50 Shades of Gray and A Quest for Fire

So much hoopla and buzz is swirling again now that the movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Gray is coming out. Full disclosure, I have not read the book and I am a so-called conservative “born-again” Jesus Christ-follower. I am also a feminist in the classic sense. So I would suppose that would already be two strikes against this book and movie for me. However, I will try to look at this from angles other than my own deeply felt faith, convictions and beliefs. This is basically my own editorializing, and this editorializing is from the point of view that is aside from any religious objection alone, as I'm sure there will be many such theological and religious people writing more eloquently than I on this movie/book and Christian faith and ethics. I'm just speaking to the general culture, a mix of religious and irreligious. Please be warned this may get grown-up and graphic and that can make sensitive and conservative folks uncomfortable. Since I myself am often one of those sensitive, conservative and oft-uncomfortable folk, I appreciate a warning. So, my fellows, this is that warning.

I’m not a prude, I have a past, rather adventurous, and perhaps because I’ve ventured some I can say this: What ever happened to good, old fashioned sex? You know, two people with chemistry, eye-to-eye, kiss-to-kiss, c*ck-to-p*ssy, come together or take turns, both are satisfied, a bit of spooning then sleep. Why do we need to push, poke and prod ourselves into outlandish and foreign territory? Isn’t an orgasm an orgasm? Are we debasing ourselves and each other by choking, spanking, spiking and binding ourselves in the search for more intensity? Can we ask ourselves is this healthy for our bodies? Is this healthy for our souls? Is this healthy for our emotions?

My second notion in regards to all of this would be - is “Gray” just another take on Beauty and The Beast; and therefore, just another in the long line of possibly warped fairy tails, tales indicative of a patriarchal and more uncivilized age? I like Beauty and The Beast, in particular I love the Jean Cocteau version, and am also fond of the Disney movie. However, there is a negative interpretation of these stories: a beastly, mean, rude, selfish man is transformed by the love of a patient, put-upon, good-natured, resourceful, beautiful woman. Her love, which was largely demonstrated by her tolerating her own discomfort and his prick-ish behaviour (in two senses of the word) is the agent of transformation. In one sense that is the essence of Christian love, i.e., The Loving and Innocent Jesus Christ sacrificing Himself to redeem all of man-and-womankind. And yes, all healthy human relationships succeed with a mutual and loving patience and tolerance. But in the context of “Gray” and “The Beast” is it really a healthy attitude for women to harbor that by their sweet love and suppression of their own best interests they can transform a egocentric jerk into a benevolent prince? Is it even healthy to still harbor these fantasies? I don’t know. “The heart wants what the heart wants.” I know quite a few women who persevered patiently like Belle but were never able to break the spell on their Beasts. And it wasn’t for lack of trying or waiting. So does all of this continue to feed into the old and outdated and unrealistic notion that women have to “fix” their men, and men are allowed somewhat of a pass on their untamed side? Why not just find a partner that’s not broken in the first place. (I know all of us are broken, but speaking in more excessive terms here.)

Is all of this sex game play really driving us farther away from each other, rather that closer? We are having a variety of "better sex" but do we have better love? There is a film that came out in the early 80s called Quest For Fire, and it is basically about the plight of primitive man in his search for making, finding and keeping fire, but it also touches on the greater themes of civilization such as art, cooperation, humor/laughter, and love/affection. In one very telling scene the “caveman” is taught a more personal, and thus fulfilling, way of mating with his “cavewoman” partner when she switches position from the animalistic “doggie-style” to the face-to-face, front-to-front position (missionary). They look into each other’s eyes, they smile. That my friends, it what life, love and sex is all about. It’s as if they’re saying, “Mmmm, hey you! This feels good!“ It’s more than the just act itself, it’s the intimate human connection. Please don’t take this as an endorsement for boring sex. The common wisdom of our age says that we need to spice it up when things get stagnant; and we do know that with the natural rhythms of life there are times when we need to rekindle the flames of love. Many claim that what is portrayed in "Gray" and its ilk are one effective way of spicing things up. A couples’ sex life should be fun, playful and satisfying. But above-all it should serve to strengthen their deep bond not weaken it. Do seek to revive something that has grown weak, but let your passion grow with a genuine, insightful and intuitive connection, not something dark and ultimately harmful. So I think my point is that sometimes the basic human connection gets lost in all the blindfolds and silk ties, and we can’t let that real spark die.

above photo by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattes