Talking about AI porn and, on the positive side of things, black-and-white movies

It's important to discuss positive mass-media options, as well as facing the scary trends in the digital world

It’s safe to say that this will be the only post you see today about (a) the dangers of AI pornography and (b) the virtues of families gathering to watch classic Jimmy Stewart movies.

But these glaring different topics are actually two sides of the modern mass-media coin.

We live in an age in which digital media keep raising the moral “ceiling,” in terms of positive choices, while rapidly lowering the “floor,” in terms of dangerous trends. It’s the age of online seminaries that can reach into closed cultures and PornHub-style operations that target young minds and bodies (that’s a safe click to a Google search).

I have noted, several times, that Rational Sheep could offer features every day about smartphone addiction and barely scratch the surface on that depressing topic. I’m not going to avoid that hot-button topic, because I truly believe souls are at stake. But I know that parents, pastors and teachers need positive screens-culture strategies, as well.

In this case, let me point readers toward this provacative Samual D. James post at the Digital Liturgies Substack newsletter: “Christians Are Not Ready for the Age of ‘Adult AI’.” Here is the overture:

All variables being equal, it is likely that within twenty years, most online pornography will not feature real human beings. Artificial intelligence systems are already sophisticated enough to fabricate entire bodies convincingly. There’s certainly no reason to think the technology will recede or fail to progress. The demand for AI-generated porn already exists; there are apps and codes to generate it. Greater education in automated systems means more people will know how to create it, and software that gives consumers what they want will follow.

Most importantly of all, providers of explicit content will be able to pivot away from paying actors, with all the costs, legal compliance, and problems associated with live action. This is not to say it will happen overnight (neither the home video nor Internet revolutions were able to instantly destroy the adult film industry). But all variables remaining as they are, it will happen. Porn’s future is post-human.

 Many will disagree with some of the arguments in this article, including his argument that many conservative Christians were being naive in their belief that they could form coalitions with feminists to fight the exploitation of women in sex-related industries.

Yes, James notes: “Make no mistake: Porn does harm women. It subjects them to terribly destructive experiences, humiliates them publicly, and greatly contributes to a world in which their humanity and well-being are erased.” The problem is that millions of Americans don’t care about that.

The key: Don’t let your opinions on that topic (I think Fight The New Drug does essential work and deserves strong support) stop you from getting to his central point about the future that looms ahead. Here is the Big Idea:

The next era of pornography will almost certainly feature no humans at all, but lifelike computer-generated images that have no souls, no legal status, and no inhibitions.

Anticipating this, conservatives need to recover a distinctly personal case against pornography. It simply won’t do anymore to try to elicit post-Christian outrage against porn by emphasizing the possibility of sex trafficking or exploitation. In the era of digitally-generated content, the question will no longer be, “Who was hurt in the making of this” (for the practical answer to that question will be, “No one”). Rather, the question will be, “How am I hurt by consuming this,” and, “Why is this objectively wrong for me to enjoy?”

This will be uncomfortable, because it will force Christians to make moral arguments that appear irredeemably at odds with the secular society.

Scary stuff? Yes.

Like I said, this is a provocative essay. Read. It. All.

Big Tech is taking us into territory that is both glorious and fallen and believers will need to wrestle with both sides of that equation.

So now, on to the positive side of things.

When visiting the Mattingly manor theater room (for decades, we have had only one television set in a room set up for family viewing), folks often look at our shelves of digital discs and proclaim: “Wow. You guys must watch a lot of TV!”

No, we explain. We actually watch very few programs on mainstream television. Those rows of DVDs and Blu-Rays represent choices that we have made to purchase movies (and a few TV box-sets) of material that we enjoy watching together, with the vast majority of them being programs to share with children, teens, etc.

Which brings me to this question: Name five movies that members of your family have — together — watched at least 10-20 times. In other words, what are your family “classics” that bring you together on the positive side of the mass-media equation?

This assumes that family members have discussed why certain films are worth our time and many, many others are not. I would have trouble getting our list down to five or even 10. But, here are a few guidelines that offer some hints:

* Whenever possible, our family read — together — the books before we watched movies based on books. For example: We had read “The Lord of the Rings” with our kids during pre-bedtime reading time before the release of the movies.” I could name many other examples, from “Peter Pan” (the unabridged version) to the Harry Potter cycle (click here for more input on that hot-button subject).

* Our children didn’t watch television alone. With the possible exception of news and (I admit) sports, we worked hard to make television a group thing. If we overdosed on a few things, think Olympics coverage, we made a collective decision to do that.

