The furor around 50 Shades of Grey isn't about what happens in private bedrooms

[el_bryanto]

It's about the message of the book and now the movie, which many find to be akin to glorifying rape and abuse.

What you or I or E.L.James does in the privacy of their own bedroom is nobodies business.

What you decide to take into a public space, by say, publishing a book or producing a movie, is fair game to be argued against and criticized.

It's really not that complicated.

I don't see anybody arguing that this movie or this book should be banned, and if anybody is, I staunchly disagree with them. But once you say something people have the right to disagree with you.

It's ironic that people in the name of free speech are arguing that those who disagree with the depiction of rape and abuse in 50 Shades of Grey should be silenced.

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

1. Haven't read it, don't intend to, nor do I intend to see the movie

What other people do though; read it, not read it, buy it and burn it, glorify it or condemn it, is none of my business.

[Katashi_itto]

2. +10,000

I can only think of a few porn novels that where any good.

I would get 50 shades if he read it. It would be awesome then...

[el_bryanto]

3. That seems like an odd stance to take

Do you have an opinion when people express an attitude on other matters? Do you take in every opinion you hear and say "Well what that person says is none of my business?" Or do you disagree with people when they say things you find offensive or wrong-headed?

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

4. I believe in upholding the first amendment on general principles

My refusal to buy the book or watch the movie is the extent of my opinion on the subject.

If people come up to me and say things I don't agree with, I tell them to their face they're full of shit.

(ETA)

But I don't stick stick a gag ball in their mouth and tell them to STFU.

[el_bryanto]

5. I believe in upholding the first amendment as well

But part of the first amendment is my right to share in the discussion.

But let me make sure if I understand your position - if i came up to you sand said something you disagreed with, you'd tell me I was full of shit, but if you read something Ann Coulter, for example, had written, you'd be bound by your commitment to the First Amendment to keep your opinion to yourself?

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

8. For the record, I consider Ann Coulter's writing political pornography

And I do not buy her books.

The stuff of her's I read for free is bad enough.

I didn't say I would keep quiet about her. I said I don't care if other people buy her books. Hell, reading alone would put anybody above the intellectual level of most republicans.

I don't think it's my mission to ban books, let alone burn them in a huge pile.

[el_bryanto]

16. Who has argued that we should burn books?

Are you under the impression that I have? And are you comparing me to the Nazis?

If so, than fuck you.

I would be opposed to banning these books as well, but that doesn't mean i don't feel comfortable saying they glorify rape and abuse, and that they are bad books - bad both in being unskilled and in encouraging bad things.

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

18. Ha ha! Then we're on the same page.

You can say whatever you want, and you did.

I can say whatever I want, and I did.

[el_bryanto]

24. OK - Fair enough - than I will happily continue to enjoy condemning this book and movie

and suggesting that those who read them should consider how these works portray the treatment of women.

I don't know what point you were trying to make, but at this point, I'm not sure you do either.

Bryant

[Xipe Totec]

26. Absolutely! Proceed, that is your right.

But don't expect everybody who responds to your post to agree with you.

That's what makes this a discussion forum.

[NanceGreggs]

45. The book and movie ...

... like most erotica, portray women (and men) in situations some find sexually arousing. They do not promote the idea that treating a woman in a certain way (if she is equally willing to be treated a certain way in the privacy of a sexual relationship) is to be held out as acceptable to all women, or behaviour to be embraced by all men.

It is a book/film aimed at a particular audience - in the same way that many films are aimed at sports-car racing enthusiasts, boxing fans, organized crime genre devotees, or happily-ever-after romantic comedy fans.

Do you also suggest that the aforementioned "consider how these works" portray the treatment of women - or men - or anyone?

[progressoid]

23. So, you support applying the same standard to 50 Shades as one would Ann Coulter.

[Xipe Totec]

29. In a way, yes. Both are crap based simply on the subjects.

But anybody who wants to waste good money buying this crap can do so, with or without my approval.

I really could not care less.

[smirkymonkey]

87. +1000

These people and their "logic" completely baffle me. They are everywhere contradicting themselves.

[BainsBane]

11. Funny, I don't recall your takaing that position toward Fox News or Rush Limbuagh

In fact, I see all kinds of calls here to shut down Fox News and get Rush off the air. I can't think of many people saying, just don't watch it if you don't like it.

You do realize that the First Amendment also protects the rights of those who criticize the movie. It doesn't just protect the speech you approve of. Why that concept is so hard for people to understand, I'm not sure, other than of course it isn't about the First Amendment at all. It's about silencing others.

[BainsBane]

17. I'm pointing out a contradiction

That rights do not belong only to you and those who agree with you but to everyone. That such a comment results in such anger from you says a lot.

[Xipe Totec]

19. Please tell me who I'm trying to silence.

Because it seems to me that the opposite is true.

[BainsBane]

21. Me, for one

Telling me to "fuck off" clearly is intended to do that. It shows absolute contempt for my speech simply because I disagree with you.

[Xipe Totec]

22. Did you miss the IF?

Or are you admitting you were conducting a purity test?

[alp227]

30. So could you explain this sentence please?

"What other people do though; read it, not read it, buy it and burn it, glorify it or condemn it, is none of my business."

So what does "none of my business" mean? You won't criticize others' tastes for books or whatever? What is criticism, and what is censorship in your opinion?

