The 32-year-old star of the film talked to The Observer and said he wouldn’t be going full frontal.
“You want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible without grossing them out. You don’t want to make something gratuitous, and ugly, and graphic. There were contracts in place that said that viewers wouldn’t be seeing my, um…,” Jamie said, before the interviewer jumped in with “Todger?” Jamie responded, “Yeah, my todger.”
What's the point? The movie is obviously not intended for minors, so an NC-17 rating wouldn't be unfitting (though may limit its release, but it's such a highly anticipated film that I doubt that would happen). Are they going for PG-13, because that's what it looks like. A penis, if anything, would draw more attention to the movie.
You can show a fully nude female in a sex scene and it's acceptable, but the moment you show a penis, it's a big deal. It just goes to show how much society sexualizes women.
This wouldn't deter me from watching it in theaters if I actually wanted to watch it. There's still a story () and you can obviously tell what's going on during the sex scenes.
I had no intention on watching this to begin with, though.