* We planned big, fun events — with lots of guests — around movies that we truly loved. A classic example: “One Party to Rule Them All.” Yes that was an 12-plus hour marathon built on the extended versions of the LOTR movies. Yes, there were elvish side-effects in our family life — click here for a classic example.

* Early on, our kids learned that classics are classics for a reason and that black-and-white movies are, well, cool. Quotes from “Casablanca” and “The Philadelphia Story” frequently filter into family conversations.

Yes, some classics raise complex moral questions worthy of discussion, such as “Lawrence of Arabia.” Have those discussions. Learn to spot the important themes and symbols that are woven into fine films. You will be glad that you did.

With that in mind, let me point you to an excellent essay at the Religion & Liberty journal by my friend Marvin Olasky, whose decades of work veer into many worthwhile corners of mass-media life. The title: “The Religious Ransom of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.”

We are talking about what many critics consider the greatest movie in the career of John Ford, one of America’s greatest directors. Yes, it’s in black and white, while many of his classics (think “The Searchers”) show America in the most vivid, and even disturbing, colors possible.

Why watch “Liberty Valance”? For starters, you need to see Jimmy Stewart play lawyer Ranse Stoddard, paired with John Wayne as rancher Tom Doniphon. That’s called star power.

Critics have spilled oceans of ink when dissecting this classic, with good cause. Here is where we will start with Olasky:

What did Ford care about? He believed in “show, not tell,” and all his props had a purpose. My undergraduate students in a course I taught on Westerns were most impressed by the size of portions on western cantina plates. Canadian professor Sue Matheson’s writing about Liberty followed academic fashion with its title, “Deconstructing the Legend,” but at least she paid attention to Hallie’s serving of “grotesquely oversized steaks with frying pans that would cover the entire cooking surface of an ordinary stovetop.”

What she and other analysts missed, though, was a word hiding in plain sight. I’ll introduce it via its deictic gestus. Ranse (Stewart) calls Doniphon (Wayne) by his first name, Tom, but Doniphon never reciprocates. Instead, 16 times he calls Ranse “pilgrim” in sentences like “Don’t fret about that, pilgrim” or “You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.”

However, Olasky notes the importance of Ford’s faith and the Catholic DNA that shaped some rather obvious — but often overlooked — content in this movie.

For example, Stewart’s character is kind, modest man who is both a teacher and, when push comes to shove, Ranse is willing to sacrifice his life for the good of others. This Olasky passage is long, but essential:

Who else is both a teacher and a lamb? Who else is willing to sacrifice his life for the good of the town? Stoddard’s nickname is Ranse, but the sign he puts up on the front porch of the newspaper office that its editor now shares with the hashslinger/lawyer makes his calling clear: Ransom Stoddard, Attorney at Law.

Of the 100+ website notes about Liberty, I saw only one — on Second Reel in 2011 — paying attention to Stoddard’s first name and offering a semi-explanation: “One of the definitions for ‘ransom’ given by Merriam-Webster is ‘to deliver especially from sin or its penalty.’ Ransom Stoddard certainly provides (at least by appearances) a deliverance from evil (evil in the form of Valance).”

What kind of deliverance? In the short story by Dorothy Johnson that was the basis for the film, the young attorney is Ransome Foster. In the movie, though, it’s Ransom. John Ford grew up in Munjoy Hill, a working-class neighborhood of Portland, Maine, with Saint Dominic’s his home parish. He remained a lifetime Catholic and knew the teaching in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church that says Jesus “gave his life as a ransom for many, the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.” Ford publicly downplayed meaning: “I make Westerns.” But some meanings sink in early and never run away.

This meaning, hidden in plain sight, makes sense not only in terms of Ford’s upbringing but in 19th century America as well. Hallie, who abandons Doniphon and marries Ransom Stoddard, would know about the meaning of “ransom” by hearing and eventually reading the then-standard King James Version of the Bible. The word “ransom” appears in it 16 times. Usages include: “For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him” (Jeremiah 31:11). “I will ransom them from the power of the grave” (Hosea 13:14). “The Son of man came … to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). He “gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6).

Is that a topic worthy of discussion? Yes, it is. And note the name that C.S. Lewis used for the hero of his science-fiction trilogy — “Elwin Ransom.”

In conclusion, paying close attention to positive “signals” of this kind is at the heart of what Rational Sheep wants to do.

Does this take time? Yes it does.

Life is short. We need to invest time in finding in the positive messages in mass culture and popular art, as well as the time it will take to help the faithful learn how to escape the many, many negative trends.

Comments? Care to share a few films worthy of family time and talk?

FIRST IMAGE: Uncredited illustration with “What are Deepfakes?” feature at the SocialMediaSafety.org website.