[smirkymonkey]

82. Touche!

Very good response!

[smirkymonkey]

88. +1000

It's funny how freedom of speech seems to be a one way street for some people. They simply don't get the fact that freedom of speech applies to all, not just to those who agree with you.

[BainsBane]

95. His response was revealing

Don't you think?

[smirkymonkey]

86. And who is actually doing that to you?

Nobody, I think. You are overreacting a bit here. Try to calm down.

[SwankyXomb]

36. There's a big difference

between telling someone they shouldn't see '50 Shades of Gary' because it's utter crap, and telling them they're not allowed to see it because Mrs. Grundy says so.

[el_bryanto]

40. And nobody has said that. Nobody has said you aren't allowed to see it.

Some people have suggested that it's offensive because of how it treats women. That's different than saying you shouldn't be allowed to see it.

Bryant

[840high]

32. ..... +10

[shanti]

41. Moi aussi

No interest whatsoever.

[cui bono]

128. However, by posting in this thread you are making it your business to an extent.

You could just as easily have not posted in the thread at all. But by posting your opinion that it's "none of your business" what other people do regarding the book you are implying that people shouldn't care and shouldn't discuss it because it's none of their business either.

[joeglow3]

134. I call BS.

Why is it wrong for people here to discuss Atlas Shrugged, why some people like it, what it says about society, etc?

[leftstreet]

6. Sounds like wealth porn to me

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book, so per wiki:

Fifty Shades of Grey is a 2011 erotic romance novel by British author E. L. James. It is the first installment in the Fifty Shades trilogy that traces the deepening relationship between a college graduate, Anastasia Steele, and a young business magnate, Christian Grey. It is notable for its explicitly erotic scenes featuring elements of sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM).


Anastasia "Ana" Steele is a 21-year-old college senior attending Washington State University in Vancouver, Washington with her best friend Katharine "Kate" Kavanagh, who writes for their student newspaper. Due to an illness, Kate persuades Ana to take her place and interview 27-year-old Christian Grey, an incredibly successful and wealthy young entrepreneur. Ana is instantly attracted to Christian, but also finds him intimidating.

Would the lady in question submit to BDSM etc if the guy was unemployed, or homeless?

Would she consider it 'erotic romance' if an impoverished man approached her with bondage tools, or would she call the cops?

[Action_Patrol]

37. Ugh

This whole series started as Twilight fan-fiction. It's garbage, just like its source material.
However, are you really this uptight or is this an honest question? It's fiction, lots of wacky things happen in fiction.

[JoeyT]

56. It pretty much is.

TIL that all the Kochs have to do to be accepted by some of DU is fund a campaign about how awful feminists are.

[NanceGreggs]

79. The idea that Christian Grey ...

... or the equally fictional characters of Rene or Sir Stephen in "The Story of O", are wealthy is a device by which the author negates any questions about how such men can afford to indulge in their sexual fantasies.

And if you think that women who wish to mutually indulge in such sexual fantasies do so based on
the financial wherewithal of the man involved, you are truly naive.

[leftstreet]

123. Isn't most romance fiction based on wealth?

Are there many popular romance fiction males who are unemployed, underemployed, homeless?

[NanceGreggs]

129. I wouldn't say they're based on wealth ...

... but most romance and/or erotic fiction establishes the lead male character as being wealthy as a device.

It kind of ruins the mood if, in the middle of some raunchy sex scene, the male jumps up, looks at his watch and yells, "Holy shit! Gotta go - if I'm late for work again I'll get canned!"

[joeglow3]

135. Holy shit, thank you

This sub-thread made me laugh my ass off.

[uppityperson]

7. Like that Dragon Tattoo book/movie, no desire to read this one or see the movie due to

the rape and abuse issues. I found it ironic that a workmate who rarely read read these books and thought they were wonderful. At least she was reading, was my thought.

I do not like glorifying rape or abuse, have no desire to participate in viewing it or giving money to it.

[betterdemsonly]

10. Dragon tatoo surely didn't glorify those things

even though those things happened.

[uppityperson]

12. Don't call me Shirley.

sorry, I had to write that.

[NealK]

52. Lol!

[TDale313]

34. Agreed.

In fact it did precisely the opposite IMO.

[Zorra]

127. Yeh, quite the opposite, in fact.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

125. Maybe you should read the book or see the film, because it glorified nothing

The scene (I only saw the Swedish version) had it's intended effect on me....made me angry....made me want the heroine to get her revenge.

I have seen the same argument made here about Dragon Tattoo before, and it makes me wonder if the same people are the ones who have issues with Huck Finn because it has the N-word in it or other pieces of art because they depict things they find distasteful.

[betterdemsonly]

9. It was a hyped book

people bought it to see what the hype was about. If the movie is true to the book it will be gross and boring like altas shrugged.

[LTR]

51. Not possible

"Atlas Shrugged" was a total shit sandwich of a movie. This is what happens when teabaggers make movies - they are dull, lifeless and ridiculously preachy.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Not every book or movie ...

... is conveying a "message". Some are only meant to depict a sexual fantasy that some find arousing, while others do not.

Those who believe that certain books or movies "glorify rape and abuse" have every right to express that opinion. The problem arises when they insist that everyone else share that opinion, and choose their reading material or their film viewing based on the opinions of others.

