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

Fifty Shades of Frivolous Divorce

Recently, this story is going around of the divorce that is claimed to be related to the 50 Shades of Grey books. There’s really nothing that novel about this occurrence of frivolous divorce because it’s a very common place one that is encouraged within Churchianity and without. However, it presents a perfect illustration of what repeats itself again and again within ALL marriages today, both “Christian” and not.

As has been covered in the past, the pornography that women favor is excused, accepted, and celebrated. This includes things such as Fifty Shades of Grey and Magic Mike, while it also includes things such as typical romance novels (even “Christian” ones), television geared to women, and no doubt books written for an audience of women intended to be a guide to spice up one’s love life (I’m not purchasing the specific example I’m aware of to answer the question below in a concrete way, but given the rest of Churchianity and its hatred of non-mangina men, I’m sure of what the answer would be to the question).

There will be ample opportunities to diagnose the state of this woman involved when it comes to her reasons for the frivolous divorce, but the point I want to explore is this: The expectation upon husbands to go along with what their wives’ every fantasy, whim, and desire, despite his inclinations and reservations. You see as a good loving husband who submits to his wife everything in Marriage 2.0, he is supposed to be open and willing to everything his wife wants to do within the bedroom. Her desires, including all of her sexually-inclined ones, are pure, wholesome, and chaste because she only wants to feel safe, cherished, and loved. However, men have those nasty physical desires which are base, vile, evil, and disgusting and should never be honored under any and all circumstances. Of course, it seems we only have more proof of sunshinemary’s comment:

Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.

Let’s see the results of how this particular woman in today’s case had to feel safe, cherished, and loved:

A high-powered City businesswoman is divorcing her husband after he refused to play along with the erotic themes in the raunchy blockbuster, Fifty Shades Of Grey.

The wife, a 41-year-old banker who earns more than £400,000 a year, bought the bestseller almost as soon as it was published last year, and decided to use it to pep up the couple’s staid sex life.

But when her husband failed to respond to the novel’s themes, which include bondage and S&M, she petitioned for divorce.

In the case, filed in the High Court this year, the wife refers to the book in her grounds for divorce, which blames the breakdown of the marriage on the husband’s lack of sexual adventure.

The obvious problem of such a thing comes out. When men complain of such things, they are out of hand, and are only considered to be showing just how evil and vile they are. When women complain of their sex lives, it’s perfectly justified in every instance, even to the point of divorce as we see here if he does not comply. Divorce would even be justified for his mere possession of such pornography. This justification of divorce for porn possession in the eyes of such people have been addressed previously, but it stands as normal in Marriage 2.0, as well as it being vile as a man for demanding a satisfying sex life in marriage. How dare a man would insist on such a thing towards a woman! Bringing in BDSM or other themes, or even suggesting it would make him the worst husband ever, a villain in the sight of all, and any divorce suit he would bring like this would be summarily dismissed as out of hand. How despicable would he be if he were to even think of divorcing his wife for such things!

However, instead of being dismissed for the farce that it is, this divorce case is being taken seriously as a for-cause divorce, indicated by the husband having to discuss his sexual desire in court. It is also telling that the husband would have to submit to the indignity of such a thing in public:

The woman’s husband is admitting ‘unreasonable behaviour’ so the divorce can be granted quickly without a contested hearing in which his low libido would be discussed in court.

It would never be okay for a husband to divorce his wife in today’s culture for a low sex drive, which is much more common, and commonly defended as normal for women. But it seems perfectly fine if a woman were to do so when consuming any kind of feminine porn (or even sexual self-help books like mentioned above) to expect anything she desires from those things to be immediately granted. Divorces because a husband wouldn’t put up a stripper pole and mime Magic Mike are sure to be out there, as well as divorces due to the husband’s non-compliance of most every sexual-oriented help text ever put out there written to an audience of women. I have to wonder with the supposed “Christian” resources whether there is a direct warning against divorcing the husband upon non-compliance with the text (like I said I’m not purchasing just to find this out), or if the divorce is supported either directly or tacitly.

But there is no doubt that this kind of divorce is approved both within Churchianity and without. Marriage 2.0 practitioners wouldn’t have it any other way. Husbands are abusive towards wives when they won’t satisfy their wives sexual desires to the letter. And husbands are abusive as well when they even dare to express their sexual desires, let alone desire that they be indulged on a regular basis. This is one area of many where husbands can’t ever win, because their wives pull away the football.

