For those of you who follow my career closely (exactly no one) you already know that I have somewhat of an interest in the topic of 50 Shades of Grey. Even though I’ve never read it and don’t plan to for the simple reason that I’m certain enough that I don’t enjoy erotic fiction. And even if I did, the last thing I need is to find another supplement to my already-hectic masturbatory schedule.
The opinions I’ve heard on it as a book go something like this:
Average Woman: “I’ve heard this is scandalous, but in a way that’s also sort of socially appropriate at the moment, so I’m going to read it.”
Female Erotica Reader: “It’s not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s just the new hot thing.”
Based on those reactions, I’m guessing that I just wouldn’t enjoy it. Because I don’t enjoy erotic scenes in books in general, and also because the scandalization, “this is naughty!” factor is pretty hard for me to access. It’s gotta be pretty horrific when you’re talking to a guy who has seen video of a squid going inside of a woman.
Yes.
So I could be wrong about the content of 50 Shades…but I’m not.
What interests me about the movie is how it is not going to be pornography. Because, from what I can tell, the basic thing that often separates pornography from erotica is visuals. So when 50 Shades becomes visual, how is it nor pornography?
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not putting it down. Maybe it’s smut, maybe not. I don’t really care about that. When I say it’s pornographic I’m not using that as an argument against it. It’s asking about the differences. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m pro-porno. Prono? But I will say one thing in favor of it, in 2013.
Technology has given people the option to get into the porn industry as a solo act. You don’t have to be a part of a big studio. You don’t have to be in casting couch situations. You could film yourself having loving sex with a monogamous spouse and sell access online if you chose to. I have a web site. Me. So if I can do it, anyone can. You could start your own home porno business with HD video online for less than $1000. The point being, I think the primary argument against pornography has been that it is a terrible industry that preys on people with issues, however one doesn’t have to be a part of that anymore. You could argue that it’s young women making choices with their bodies and minds that they have to live with forever, but without opening the can too wide, you could very easily make the same argument for young men who join the military.
I only bring this up because the main difference in terms of evil between pornography and erotica as businesses is that the people in pornography are real whereas the people in erotica are not. However, if that’s the only difference between erotica and pornography, animated pornography should be 100% acceptable. And it’s not. Because that shit is WEIRD. Seriously, I dare you to watch it. See what happens. It’s also very unromantic, which is why the stars or erotic novels are rarely animators who create weird cartoon porn. Although I DO think that would make an excellent career for a single woman trying to make it on her own in Manhattan in a romantic comedy.
With that on the side for the moment, it occurs to me is that the divide between erotic fiction and pornography being text versus images is a bit biased against men. Hang with me for a second.
In general, men are more aroused by images. In general. I know this isn’t always true, but let’s just look at what’s on the market. Playgirl sales versus Playboy. How many Maxim-type magazines are out there versus…well, what’s the heterosexual woman’s Maxim? Does such a thing even exist? Are women reading Maxim? There must be a woman out there who does, and I think she must be the most fascinating woman ever. Or she reeks of Axe and thinks the airbrush is the greatest thing that has happened to masturbation since the invention of human memory.
Just about every book store and library in the nation stocks 50 Shades. As they should. Bookstores want to make money, libraries should let people read whatever the hell they want. But the book has gotten popular enough that you can buy it at a grocery store. At Target.
Now, again, I don’t have a problem with this. However, the same acts described in 50 Shades would be unacceptable in pictorial form at Target.
“Christian follows with two sharp thrusts, and he freezes, pouring himself into me as he finds his release.”
Okay, so this would be a picture of a couple having sex, the man clearly ejaculating. If that’s not pornographic, I struggle to know what is. That’s pretty much the defining moment of porn, right? Someone climaxing? Alone, with someone else, or due to the squid’s natural shelter-seeking behaviors?
The reason this is biased against men, assuming that women are better able to be aroused by narrative and erotica while men can pretty much look at various produce that somewhat resemble lopsided breasts, is that it means it’s OKAY to be aroused just so long as that arousal results from text as opposed to as an image. It’s okay to buy material that contains the act of a man ejaculating inside of a woman while you’re at the grocery store, just so long as this material is presented in a certain way. So the censoring of material isn’t WHAT the material is. It’s just a format issue.
What’s really curious to me is that, with this becoming a movie, will the line remain the same? Will Target carry the movie? Will the movie be as explicit as the book? How do we decide what’s pornographic and what’s erotic, especially when we consider that the movie will feature actual people simulating sex acts on camera? I mean, if all penetration is simulated, is it okay to show? What if the penetration was all CG?
Let’s talk for a second about some of the other things that traditionally categorize porn and erotica, some of the arguments I’ve heard that divide the two.
-A kid could just pick pornography whereas they won’t pick up a book.
Okay, true. That is true. 50 Shades is less likely to be picked up and digested by a child who isn’t ready, but that doesn’t really make it non-pornographic, does it? Because the content is there, it’s just less likely to be absorbed by a child. By that logic, pornography locked inside a safe ceases to be pornographic, right? Because there’s no way for a child to get at it?
Also, if we’re talking about children being exposed to inappropriate things and the difference between narrative and visuals…would you be more disturbed to find out a homeless man had flashed your young child and run away or that he sat down next to him or her and spun a lengthy erotic yarn where he spoke of his inner goddess and provided graphic descriptions of sex acts? Both would be pretty weird, but which is more likely to be scarring down the road?
-Pornography is Meant as a Lead-In to Direct Action
Again, can’t disagree with that. Pornography is intended to be viewed while masturbating. I’ll even go so far as to assume that erotic fiction is not meant to lead directly to masturbation, that arousal, masturbation not necessary, was the writer’s intent.
However, what we find with any artist is that intent often means a lot less than popular interpretation. So if the author of 50 Shades didn’t intend for people to masturbate while reading it or immediately after, I get that, but what if we were to discover that this was, in fact, happening? What would be the number required to decide that this was pornography despite the intent? 50%? Because I don’t think that anything approaching half the people who read Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom set the thing down to peel one off at any point. I’m guessing about 2%, and half of those are just insane. The other half? Well, what the hell. Sometimes the dissolution of the American family is sexy.
If I may, I think this another example of the bias of erotica. Erotica presupposes an audience that is willing to be aroused and leave things at that. I don’t think I’m revealing a big secret here when I say this is not, generally, a male perspective. If I told most men that they could watch a pornographic movie clip but could not masturbate to it now or ever, I think I’d get a large number of responses along the lines of “Well, what’s the point of that?” It’s a big difference in thinking.
Now, obviously we can’t say that something becomes pornography because someone jacks off to it. Because that would make basically everything pornography. There are people who are aroused by high-heeled shoes, but that doesn’t mean high-heeled shoes are pornographic. There are people who dress up in mascot costumes and fuck each other, but I don’t think that this means we can’t have a Colorado Rockies mascot without him being pornographic (although his name IS Dinger…).
So we’re trapped. If something can’t be categorized as porn simply because someone jacked off to it, it’s a stretch to say something ISN’T porn because nobody jacked off to it.
And now, we get to Miley Cyrus.
So I think we all heard about Miley Cyrus shaking her ass in front of Beetlejuice at the VMA’s. And we all heard how terrible it was, how gross it was, how it was so inappropriate.
A scant decade earlier, I can remember watching Britney Spears dancing around with a snake.
What’s the difference? Both were trying to be sexy, but only one succeeded.
The takeaway, however, is that I think we judge a failed attempt at something more harshly than we should. Miley was trying to have her snake dance, and she failed. And if you fail at being sexy, you’re inappropriate, untalented, and all around a piece of shit. If you succeed at being sexy, you can excuse the ridiculousness of tearaway pants and writhing with a snake.
This isn’t the normal reaction, though. Halle Berry sunbathing topless in Swordfish? Tacky. Halle Berry naked in Monster’s Ball? Fine. She can be naked and win the Academy Award for Best Actress IF the movie surrounding the sex is powerful enough.
Which, to me, doesn’t make a lot of scientific sense. If Monster’s Ball were released as nothing but that sex scene, it would be porn. But if you attach narrative and emotion to it, sandwich-style, not only is the movie not porn, THAT SPECIFIC SCENE isn’t porn either. Person A could watch Monster’s Ball right up to the sex scene, at which point Person B walks in and sees the same scene, then immediately walks out. Those people were watching the exact same thing at the exact same time, but they are likely to walk away with two very different experiences as a result.
It’s very strange, but if a movie is Oscar-y, it can get away with a lot more in the nudity, sexual content, violence, and foul language departments. We feel like they’ve earned it somehow, it’s okay.
A great many people find porn unsexy. I can’t say I blame them. A lot of it is pretty durn far off the map. But there’s an important difference between being turned off by something and that something being nothing but trash.
For all its merits, I don’t think 50 Shades is likely to be a big Oscar contender. So in all honesty? I think the only way for the movie to work is for it to succeed at being sexy.
If it’s unsexy, it will feel cheap. It will feel lazy. It will feel almost MORE pornographic than a more explicit, sexier version would. People are going to walk in expecting to be a little challenged, and if they don’t get it, then what’s the point?
If it’s got good acting, if the dialogue works, if the chemistry is there, that’s what can separate the movie from porn. If they set out to make something arousing, don’t pull punches in that department, and make something undeniable, I think it could be a rare, erotic movie that’s sexual without necessarily being pornographic.
But if it’s basically a romcom with dicks and vaginas, then why spend the 8 bucks and two hours when I could the same thing by Googling at home? Hell, I own 50% of the equipment. Okay, 42%.