[freshwest]

14. I see it as conditioning and desensitizing. Like the Handmaiden's Tale.

Like Cheney, Rush and Fox saying waterboarding isn't torture. Like the media calling civilian dead collateral damage. Like television shows showing the human body being tortured, mutated, twisted into things to be used by...

Who, and to what end, it is never asked. But it's like a train wreck that people can't get their eyes off of.

There is a lot of media that has always painted an image of women as things to be used, to vent anger on, to ethnically cleanse, for profit, whatever. The same media portrays men as sadists, killers and tools of war to be discarded when broken. Not human.

It's part of the coarsening and tone deafness to each other being presented to the youth and others in the nation to titillate and take their eyes off the powerful.

To make less meaningful the fact that the powerful are torturing workers, animals, the planet and humans for profit and as sport. Yes, it's sport to do this and it's treated as entertainment. They are teaching us their values.

And refusing to face the facts of what to some are obviously lesser people's lives, fears and pain is our loss. We ask the same questions over and over again about why they gravitate toward religion in the face of those who dismiss their pain for sterile arguments about rights and freedoms.

It's about feelings. It's about respect. It's not about critiques of style or art but real lives that see the daily desensitization of pain and disregarding the poor, the unpopular and the vulnerable since they are not attractive enough to have a market value according to media.

There really can't be a DU discussion about this that does not end in mockery. So I seldom ever join into threads about the rights of the vulnerable at DU. And I have just stated my ideas and what is deeper than a movie or book. No one will agree with me, okay.

And my not indulging the mockers at their demand I answer them, is my right, too. People can ignore those who feel differently, but IRL I know many who have shifted to the right as their refuge on such. By disrespecting them, they will leave us, because we are refusing to allow them to talk. BTW, I'm not going anywhere. EOM.

[BainsBane]

27. Excellent points

You raise a whole host of ideas I hadn't thought of.

[Skittles]

31. excellent post, freshwest

yes indeed

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. These points are exactly ones made by seabeyond and thank you for this, freshwest =

I see it as conditioning and desensitizing.

It's about feelings. It's about respect.

the Larger Context of what is happening.

[freshwest]

71. I didn't see that post. Is that the one that got hidden?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. no that is not any one post by her but, it is the message and tone of all her posts (to me)

that in the larger context this is what is happening to us as a people and that it is feeding on itself.

the loss of respect and dignity and how rape porn is played into all of this.

check your PM in a minute about the hidden post.

[smirkymonkey]

90. +1000

Brilliant post. I cannot recommend this enough.

[ancianita]

122. Thanks. Great ideas here, but I prefer the semantic difference of 'conditioning' over 'teaching.'

[nomorenomore08]

20. "What you decide to take into a public space... is fair game to be argued against and criticized."

Well stated. And I say this as someone who couldn't give a flying fuck about '50 Shades' or anything like it. Anyone calling for a film or book to be banned is an idiot, and I want nothing to do with them. But a mere critical opinion is perfectly valid.

[BainsBane]

25. I haven't seen anyone do so

What I saw was a rather odd rant about the sex lives of two characters in a film being no one's business and that people had no right to discuss it. Somehow the concept that privacy rights of fictional characters shouldn't trump the free speech rights of living, breathing citizens was lost on him.

[Whiskeytide]

38. That's what I saw as well...

... and it was odd. How do fictional characters have any privacy "rights"?

I think what's been happening in almost all of these threads is a genuine (most of the time) disconnect.

Someone will post "The book normalizes an abusive relationship", and then someone responds with "but consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom". Then the first person comes back with "so you're saying abuse is OK if you do it in the bedroom?", and then the reply is "you can't ban something just because you don't like it!"

Neither person is wrong, but they really aren't talking about the same thing. Sometimes I think people don't really read the posts they reply to.

[BainsBane]

39. I would believe that

If he hadn't refused to engage with the point that those characters are not real people.

[nomorenomore08]

47. "Neither person is wrong, but they really aren't talking about the same thing."

I think this does happen quite often. Though I wonder if there isn't an aspect of disingenuousness among the "Stop trying to ban things!" crowd - not to mention a bit of a persecution complex.

[nomorenomore08]

42. That is kind of bizarre, yes. And I didn't mean to imply that DUers are calling for a ban

because they are demonstrably not doing so.

"Privacy rights of fictional characters"? WTF? I feel like laughing right now, at whoever was "concerned" about that.

[Harmony Blue]

28. 50 Shades is poorly written

female erotica but the central theme of the book is consistent with other erotica and romance novels that are popular with women.

You can ask why that is the case and many people will have different answers. It doesn't baffle me because I think straight women need to be more honest about their sexuality and what they like. For the people mortified about 50 shades I think the reality is this type of erotica has been around long before I was born lol.

[Whiskeytide]

35. Cave art of suave, successful cavemen...

... dragging cave women around by their hair, maybe?

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Cave Johnson?

[krawhitham]

96. It reads like bad fan fiction

[Whiskeytide]

33. Good post, succinct and dead on ...

... I also think some can't perceive the difference between the public rejecting or criticizing something they don't like, and the government censoring something it doesn't like.

I am perfectly fine with a preacher condemning something he finds distasteful or contrary to his beliefs. Not so much if he involves his congressman.