Wouldn’t it just be better for husbands and wives to admit that they have sexual desires in an honest and open way, be open and respectful about what you can and can’t do? The problem with wives is that it’s not can not, it’s will not on their part and they do not recognize can not out of their husbands. Wouldn’t it be better to be open about fulfilling them with each other unconditionally in a safe and sane manner, completely stopping the use of sex as a weapon by willful sexual denial?

Female Sexual Repression – A Perversion of Normal

One of the things that I’ve been kicking around in my head is the idea of how sexuality is treated within Christian marriage. This goes along with the increased popularity of female-oriented pornography in the form of 50 Shades of Grey and Magic Mike, in which I addressed the unequal perception of here.

The post I didn’t address in Sheila Gregoire’s recent posts on these things is this one, which was addressed already by bskillet81. It offered nothing substantial, except a window into the theories of a holder of a Master’s Degree in Women’s Studies. To summarize Sheila’s post outside the direct words about Magic Mike, she says that (to quote Bskillet81’s summary):

No, she’s just saying male sexuality is destroying morality and marriage and female sexuality is the only thing standing in the way. But that’s not to say men are worse people than women. No, of course not.

Of course, this is the same “men are evil, vile and reprehensible, while women are good, wholesome and virtuous” mantra that seems continually repeated in Churchianity and all over by feminism. My theory really doesn’t come from a better place of authority than hers, but I hope you find it interesting, and as well find it have some weight.

One thing I’ve noticed in my studies in the rare times that sexuality has come up in Christian writings in relation to a God-sealed Christian marriage is an expression of repulsion towards the act, as something disgusting, sinful, and a necessary evil for child birth. This goes for the earliest writings and even some of the writings into the last century. Anyhow, I notice that, while Scripture doesn’t speak of this denial of sexual urge directly, save 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, it does speak of a denial of things that God has allowed. Reading 1 Timothy 4:1-5 reveals that there will be those who depart from the faith and will forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats.

There should be no question, just from a reading of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, that God has allowed and even blessed sexual activity from both men and women within the context of marriage. However, if addiction “rewires your brain” like Gregoire writes that porn does, it is perfectly logical that the process can be done with any activity to encourage someone into it or stop them from doing it. Revulsion therapy, or the practice of associating a certain activity that might be pleasurable with unpleasurable things, is a practiced thing for several things like alcoholism and smoking. The brain can be conditioned to encourage an activity or discourage one. Dalrock points this issue of “negative conditioning” out as it relates to Sheila herself:

What Sheila doesn’t understand is that she has rewired her own brain in an extremely unhealthy way. She doesn’t feel the normal attraction wives who submit to their husbands feel, and she doesn’t even realize her situation isn’t normal. This is her brain on feminism. If she had a normal, healthy level of attraction for her husband, she would understand just how revealing these words on the topic are about her own marriage. Sheila is very much like the porn addict who can’t experience normal feelings of attraction and intimacy for their spouse.

As well, the typical argument of 1 Corinthians 7:1 and why it was written was that Paul attempted to dissuade the Corinthians from fornication and did too good of a job and dissuaded them from their marital partners. Sex within marriage, in the way God intended, is a God-given blessing, and a good thing. I know this relates to something else, but the bolded phrase is brought to mind when addressing this issue:

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

This is indeed true of sexuality as well. It’s a part of the innate creation of men and women, and to deny it is to deny one’s self. God made its proper outlet to be within marriage, and anything outside of marriage is its perversion (be it fornication, porn for both men and women, and what have you). What God intended to be is never a bad thing in His eyes!

Of course, times have changed. We have Mark Driscoll and others being decried for sex-talk. It can be logical to assume that this change in attitude towards sexuality is coming from the more liberal worldly environment regarding sex. But any repression will express itself. I can gather from Gregoire’s posts on sexuality in the time that I’ve been lurking there that the sexual attitude there can be best described as “grudging femDOM (NSFW)“, where the wife is the dominant one in the bedroom, directs the action, and goes as far as dictating to the man what is acceptable and unacceptable for him. This is a noted expression of feminism in marriage, or Marriage 2.0. The use of the kitchen timer in this case is especially interesting as an example brought up previously. As well, her perceptions of how the sex drive of both men and women are wrong (colored by feminism), but that’s something to address in another post.

Now we know that God made man and woman a specific way, and it would be illogical to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as religious feminists like Gregoire or Albert Mohler would have us do. If God intended for wives to submit to their husbands, it would be logical to say that He intended this in a sexual way as well (NSFW).

