In a recent post, Betsy Hart suggests that many “chick flicks” amount to romantic pornography.  In the same way typical pornography gives a faulty expectation of women and sex, so these movies give a faulty expectation of men and romance.  It is an interesting idea to consider.

But I’m not sure I want to call it pornography.  After all, pornography is about more than faulty expectations – it is about lust.  Certainly many of these movies which land the couple in bed could encourage lust, but that is a different issue entirely. 

And that brings up another thought.  An unmarried couple landing in bed should at least be a faulty expectation – it certainly does not fit the Christian worldview.  But many aspects of movies do not fit the Christian worldview, giving faulty expectations about how people should act.  Should we then call these movies thinking pornography? 

Again, I agree with Hart’s point, but not her word.  The word carries a lot of weight and meaning beyond faulty expectations.  If it is really pornography, then we should flee from it.  If it is simply giving a wrong idea of the world, then we could forseeably watch it in small amounts using heavy doses of discernment as she does – even as we interact with the rest of the world using heavy doses of discernment. 

One specific faulty expectation that Hart notes in these movies is that men should act like women.  She spends much of her post discussing the need for men to instead act like men.  While there clearly is a difference (despite our culture’s attempt to eliminate any such differences), it is tricky to define.  In a separate post responding to a separate issue, Kevin DeYoung writes about what it means to be a man.  While noting that the Bible has some clear teachings on this, he notes that the application can be a bit tricky.  In particular we need to avoid unhelpful stereotypes that

“Real men hunt and fish. Real men like football. Real men watch ultimate fighting. Real men love Braveheart. Real men change the oil and chop firewood.” It’s one thing for pastors to give men permission to be like this. It’s another to prescribe that they must. You simply can’t prove from the Bible that manliness must look like William Wallace. If you insist on one way to be a man, you’re in danger of two things: 1) Hurting godly men who are manly but don’t do things with sports, cars, or the outdoors. 2) Making your particular expression manhood the standard for everyone else.

Good points.  Meanwhile how can we positively speak about what it means to be a man?  Justin Taylor gives us two links to some helpful resources and provides brief summaries of each.  I encourage you to check out all these posts to ponder the issue further.