[Hissyspit]

43. The furor from me is that it is so horrifically written:

http://time.com/3030375/dave-barry-50-shades-of-grey

[nomorenomore08]

50. Same here. I would never burn a book, but this stuff is a crime against literature.

[smirkymonkey]

91. LOL! So true. Of course this type of book is not even something

that I would consider reading. Not just because of it's subject material, but because I am in the habit of reading either classic fiction or mainly historical non-fiction. It's just not something that would even cross my literary radar.

[Harmony Blue]

57. This

[zazen]

117. maybe she unconsciously wants someone to bind and discipline her rambling prose n/t

[GusBob]

44. the furor of the gullible

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. This is a rerun of "The Story of O".

[moriah]

64. Yeah, I was also thinking of "The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty"....

That one starts with a rape and gets worse from there.

No one recommends it as a BDSM 101 book, but it's pretty well known as erotica.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. "A Handmaid's Tale" is another one.

The only purpose those stories serve is as a cautionary tale.

It's like Ray Bradbury saying, "I'm not trying to predict the future. All I want to do is to prevent it.'"

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. I don't think anyone has ever seen "The Handmaid's Tale" as anything other than dystopian

nor was it more explicit in violence than '1984', from my memory.

[NRaleighLiberal]

48. Life is too short to read bad books or see bad movies or listen to bad music...

but of course, with the arts, "bad" is in the eye of the consumer.

Neither my wife or I have even a smidgen of interest in the Shades books or the movie - but we tend to completely avoid anything that is deemed to be "popular" - not on purpose; our tastes tend to run to the far more obscure.

[zazen]

116. talk about erotic--those plant photos of yours are Georgia O'Keefe-like hot :-)

Whatever other sexual tastes I have, I also find something so earthy and carnal about moist, succulent shapely plants. Reminds me of the Guinevere/Lancelot sex scene in the 1981 King Arthur film where they cave into their mutual lust in the woods--there's something really erotic about having your body half immersed in the forest floor, apart from the chiggers and ticks and such.

[LittleBlue]

49. Anyone has the right to be a conservative douchebag

If the discussion is only about the book, why the megathread with long subthreads about what is done between consenting adults in the bedroom? The first reply to me in the original thread was about exactly that: the morality of the bedroom.

And what is disappointing is that the right-wing is famous for moralizing what happens in the bedroom.

So no. Book banning has nothing to do with it for me, it's the shock that progressives are questioning why consenting adults are doing what they're doing in the bedroom. They're so worried about it that they're trying to get out ahead of the movie and label S&M as morally wrong.

What you decide to take into a public space, by say, publishing a book or producing a movie, is fair game to be argued against and criticized.

And you could make the exact same argument about any movie portraying gay relationships, like Brokeback. It's in the public, it's fair criticism, right? We have the right to criticize gay sexual practices portrayed in Brokeback, right? Of course. Just don't be surprised if people think the morality crusader is a right-wing douche.

[Luminous Animal]

55. TRIGGER WARNING ON THIS POST FOR ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP.

I see it differently. The feminists that I admire on DU are not arguing against BDSM, they are arguing against the nonconsensual abuse. I spent much of my day researching both the text of these books and the feminist commentary about them, and it wasn't the sex that was bothersome (in fact, most of the sex scenes were downright boring) but, rather, the emotional and physical abuse. These books turn the BDSM scene on its head... which is about safety and boundaries; and yes, caring and concern.

Even though it has been 26 years since I escaped my abuser (and had to give up my apartment, my job, and go into hiding because he was actively hunting me down), what I read, outside of the sex scenes, was a classic map of an abuser and made me feel vulnerable and afraid... the constant criticism, controlling the conversation, controlling what the abused eats, wears, works, stalking, spying, isolating the abused from friends and family, verbal threats of physical violence and then actual physical violence.

This woman does a good job of chronicling the rape and abuse in the book and she produced a list but there are two things I'd like to highlight before producing the entire list.

http://das-sporking.livejournal.com/377666.html

1) Ana feels that she must do what Hellspawn wants, in bed or out or he’ll a) be violently angry, b) punish her (i.e., hit her, rape her, deny her orgasm, etc.) or c) dump her—in other words, her entire motive for accommodating him is fear;

2) Hellspawn and Ana are in a horrible, horrible relationship—not because of the consensual sex they’re having but because of, oh, everything else.

Now for the list of rape and abuse.

1) BDSM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE.

Newsflash, James—no one gives a damn whether or not Hellspawn ties Ana up or spanks Ana. As long as Ana’s okay with it and knows what she’s consenting to, that’s okay. The following things, however, demonstrate that this is a very, very twisted and abusive relationship:

a) Ana’s outright lack of consent in many scenes;

b) Her dubious consent in others (she doesn’t know anything about BDSM save what she reads in one Wikipedia article that upsets her so badly that she never reads anything else, nor does she know how it differs from conventional sex…or that it differs at all);

c) The multiple beatings and rapes (Chapters 12, 16 and 19-20), and Ana’s desire to escape from both;

d) The fact that Hellspawn clearly feels entitled to beat and rape Ana without her consent…and for very small offenses;

e) Ana’s perpetual description of him as “scary,” “menacing,” “intimidating,” and so on, as well as her description of her subconscious “hiding behind the couch” when he’s around;