This reasoning now leads me to my theory on why Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey are so popular with women. sunshinemary wrote in response to one of Gregoire’s quotes:

Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.

Sheila is wrong. FSoG is wrong too.

I keep telling women – Biblical submission is good for what ails you.

Then I responded:

When something’s repressed, as with any other emotional outlet, it ultimately will come out in very damaging and destructive ways. I believe this is what we are seeing with the FSoG phenomenon. It wouldn’t be anything if women just accepted the way that God made them and not tried to repress themselves to appear “holier” or whatever. They’d be safe, cherished, and loved while submitting to their husbands’ desires (and their own). Who knows, they might find some physical satisfaction in it, too.

Could it be that these women, who play Domme to their husbands in their marriages, (even Christian women, Gregoire laments), are finding expression of their pent-up repressed God-given sexual desires in unnatural, unhealthy, and excessive ways? Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey happened to have functioned as those outlets. We know women are the primary consumers of these things, and they aren’t consuming them for the articles (to borrow the common Playboy meme). Wouldn’t it be better for these women to just find proper expression of their sexual desires with their husbands in the first place?

As I’ve stated on the blog before, Magic Mike and 50 Shades of Grey are wrong. But Sheila is wrong, herself when it comes to these things. As Dalrock states:

Men do notice when their wives are losing attraction. The problem is what they are taught to remedy the problem is the exact opposite of what generates attraction. This is why Shiela’s quote in the OP is so dangerous:

It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved…

Again, this is pure nonsense, but you will see it everywhere. The same goes for the husband and wife article I quoted and linked to. It teaches husbands to do the exact opposite of what will make him attractive to her.

In the end, it’s just another way to reduce intimacy, push husbands and wives apart, and make it harder for women to stick to their marriages.

In conclusion, I hope this theory found some solid ground, if not at least I hope it was entertaining.

(I thought on reflection this post was too long and edited it to tighten it up word-count wise)

The Sheila Wray Gregoire School of Hamster Acrobatics

In reading this blog recently, you will notice that there’s been a theme in a few of the posts regarding female-oriented pornography and the attitudes taken to it compared with male-oriented pornography and a contrast in how it is dealt with. Perusing Sheila Wray Gregoire’s (that’s her maiden name, she isn’t tied down and don’t you forget it!) blog gives us some more interesting insight into the field of Hamster Acrobatics. For what is to transpire, I could even bogart Dalrock’s post title: Will the real Sheila Gregoire Please Stand Up? because, while the expected religious feminist mantra exists, there are a few things that could cause a raised eyebrow. We can at least give her props that she isn’t silent on these things.

We find her doing the double-talking jive on the issue of female-oriented pornography, as it relates to the male-oriented variety:

Can romance novels inspire lust and fantasy? Yes, but they don’t necessarily do it. Romance novels can fuel dissatisfaction with one’s spouse, but they don’t always. Porn, on the other hand, was created primarily to arouse, and that is what it does, so much so that porn users often come to the point that they require porn to get aroused. So while romance novels CAN be bad, by setting up unrealistic romantic fantasies, porn ALWAYS is. Do you see the difference? Porn is lust.

It does definitely seem she is saying that women are capable, rational, and moral beings who are mature enough to handle a sexual fantasy life motivated by lust (it wouldn’t be a sexual fantasy if it weren’t) and precipitated by female-oriented pornography and not have it affect her marriage, her social life, and anything else.

However, she says that men are unable to handle porn in this manner. To her, men who use porn are vile, base, disgusting, incapable of distinguishing sexual fantasy from reality, perverted and the filthy smut he’s looking at is a direct and imminent threat to the marriage, his wife, and everything that is good, honorable, and decent in the world.

She proves out the Bettina Arndt quotes flawlessly. Given Gregoire’s writings, she would agree with Mr. Harrington wholeheartedly:

“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”.

This is further proven out by her deciding to dedicate 1270 words to the topic of romance novels and comes down as non-committal on it, and ends up saying nothing of value in the long run. Diving into the comments reveals the answer she has:

I know what you’re saying, but I just can’t be legalistic and say that all those books are wrong. I really think it depends upon the person.

So, she can be legalistic on the topic of male-oriented pornography but she can’t be on the topic of female-oriented pornography? To go further, Sheila Gregoire finally reveals her feminist bias and hatred of men in dealing with this topic, in the process of shutting down comment on it:

Okay, this is absolutely the last thing I’m saying on this topic, and I will delete further comments to it.

