The Raunchiest Film In A Decade Is Not Pornography

Well. The countdown to the Fifty Shades of Grey movie is here. Only 8 days away from the inevitable throngs that women will form in the movie theaters getting to see their favorite story come to life. Fifty Shades of Grey will enable women see their favorite pornography come to pictures. Consistent with the porn watch, it will be notable to see the attitudes of people when it comes to this movie and how it will be received.

Since it is so close to release in the theaters, we can have people tell us what will await the moviegoer. This article’s title says it all (NSFW for pics from the movie):

Fifty Shades Of Grey will be raunchiest film in more than a DECADE with 20 minutes of sex in its 100-minute running time

Exactly 1/5 of the movie constitutes sex scenes, in a widely public release film. I wonder how that stacks up to the average demonized piece of porn? Anyway, the article helps us in telling us how it stacks up to the other “general-release” movies:

* Has more sex than the 100 ‘most naked’ films of 2014 put together
* The dozen sex scenes makes it the ‘raunchiest’ film in ten years

While I have yet to locate the reaction to this by the churches and “Christian women” in general (I *still* haven’t happened across a fundamental unconditional rebuke of either Magic Mike or 50SOG as “pornography” by any famous preacher/author, major church, or major religious organization, much less repentance for their misandric views of pornography), we have reaction from the makers of the film on this point:

I didn’t want it to be graphically explicit, and I know that’s going to be disappointing to some people,’ Mrs Taylor-Johnson, who is married to British actor Aaron Taylor-Johnson, 24, added in an interview with The Guardian newspaper:

‘It’s the build up and titillation of touch and sensuality. So I don’t think it goes into the realm of porn.

And from the actor playing Christian Grey:

The father-of-one also said that although the film is sexual, he does not believe it is pornographic or even erotic.

‘I just wouldn’t use the word ‘erotic’ – it brings up different ideas for me. I just think we tried to make a good picture, you know?’

Even more interesting is the marketing drive coming up for the movie:

That time is now: With the Valentine’s Day premiere of the Fifty Shades of Grey movie looming, effectively mainstreaming sex toys on the big screen, the New York Times reports that retailers are stocking up on the whips, blindfolds, handcuffs, masks and other sexual sundries.

It almost reminds me of the marketing blitz surrounding Star Wars with all the figurines. Remember though, that 50 Shades of Grey isn’t pornography, so all of that can be put right out in the open just like Star Wars. Certain sex toys can even go right next to children’s toothbrushes. Again it’s not so much the presence and marketing of the product, it’s the “placement of the item”.

Never mind that scientists finding herpes virus on copies of 50 Shades of Grey indicates something obvious. As I wrote before, I still wonder how Albert Mohler et. al would try to explain away how it came to be on there, and somehow make it the fault of men. Even worse is the thought of what condition the seating in the theaters will be after this movie passes through, and what will be done to assure sanitary conditions in the showings.

Anyway, I think the message that is brought about regarding pornography and how it is seen is becoming quite obvious and will be more so as this movie is commentated on, any reports of “watch parties” come out thrown by “Christian” women, and the reactions (or lack thereof) from prominent Christian figures comes out. The Book of Oprah is indeed practiced. The kind of porn that men like must remain in the shadows and must be vilified – because it is for men. After all, as Albert Mohler says, it’s “mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men”.

Meanwhile, 50SOG was different because it’s not porn according to folks like Sheila Gregoire because “Porn, on the other hand, was created primarily to arouse, and that is what it does”, and “Porn is looking at naked people. Period. What reason does a man have to look at a naked woman except to arouse himself?” Now since that herpes was found on those books (indicating a primary purpose of arousal), and the fact that it will be “looking at naked people”, will it be finally considered pornography, just as bad as that stuff for men?

The general mainstream showing of this movie along with the marketing seems to indicate that the answer will be no.

“Mummy porn” is seen as fun, harmless, even liberating, and therefore exempt from critique or social judgement, whereas “daddy porn” is inherently “horrid” and “depraved”. – Stephen Harrington