f) Ana’s obvious immaturity (her language and behavior are more reminiscent of an overawed girl of eleven or twelve than a college graduate);

g) Ana’s obvious immaturity being a turn-on for Hellspawn, whereas her flashes of independence anger him (he’s an emotional pedophile, if not a physical one);

h) Hellspawn’s frequent lies (such as the contract labeled “submissive” even though he doesn’t want her submission to end in the bedroom; he wants a master-slave relationship with her 24/7 with no end in sight);

i) Hellspawn’s stalking (beginning a dossier on her a half hour after the interview ended, tracing her cell phone and following her cross-country);

j) The complete lack of trust in this relationship (Hellspawn is forever threatening Ana with beatings and rapes for looking at, talking to or even speaking of another male, while Ana is convinced that every woman in the world wants Hellspawn and that he’ll dump her the second he finds someone prettier);

k) The fact that neither of them progresses past the jealousy and lack of trust in the course of an entire book;

l) The relationship is isolating, leading Ana to lie to her family and friends and to pull away from them (because Ana believes that the NDA forbids her to say anything, even though she never read it);

m) Hellspawn keeps telling Ana how she feels and overriding her when she expresses an emotion or an idea that’s different;

n) Ana feels that she must do what Hellspawn wants, in bed or out or he’ll a) be violently angry, b) punish her (i.e., hit her, rape her, deny her orgasm, etc.) or c) dump her—in other words, her entire motive for accommodating him is fear;

o) The narrative absolves Hellspawn of responsibility for all of his controlling and abusive actions, blaming women for them instead (his birth mother for being poor, not feeding him enough and dying; his adoptive mother for being too demanding; Mrs. Robinson for turning him to BDSM and sexually enslaving him at fifteen—not because, as Ana states, because he was underage, but because he’s a MAN, and it’s implied that men shouldn’t be subs or sex slaves; and Ana for…well, every occasion when he gets mad at her); and

p) The book embraces the idea that all a woman needs to make her life complete is her Male True Love who will give her all the wonderful sex in the world…and if she doesn’t have him, she doesn’t have anything.

Any one of these things would make the relationship problematic—and the last two are so reactionary as to make me wince. Sixteen of them? Hellspawn and Ana are in a horrible, horrible relationship—not because of the consensual sex they’re having but because of, oh, everything else.

[LittleBlue]

58. What does her blog have to do with the replies I got in the other thread?

The feminists that I admire on DU are not arguing against BDSM, they are arguing against the nonconsensual abuse.

Then obviously the people debating me about the morality of what's done in the bedroom aren't those people. I'm not reading that blog because it has nothing to do with my point.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Well, you offered zero links to that alleged "moral" argument. So I won't discuss that with you

in a vacuum. Give me the links of those who are arguing with you from a morality stand point and we can have that discussion.

What I have seen is feminists arguing in that thread against the rape and abuse depicted in the book (and likely in the movie).

I have seen over and over and over again, feminists asserting that they've NO PROBLEM WITH THE SEX (only to be ignored) and that their problem is with the rape and abuse (only to be ignored).

[LittleBlue]

62. If I linked, I would be hidden

It's practically one of the first replies to me in the biggest thread on the first page of General. Since all these other 50 Shades threads are just carryovers from big dog's original 50 Shades thread, go read that one.

It's okay if you have an opinion on 50 Shades, and it's okay if someone else shares that opinion, but it's not the opinion that I referenced. My discussions have been about bedroom behavior and the politics associated, not emotional abuse.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Actually, you won't be hidden unless you say something uncivil. You are free to link to any

conversation that you have in DU.

[LittleBlue]

67. I sent the link in a PM

I won't risk a call out hide.

[Luminous Animal]

75. Okey-doke. You have one post from one morality police while ignoring the substantive criticism of

the abusive rapey-thing.

[moriah]

66. Go read Gravitycollapse's posts in the other thread, if you don't want to discuss it out of a vacuum

They've been quite interestingly sexist AND judgmental in their depiction of why they believe male and female submissives in the bedroom are somehow betraying feminism and egalitarian values in the rest of the world.

[Luminous Animal]

77. Which is a entirely different argument than one based on morality. And an interesting argument

to explore. I was in a women's activist group for years during which we explored radfem, prostitution, BDSM... all presented by those amongst us who were advocates or practioners. It's a good thing to challenge the dominant paradigm. Gravitycollapse was not trying to shut down the discussion, she was trying to expand itl

[moriah]

78. If that's how you read it....

.... not how it came across to anyone who was actually involved in the lifestyle, from what responses I've seen.

[Luminous Animal]

80. Yep. I did not see anything that GravityCollapse wrote come from a moral objection.

I think whatever lifestyle someone is engaged in, whether fanatical or reform religious or outlier or totally vanilla sex is worth a healthy discussion of what compels any person to engage in such.

[hlthe2b]

118. Very good summation of the issues, LA

If only those who are jumping to very wrong conclusions as to the reasons why many are speaking out about the book/movie would read and consider these points....

And since it seems mandatory (to counter the strawman argument that there is a desire to censor being frequently promoted by some), I too will stipulate that no one, certainly not I, want to prevent the release of the book or movie. But, that certainly does not mean it should not be harshly criticized and exposed for what it is.

