Some time ago I read an article concerning a new study which purports to dismiss the second of these claims. However, if confirmed, this may not necessarily put an end to the debate. The study argues that there is no solid evidence for porn actresses as broken souls unable to live "normal" lives. Although the study has been criticized for a lack of depth and breadth, if it can be confirmed, just what does this say about the ethics of such a profession? From my own view results either way are a win/win for theology.
Christianity has always taught that woman is a fallen creature. In the past, her participation in such professions acted as a confirmation of her fallen state, that no woman is whole without the light and love of God. On the other hand, if no psychological impairment is needed to explain the choice of such a profession it merely confirms the darker prejudice of Christianity, often unspoken but still implicit, that woman is an evil creature from birth destined to be the destroyer of men through the wiles of lustful temptation leading the virginal Christian knight from the path of virtue.
Again, whatever the final result, in the eyes of monotheistic religion, woman shall be the loser as she cannot help to be in a world whose dominate ideologies have been shaped by men.
|The Temptation of Sir Percival, Arthur Hacker 1894|