Actor Dan Levy blasts Shane Gillis' 'SNL' monologue, claims men's 'complacency' fuels sexual assault

Biblical Context

The central moral issues are the use of degrading language about women, the temptation to treat people as sexual objects, the responsibility to govern one’s own thoughts and speech, and the protection of those who may be harmed by sexual wrongdoing. Genesis 1:27 supplies the foundation for human dignity: both male and female are created in the image of God. That principle weighs against describing women as objects or reducing their worth to appearance. It does not, however, settle every dispute about clothing, comedy, or cultural standards. Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5:27–28 addresses lustful looking and the inward treatment of another person as an object of sexual desire. This is directly relevant to Levy’s concern about objectification, although the passage addresses the heart of the observer rather than establishing a specific social-science claim that jokes cause assault. First Thessalonians 4:3–5 calls believers to sexual holiness and self-control rather than pursuing others through passionate lust. In the context of this controversy, it reinforces that responsibility for sexual conduct belongs to the person acting, not to a woman’s clothing. A provocative outfit cannot excuse assault or coercion. Ephesians 4:29 teaches that speech should be used for what builds others up rather than for harmful or degrading talk. This provides a meaningful framework for evaluating Gillis’s joke and the public responses to it, while still leaving room to distinguish offensive speech from criminal conduct. Deuteronomy 22:25–27 shows that Scripture does not blame a woman for sexual violence committed against her; the passage treats the assaulted woman as innocent and places guilt on the attacker. That is an important corrective to any suggestion that clothing or perceived sexual presentation transfers responsibility for assault from the perpetrator to the victim. These passages support the established biblical relevance of the subject, but they do not identify a prophetic event or prove Levy’s asserted causal chain between media objectification and sexual assault.