[lunasun]

59. +1 agree slippery slope

[BainsBane]

69. Right, so ban speech

and criticism of movies because there is sex in them. Lord knows that a fictional charcter's sex life is more important than the right of citizens to speech. That is just so progressive

[LittleBlue]

72. Where did I say "ban speech"?

I said one would appear a conservative for criticizing bedroom behaviors, I didn't advocate any ban on speech.

[BainsBane]

74. I could say a lot of things

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 02:15 AM - Edit history (2)

I could say someone who dismisses the severity of rape--which is what critics of the book have said it shows--is far worse than conservative.

Here is the actual situation. Few of us have read that piece of shit book. We don't actually know what is in it. We don't actually know if it depicts consensual BDSM or rape. People have twisted this discussion in every which way. Many of those voicing concerns about the movie have read that it depicts rape. They, as well as any other decent human being, are not going to think rape is okay. They don't think it should be celebrated or applauded. Others want to carry on the same old war against feminists by claiming we are 'sex negative" and "prudes." They want to pretend like this is about two consenting adults, when in fact it is not ANYONE's private sex life. Get that? It's a movie. People are allowed to criticize movies without being called conservative. Now, you may consider liberal and libertine to be one in the same, but they are in fact not. Moreover, insisting that characters in a film or a movie should not be critiqued simply because they are having sex is ridiculous. This isn't about your sex life. It's about a movie. Got it?

As for me, I don't give a shit about the movie. I heard an excerpt of David Sedaris reading the book and it was absolutely appallingly written, a complete and utter defilement of the English language, which is essentially what I've heard about it. What I object to is the incredible stupidity of telling people they have no right to comment about a film and pretending characters are a couple whose privacy rights need to be respected. This is popular culture. It gets talked about.

What you consider conservative is really irrelevant. I consider most of what you write quite conservative. So what? We don't share common values, so our ideas of what matters in liberal politics differ. Such is life. We don't have to agree. What is clear is that you are using "conservative" as a rhetorical device to attack those who see this issue as different from you, and in the process you are ignoring what they are actually concerned about.

[LittleBlue]

76. Not true

People are allowed to criticize movies without being called conservative.

Anyone has the right to call you anything they want. If one were to say that the gay people in Brokeback Mountain sickened them, then I would be free to wonder, or even state, that they sounded conservative.

The 50 Shades hysteria crowd sounds conservative and many are actually faith-based conservative groups, like Morality in Media.

[BainsBane]

81. Here is a synopsis of the book

that someone sent me to who actually read it. It turns out it bears little relation to actual BDSM and in fact does depict rape.
So what does defending it make you? Obviously I don't have your freedom of speech so I can't respond with the kind of derision that you have shown toward those who dare to disagree with you. It just so happens you are wrong on every single level, including about the content of the book. I don't expect that will deter you in the slightest. I will, however, be there to point out that you do in fact now know what the book actually depicts.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/FiftyShadesofGrey

[LittleBlue]

85. "I don't expect that will deter you in the slightest."

Why should I be deterred by a random website that makes unfounded assertions?

To me, the bedroom behavior brigade is inherently conservative because they make moral judgements about sex between consenting adults. If you don't like it... Thanks for bumping the thread, though.

[BainsBane]

112. Funny, I see this as about

taking away a woman's basic right to consent. I told you I got the link from someone who actually read the book. There is another OP in GD by someone who actually read the book. You haven't read the book. You don't care what it is actually about, and you don't care that the objections people have raised are to rape rather than consensual sex. Instead, you care about attacking your strawwoman. Let me make this clear: You are attacking anti-rape arguments. Falsifying those arguments as about passing judgment over consensual sex is dishonest. It willfully distorts the objections people have raised in favor or your own fabricated argument. You refuse to distinguish between rape and consensual sex and between actual objections to normalizing rape and your own invented excuses to use against women you have targeted. Rape and consensual sex are not the same, and those of us who have experienced both know the difference. That you insist none of that matters says a great deal. That kind of blatant falsification and disregard for evidence is precisely what the most ignorant segments of the far right do, the bloviators like Limbaugh. They lack the integrity to deal with actual arguments and instead distort and fabricate for their own cynical purposes. There is no surer sign of a weak and corrupt argument than that.


As for kicking the thread, I'm more than happy to kick el bryanto's threads anytime.

[LTR]

53. Different things turn different people on

This is more seduction than rape.

[Luminous Animal]

61. Uh? What is more seduction than rape? Examples please.

[pnwmom]

83. "Let me fuck you or I'll hit you" is more rape than seduction.

And there's plenty of that in the book.

[BainsBane]

113. Yeah, breaking into a woman's house

against her will, tying her up, terrorizing her and raping her is so seductive. Ted Bundy thought so.

[bravenak]

54. Gawd, I need to write something badly written and full of weird sex.

I could use the millions right now. I've always wanted to live in a Houseboat like Goldie Hawn in 'Overboard'.

[moriah]

63. Are you guys going to force me to actually read this piece of tripe?

I mean, with all the discussions about it, I feel like it's hard for me to be intellectually honest in debating material I've not actually read.

All I've ever responded to on these threads have been DUers who have decided to judge practitioners of BDSM along with the movie and book, instead of realizing how judgmental they are being about consensual private bedroom activity between adults.

