I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Highly relevant to the RR position I discuss below is their position I discussed previously, that Sex is For Marriage.

‘Adult’ Entertainment is Wrong and Should Be Restricted

Do people in the RR view this stuff?  Some do.  Do some have a porn habit?  It would seem so, according to their own literature.  Yet, the RR’s official stance is against the expansion of “adult entertainment”, for discouraging it, and restriction of access to adult entertainment.

I recall once reading something from someone who worked at a hotel who claimed that orders of video porn would skyrocket when religious conventions were in town.  Hypocritical?  Perhaps.  It does make some sense, though, that people who do not want it in their homes (where their children can access it) might order it at hotel.

So what is the problem with this stuff?

Much of it goes back to Sex is For Marriage.  If sex is meant for a husband and wife in privacy (regardless of location), then viewing this kind of entertainment means watching someone else have or appear to have sex.  Also, very rarely are the performers themselves married to each other.  If the entertainment consists of one performer (think dancing), it is still fostering lust for someone who is not your spouse.

In addition, this entertainment is cited as devaluing women and turning sex into something that is dirty and the human body into a commodity.

According to the RR’s view, this kind of entertainment also promotes unrealistic expectations, and lustful coveting lust, mainly in men.  Husbands should be focusing their attention on their wives.  However, you will not see the RR devote as much energy to fighting romance novels, soap operas, and other depictions of romance and wealth that foster unrealistic expectations and coveting of romance and possessions/wealth in women, or demanding that wives do everything to discourage attention from men other than their husbands.  I don’t see complaints about men being turned into “money objects” in media.  But I digress.

The progressive and addictive nature of porn is also a concern for the RR.  This is especially a concern if the material depicts underage person, even if that person is an artistic fabrication, because it is seen as feeding the pedophilia of someone who will then be more likely to physically act out, or as possibly inciting rape.  The RR also points out that such material can be used to lower the guard or inhibitions of underage persons to make them more easy victims.

Since the RR sees this kind of entertainment as harmful and addictive, they think it is a legitimate function of government to restrict it, especially on the municipal level.

The RR is well aware of depictions of sex in the Bible, but see those depictions as necessary to convey God’s will about sex being for marriage and non-marital sex as being wrong.  In RR thinking, sex is for marriage, not for the entertainment of others.  The human body is not dirty, but rather a wondrous creation of God, but modesty in public is preferred to prevent lustful coveting.

This is another area where Republicans of a conservative or libertarian bent may disagree with the RR, citing an individual’s ability to refrain from viewing/paying for the entertainment, and an individual’s ability to choose to make a living in adult entertainment.

But would America be better off with less “adult entertainment”?  Perhaps.  I confess this is one of those areas where I do not agree so strongly with the RR in its focus and intensity on the issue, preferring to make other issues more of a priority.  I’m more apt to agree that “if you don’t like it, you should change the channel or turn it off”.  There are three potential problems with this, though.  One is that once a bell is rung, it is hard to un-ring it.  Once you've been offended or exposed to the material, the damage is done.  The second is that in the case of public airwaves, the FCC’s involvement is needed to keep broadcasters from “stepping on” each other, and if the government (us) is going to be involved, we have a right to ask that the airwaves not bring us obscenity.  And finally, degrading material influences those around us and possibly our children, and it is impossible to always monitor what the children are accessing.

Some in the RR (and other political alignments, such as some feminists) argue that the “right to free speech” applies to political speech, and doesn’t even extend to images.  This raises the question – what exactly is political speech?  And would the founding fathers really think the First Amendment wouldn’t extend to a political cartoon?

While I can agree that entertainment that is designed to appeal to the prurient is harmful and that just because someone has the ability to make it doesn’t mean that they should, I note that tools such as parental controls and filters can be of even greater use than the channel changer or the on/off button.  The right to free speech doesn’t require that anyone listen.  There’s a difference, however, between discernment and censorship.  It is not censorship if the RR pressures advertisers with a boycott, and that’s exactly what they should do if they believe a form of entertainment is harmful.  Legislating restrictions on entertainment, on the other hand, can be problematic.

As for clubs featuring "dancers" and porn shops - the RR asserts that these locations attract unsavory people who commit crimes, and so they look to keep these businesses out of their neighborhoods.

The RR is not seeking to keep people from having fun with their opposition to "adult" entertainment.  They are genuinely trying to fight what they see is a corruption of our society.