Porn is looking at naked people. Period. What reason does a man have to look at a naked woman except to arouse himself?

It all creates unrealistic expectations upon marriage and for partners. In addressing Albert Mohler’s fixation on men only as it relates to pornography, the tacit acceptance of female-oriented pornography, along with the celebration of its use has done much more damage to the institution of Christian marriage than pornography use by men has ever done:

While the visual forms of pornography that Mohler thinks about primarily appeals to men, Mohler says nothing about the forms of pornography that primarily appeals to women, such as “chick flicks” and romance novels. If anything, the danger of pornography of all forms upon Christian marriage is that it fosters unrealistic expectations of what a Christian marriage is to be. That so many women have taken to those things (and even “Christian” forms!), they are socially acceptable, and shape very much the aspect of Christian marriage with women to the point that almost all women are looking for the continual courtship and perfect romance with the Alpha Man (what I’ve called the Alpha Experience before) should be horrifying to Dr. Mohler. Yet he has supported this warped view of Christian marriage, which was created to support these false expectations of women. To keep to pornography as a whole, these primarily female forms of pornography are what’s been destroying Christian marriage much more than anything Dr. Mohler imagines.

This can easily be said of most of what I’ve read on Sheila Wray Gregoire’s site. That she floats this double-standard along with hatred of men should be appalling. To go on further, she gives her well-known prescription to the matter of porn use in men, frivolous divorce.

The folly in the argument that pornography is the same as adultery has already been addressed, multiple times. Given what she has written, it is not unexpected that she advocates divorce for any and every reason. After all, women can’t be trapped in marriage when they’re unhaaaaaapy, right?

So, where is the real Sheila Gregoire on this issue. I promised an eye-raising portion and here it is She writes today:

When I was young, it was hard to come across porn by accident. It was all sold in special stores, or on high shelves in magazine racks. Novels weren’t really raunchy in the same way. It wasn’t as if porn could just jump out at you, by accident.

But today I’ve had a rather distressing experience. I went into Shoppers’ Drug Mart, a big drug store chain up here in Canada. The vast majority of what they sell is beauty products and medicines. But they do have a magazine aisle, and the “top 20″ book section. And there, in a large display, was 50 Shades of Grey. Then my daughter and I went to our grocery store, which sells–you guessed it–groceries. But even they have a new “top 20″ book section, and there was 50 Shades of Grey, too.

So she slipped up and called 50 Shades of Grey pornography, huh? Not consistent with her previous definition (“Porn is looking at naked people. Period.”). So which is it?

So by her logic in her constrained view of what pornography is (“Porn is looking at naked people. Period.”), possession of the 50 Shades of Grey novel or other similar works, is grounds for me to seek divorce from my wife (if I were to have one)? Let’s drive to something more immediate to her hamster acrobatics: If I were to catch my wife watching Magic Mike, the upcoming 50 Shades of Grey movie (it’ll happen, the books are flying off the shelves at a record pace and Twilight was too profitable, and you know we’ll see “Christian Grey” naked, banging “Anastasia Steele”), or any other movie that has a naked man in it that she can lust over?

Oh wait, I’m one of those evil vile menz, and I could never be allowed to run off from marriage. After all, men are accountable for the sins of women in Marriage 2.0, because women are paragons of virtue who don’t have any original sin or capability to sin without being pushed into it by a man.

But then again maybe the answer is yes so more women can be freed from their oppressive shackles of marriage that the patriarchy puts on them.

Female-Oriented Pornography

I notice in a few circles that the drumbeat is getting louder with respect to female-oriented pornography. As I’ve written about in the past , female-oriented pornography (or pornography designed to cause sexual excitement in women) has more to do with the written word than the image. Webster’s dictionary even tells us this (emphasis mine):

Pornography noun:
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

Unfortunately, we’ve had the mainstreaming and acceptance of female porn (in the form of books and movies) from both the secular and evangelical realms. Romance novels and rom-coms (or chick-flicks) have been tacitly accepted for a very long time, and even popularized from books into movies such as the Twilight series. 50 Shades of Grey even began as a Twilight fan-fiction. Unfortunately, it’s taken something as outwardly blatant as 50 Shades of Grey in order for people to even talk and realize that things such as books can be pornography too.