[pnwmom]

84. You don't need to read a lot of it. Just google 50 shades and rape.

[moriah]

89. Ah, but see, just because rape is depicted doesn't automatically make a book ban-worthy to me.

It'd depend on *how* the rape was presented, and what the character ultimately decided about the person capable of the act.

I was quite disturbed at how easily V. C. Andrews had the character of "Cathy" blame herself for her brother raping her in the attic, primarily because she has Chris and Cathy later on become lovers after Cathy has a tubal ligation and stay together as life partners, until one of them dies. Essentially marrying your rapist? Egads. (Yeah, it was trash fiction my mom was reading when I was a kid, which is why I ended up reading the FITA series. The original V.C. Andrews books are actually listed on a site called "good trash", because people realize how trashy the books really were, even if at least the ones written by her could be hard to put down.)

At least E. L. James has "Ana" leaving "Christian", even in the first book it's my understanding it ends after the first time he shows her his sadistic side, when she ends the relationship (at least for then), and the series ends with her leaving "Christian" for good. If there is any kind of "moral to the story" it at least doesn't involve a Happily Ever After with her rapist.

As far as the one excerpted rape scene.... all I can really say on it is that Anne Rice did a far better job with attempting to eroticize a rape in "The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty". The stuff on the site that published the excerpt is not erotic at all. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was satire. It's sad when something reads as satire of itself.

[pnwmom]

98. I'm NOT saying it's ban-worthy. Just avoid-worthy.

And it is pathetic that this book has been so popular, though I bet a lot of those sales were just due to simple curiosity. I read the sample chapter on Amazon, at least as far as I got . . . and since then I've read some review articles that have included quotes.

The first book doesn't end soon after he shows her his sadistic side . . . that first scene with the red room is fairly early on in the first book. (I'm glad to hear that she leaves him after the third book -- for the sake of all the young women reading the series.)

But just imagine the book exactly as it is -- except the female character was played by a young, vulnerable, black female.

Would anyone be defending the series? Or would it turn everyone's stomachs?

But it's okay because the female is white?

[moriah]

101. I was referring to the "punishment" scene at the end of the book, per Wiki.

And the free exceprts online confirm that yes, the end of the first book is "Ana" leaving "Christian" because she doesn't get how he can need to hit someone with a belt.

Not sure what the scene with the red room is, not sure I wanna know. But not sure if that scene involves physical pain for Ana.

[pnwmom]

102. The Red Room scene is when she first sees his sadistic side --

in that he takes her to see his torture room and tells her what it's for. He doesn't use it on her yet though.

I'm curious what you think about my other point, though. How would you feel if the scared, young -- but enthralled -- woman was black instead of white?

[moriah]

104. I think bringing race into the discussion is silly, which is why I didn't address it.

It *wasn't* about a black woman, and unless it was deciding to bring race into it is capitalizing on the struggle Blacks have gone through to make a completely unrelated point, which I've been told is highly offensive to a number of Black members on DU.

[pnwmom]

105. I think it's bad no matter what the race of the female. It's just not as obviously bad

when the female is white.

Women in the past, even white women, have been considered the property of their husbands, and considered to be not fully human. So any book or movie that glamorizes this makes me a little ill.

[moriah]

106. "Ana" rejects such a state, even if the matter is explored.

Is exploring something glamorizing it? Or is it showing why it is unworkable, even if it might be considered by some to be erotic?

See, what I'm afraid of is that if I actually take the time to read this series fully, I'll be upset that I couldn't have written it better AND taught the proper lessons at the same time. I can see where a book depicting the subject matter described could actually do women good who are discovering silk scarves in the bedroom -- Wiki indicates that they discuss hard and soft limits, for example, which is a good discussion to have.

[bravenak]

107. That is the real problem.

You'll be pissed at how innacurate it is and how badly written. Th author has no idea what bdsm is.

[pnwmom]

111. It glamorizes it by associating it with this man's wealth, his helicopter rides,

his fancy house, etc. She's attracted to his wealth and power more than by his magnetic personality. She actually seems kind of repulsed by him at first. (As I said, I started to read the free sample on Amazon.)

You know what, moriah? I'm sure you COULD have done a MUCH better job of writing this. The writing is laughably bad. I don't know how any halfway intelligent person could get through three of these books and yet millions of women have.

If Wiki indicates that they discuss hard and soft limits, that's probably true. But why does she go along with this? I don't get it. He just seems obnoxiously selfish in the book. When I googled "50 shades" and rape, I found this:



http://somethingshortandsnappy.blogspot.com/2012/09/50-shades-of-grey-chapter-20-in-which.html

“I want you, and I want you now. And if you’re not going to let me hit you – which you deserve – I’m going to fuck you on the couch this minute, quickly, for my pleasure, not yours.”

“We don’t have long. This will be quick, and it’s for me, not you. Do you understand? Don’t come, or I will hit you,” he says through clenched teeth.

These are word for word quotes from the book, except for the fact that I changed the euphemism "spank" to "hit." The meaning is the same.

__________________________

Okay, I cheated. I changed the euphemism "spank" to "hit" -- because that's what it is. But why isn't this sexual assault?

