the sight of God by inward lust; and assuredly he that cannot contain tempts God, if he neglects the remedy of marriage. This matter requires — not advice, but strict prohibition. -John Calvin
Because Scripture has not left us void in this area. Scripture has specifically told us what to do to combat the problem of pornography. Specifically, not buried in the midst of a vague passage on holiness. Pornography, as part of sexual sin, that is. “Because of ‘porninea’ (sexual sin),” the Scriptures say, “Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” Seriously. That’s what it says. Oh, and it goes on to say that the wife must not deprive the husband, nor the husband the wife, of their sexual ‘due’… their body in bed. That to do so is fraud, and will tempt the spouse with… sexual sin.
But the church has other ideas. The modern American church, far from seeing sexual temptation as an indication that the young man is commanded to marry, sees it as an impediment to marry. Scripture says, “Because of porninea let every man have his own wife,” and the church says, “Except in case of a young man struggling with porninea, some men should marry.”
The church historical literally said that the young man struggling with fornication must marry, the church American says he may not. “Not to my daughter!” Where the church historical insisted on an immediate marriage for the person struggling with lust; the church American treats anyone (that would admit it) as a pariah, an outcast. Indeed the church historical went further than that. The church historical said he must marry ‘now’. The church American is more likely to say he should marry ‘never’.
Note: Since this article was written the EU has turned down this porn ban. Several articles I read on the subject pointed out that it was a one billion dollar industry.
This post is the first in a series:
II: The Married Man
Written by: Vaughn Ohlman
Approved by: Jeff Woodward Caveat: Generally approve, although there are some things I wouldn't exactly say the way they are said here, but I agree with the conclusions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ technology/news/9917189/ MEPs-to-vote-on-EU- ban-on-all-forms-of-pornography.html