To give credit where credit is due (especially since the admonishing of women for sin in any Focus On The Family material is taboo since they believe that women don’t sin), Boundlessline.org ran an online article by Adam Holz which pointed out the truth of such matters:

Pornography, then, is not just a men’s issue. And though some might be tempted to dismiss or wink at a “naughty” story such as Fifty Shades of Gray because it trades in degrading words instead of degrading images, it’s potentially every bit as destructive in the lives of women who might be tempted to entertain E.L. James’ twisted sexual fantasies.

Of course, the redefining of it took hold right from the first comment on that blog entry (no it’s not porn it’s “erotica”). The tacit acceptance of the sins of women along with the lack of recognition of their responsibilities within the evangelical sphere is highly unfortunate. The demonstration that most evangelical leaders have no concept of the nature of women (especially their sin nature, and their sexual nature) to advise or preach in any matter regarding them is also incredibly disturbing.

Thankfully there are people who are pointing these things out, as well as the blatant hypocrisy that evangelical leaders are engaging in regarding the issue of pornography. Bettina Arndt writes:

There’s such giggly delight in the public display of women’s huge appetite for this latest girly porn.

Yet when men are caught looking at their favoured sexual material – pictures rather than words – that’s somehow very different. Men who use porn are disgusting, perverted, their filthy smut a danger to marriage and sure sign of an addled male brain.

The double-standard most certainly exists. While the use of porn is accepted and celebrated with women (it’s a best seller, popular enough for a trilogy of books AND a movie), it’s denigrated and demonized when it comes to men. We have already seen a ready example of this double-standard in R. Albert Mohler’s writings:

One further qualification must be added to this picture. Pornography is mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men. . . The fact remains that many men pay a great deal of money and spend a great deal of time looking at and looking for pornographic images in order to arouse themselves sexually.

Bettina Arndt points out the double-standard as do others:

If men and women were the same, surely we would have the same capacity to be rational, moral beings, mature enough to handle our fantasy lives without distorting real-life goals and expectations.

But no, when it comes to sexual fantasy any notion of equality goes out the window, with men seen as incapable of making this type of differentiation while women remain uncorrupted by their own salacious, grossly unreal imaginary sexual world.

Stephen Harrington points out this double-standard as well:

“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”.

Evangelicals like Mohler are screaming to the rafters against the male-oriented porn, but are conspicuously silent on the female variety. They need to realize that women aren’t reading novels such as these “for the articles” (to parrot the common Playboy ploy) or watching the movie adaptations because it’s a nice storyline. So why are these evangelicals silent on such matters? Harrington concludes correctly that it’s a by-product of the feminist interests (again another proof of feminism in these evangelicals):

I suspect it has something to with the fact the 50 Shades trilogy clearly does not fit the narrative that . . . the porn industry is positioned as an engine of rape, violence towards women, and all-out misery.

Most significantly, these books are written by a woman, from a woman’s perspective and are extremely popular with everyday women. Which, of course, challenges the presumption that pornography is something done to women, never by them and/or for them.

These books . . . have also become enormously popular by nothing more than word-of-mouth. They have not been forced upon anyone, but have been actively sought out for reading pleasure by women all around the world, again challenging the idea that our sexuality is being hijacked by depraved corporate interests.

So what does it mean in the end? R. Albert Mohler and other evangelicals like him need to answer the following questions correctly or be seen as hypocritical and all their words rightfully dismissed. This will be a necessity for them to do such things and be seen as serious, and even openly repent in public in sack-cloth and ashes for the efforts they have made in the past against men when it comes to pornography, since the profitability of Fifty Shades of Grey and other fem-porn works and general acceptance of these things will only cause these things to grow in number:

1. Is pornography a male-only phenomenon or is it a person-oriented phenomenon (that means women do it too)? The only right answer is that all (men and women) participate and need to be admonished if pornography is sinful.

2. Is male-oriented pornography the only thing that’s sinful or is all pornography sinful? The only acceptable answers here are that either all of it is sinful or none of it is sinful. This writer holds that all of it is sinful. But those in power in Churchianity need to make this decision, and back it up.

3. Are they willing to stand forcefully in action on their answer in #2. This means in the case of Albert Mohler if he answers that all pornography is sinful, banning all female-oriented pornography (these novels, other romance novels including “Christian” ones, and rom-com movies) within the walls of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as well as directing the instructors to teach forcefully against it, AND preaching much more forcefully against the fem-porn than he ever did the male variety. If the fem-porn gets a pass, then that means the male-porn gets a pass, too, and the unbanning of these things need to occur within SBTS and openly preached FOR.

Anything less than accomplishing these things is hypocrisy from these people.