And then there's this:

"We’re coming near to the end of the bridge, and the road is once more bathed in the neon light of the street lamps so his face is intermittently in the light and the dark. And it’s such a fitting metaphor. This man, whom I once thought of as a romantic hero – a brave shining white knight, or the dark knight as he said. He’s not a hero, he’s a man with serious, deep emotional flaws, and he’s dragging me into the dark. Can I not guide him into the light?

Is that the kind of idea we should be promoting to young women?

[davidn3600]

92. I think a deeper feminist issue is why women find this kind of story to be erotic in the first place

Maybe that is the question we should be asking instead of trashing the BDSM community and trashing porn and consensual sex.

Men don't go to these type of movies...vast majority of men anyway. Men don't find it erotic to see male character control and manipulate a female character through an entire story. To most men...there is nothing alluring and sexy and interesting about that.

At the core of this story is something that has been done in books and movies for generations. It's not a new plot. It has a male character being dominate, confident, controlling, and maybe somewhat unstable and manipulative. This man falls for a woman and is willing to go all out to get her. The idea that a man is willing to go to extreme lengths to get the woman he wants is tantalizing to many women out there in the general population. And then that male is subdued and changed by the female in some way. That's the romance right there. Heck, you can even say it resembles King Kong. Romance authors have been using this plot over and over. And why not...it sells like hotcakes.

The reality is, that at the very core of this...it's about gender roles. It is just simply my advice feminists would do well to attack it from that angle rather than from an angle of sexuality. BDSM and sexual violence is not the big problem with this story.

[ClarkeVII]

99. Well done

[BainsBane]

109. You have seen the link showing that the book is in fact depicts rape

Yet you say well done to a post that pretends it depicts consensual sex. Why is that?

Link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/FiftyShadesofGrey

Your response to the link, showing that you have in fact seen the description of the book. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5296961

Your subsequent response saying "so what": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5296998

The so what is that facts matter. To continue to argue that this discussion and critique is about consensual sex when the book clearly depicts forcible rape is to distort the truth. The question is why. Why have people decided that whether the woman in the story actually consents is irrelevant?

[BainsBane]

108. It depicts rape, non-consensual

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/FiftyShadesofGrey

I find it astounding how you continually feel compelled to tell this site what women want and women believe, yet the one thing you refuse to do is ever listen. And once again, you tell women how to do feminism because what you want and demand is far more important than what we actually care about. You have repeatedly been told that radical feminism seeks to undo patriarchy and gender roles and the fact that you continue to make the same complaint over and over again shows that you refuse under any circumstances to read or listen to anything feminists actually have to say.

In the case of this movie, many actually find it objectionable that rape and violation of a woman against her will is presented as a form of seduction. That has to do with the matter of rape culture you insist doesn't exist.

The fact you haven't read the book or actually read a single argument any woman has made naturally doesn't stop you from telling feminists what they should think, what they should do, and what they are allowed to care about.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. 50 Shades? 50 Threads, More like.

[krawhitham]

97. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

103. Now all it needs is 50 recs...

I have noticed people do tend to analyse those recs as they post their 500 posts in 50 threads about 50 shades...

[Warren DeMontague]

110. You get 16 recs and whaddaya get, another day older and deeper in debt

[Marr]

100. Moralizing about fiction is absurd.

The person who engages in it always looks ridiculous.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. I have to agree. Thomas Mann must have been a real perv to write, "Death in Venice" way back in 1912

If we follow that standard

[el_bryanto]

119. That's funny - i don't feel ridiculous. But if I'm providing you with amusement, enjoy. nt

[brooklynite]

120. I have no objection to anyone's opinion on the themes or quality of the FSOG series....HOWEVER

...don't waste our time if you haven't actually read it. There's another thread here with people going to town over a SYNOPSIS (incorrect at that), with plenty of people proudly saying they haven't bothered to read the actual book.

(FWIW - I HAVE read them, I think the writing is crappy, and I have no issue with the activities -- all consensual -- described therein).

[woo me with science]

121. I suspect it's about trying to distract from this:

Totally justified
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025296321

and this:

FBI Entrapment Created 'Illusion' of Terrorist Plots: Report
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025277060

and this:

The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025293372#post45

[sibelian]

124. I suspect you're right. nt.

[Iggo]

126. I thought it was about selling movie tickets.

[justiceischeap]

131. I think the book should be banned because it's so poorly written

And that's why I've never read it. However, some co-workers would read passages from the book out loud and that's all I needed to know about the writers' proficiency.

What's sad is that it was published in the first place. It was a poorly written piece of Twilight fan fiction that should have stayed a poorly written piece of fan fiction (I actually read a lot of well-written fan fiction that never gets published, go figure...)

I find myself wondering why women are reading this book...not because of the content but because it's so poorly written. How can they get through it?

Anyway, since I haven't actually read it, I can't comment about whether the sex in the book is consensual or not or any of the other things people are complaining about in regards to 50 Shades... my biggest gripe will always be that it never deserved to be published in the first place.

[Quantess]

132. Curious. Does 50 shades of Grey mention FGM?

Female Genital Mutilation. If they really wanted to be "edgy" as in, a dull kitchen knife slicing off all there is to cut off, then sewing her back up with just a tiny hole for urine and menstruation... well that is even more "edgy" than a vapid hollywood film. Plus, it's usually an old lady of the village wielding the rusty blade, without anesthetic.


Google image "FGM infibulation" to see what a healed female crotch looks like, after FGM