# "50 Shades of Grey" glorifies abusive and unhealthy relationships



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

perpetuallyreticent said:


> In the link you posted the review describes a few of the scenes in the movie.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Ahh I thought you read scenes somewhere else.
Well, the first one is ridiculous for the reason it states. The second one must have been pretty hot. But you'd have to be into BDSM.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Ahh I thought you read scenes somewhere else.
> Well, the first one is ridiculous for the reason it states. The second one must have been pretty hot. But you'd have to be into BDSM.


The scene by itself is fine with me. I just can't take it seriously because of the characters and the dumb story surrounding it. lol BDSM isn't really my thing, but if the story was written better I'd probably consider giving it a go.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

Roland787 said:


> Wouldn't this in a way just condone the rape of "reluctant" women....one thing for a fantasy story, but as others have pointed out this is actually becoming a national sensation and people are taking it seriously as an honest relationship, instead of the manipulated rape that it actually seems to be.
> 
> And yes, from the few excerpts I've read, it reads like a teenager's bad fan-fiction and I don't see how it's actually praised as "literature". Give me a hard-on and I could probably spit out a more "romantic" scene involving feet and scat:shocked:.


In the age of the internet everything is possible to turn into a national sensation. The shittiest it is, the more likely. I don't think that is enough though to turn normal healthy people into thinking that the "rape of reluctant women" is acceptable and wanted by women. More like make them more inclined to roleplay the "rape of reluctant women" of they suddenly decide that's their thing.

It's erotic literature which is basically porn written; of course it's literature. The matter of whether it's good literatureor bad is a different topic, but in my opinion it's bad. I'm pretty sure there are many novels out there including feet and scat that are read enthusiastically by those niches lovers. 

And there are actually books out there with far far worse depictions of rape that while reading them you can't reqally figure out whether the author finds it acceptable or not, that make 50 shades (dub con/coercion from what I understand) look like a walk in the park. 
So apart from aesthetics, which this book kind of lacks in my opinion, I don't get what the fuss is all about.


----------



## QuiteCharmed (Oct 10, 2014)

Personally, I was immediately turned off by the movie when I heard it was based on a Twilight fanfic. *gags* :frustrating:


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

psychedelicmango said:


> I think hardly any of its fans would want or tolerate a real life Grey.



* *





















































https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christian-Grey-Fanpage/377783755608582?ref=br_rs


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


facepalms, lots of them


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

I really don't think that internet memes or whatever are an accurate depiction of people's feelings towards abuse and rape though. It's a trend, women who read it mainly focus on the hotness and romantic moments, because that's how our minds work I guess? I think that the fans would like their own Dorian Grey- but only the idealised version. This whole thing has to do with women dreaming of Mr Right, just like any other romance book/movie. It's as simple as that, and I think that's what the author of this book aimed at. Another angsty, tortured hero -who will make women go awww- romance novel. Not some mastermind plan of making abuse more acceptable to society.


----------



## IIIIII (Oct 2, 2013)

The book is bullshit, it takes something that is not really mainstream and tries to turn it into something marketable to the masses. It's about as bad as when South Park went from being a niche thing, and became something for the masses. I tried reading this book and put down, I feel really bad for all the kinky folks that are now going to have to deal people thinking this is how things are.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

psychedelicmango said:


> I really don't think that internet memes or whatever are an accurate depiction of people's feelings towards abuse and rape though. It's a trend, women who read it mainly focus on the hotness and romantic moments, because that's how our minds work I guess? I think that the fans would like their own Dorian Grey- but only the idealised version. This whole thing has to do with women dreaming of Mr Right, just like any other romance book/movie. It's as simple as that, and I think that's what the author of this book aimed at. Another angsty, tortured hero -who will make women go awww- romance novel. Not some mastermind plan of making abuse more acceptable to society.


Well yeah, obviously it wasn't some "mastermind plan of making abuse more acceptable to society" because the author didn't even, and _still doesn't realize_ that Christian's behaviour in the book was abusive, and neither do the readers. That's the problem. She accidentally wrote a story about an abusive relationship and dressed it up as a romance novel, and, as you can see, a lot of people bought into it.

The people who support Christian Grey may not purposefully be supporting abuse, but they indirectly are, because he is abusive. The people who think the book is about romance aren't purposefully romanticizing abuse, but they indirectly are, because the book is about abuse.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Plus it's, you know, porn.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

callmeleigha said:


> This sounds valid in principle, but look at the hundred of girls asking where their Christian Grey is. So many people can't see the problem with the book at all and actually believe that it's depicting a proper BDSM relationship. I mean, yeah, it's easy to say that it's "just a book", but look at how influential books can be.


Books are influential, no doubt, yet hundreds of people is still 1%ish of all those who read the book. What age groups are you talking about for the people who want their 'Christian Grey'? There's a big difference if it's teenagers or 30 year old women. 

I've read a couple romance novels and maybe _once_ I've seen a healthy relationship. The point of the books is fantasy and drama. The worse the relationship, the more drama is involved and people love reading about conflict.




callmeleigha said:


> "Safe, sane and consensual" are the principles of BDSM. It was in defense to the people (many of whom are actually in the BDSM community) saying that the characters didn't correctly practice BDSM.


Did it say anywhere in the book, or did the author state the relationship was supposed to be based on BDSM? Or was this something readers came up with?




callmeleigha said:


> I Dated Christian Grey: How Women Are Groomed For Abuse. If you have the time, you should read this article. It's not very long, but it could give you some amount of insight to read the words of someone that's actually experienced these things.



Do you know what happens in the ending of this book/movie?


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

I suspect if Christian looked more like, say, Charles Manson or John Howard, then more people would focus on the 'dysfunctional' elements of the relationship :tongue: Apparently, you can get away with nearly anything (including stalking) if you're 'hot' and 'powerful'. But it's just a fantasy, right? :tongue:

IMO, 50 Shades is a glorified bodice-ripper fantasy that happens to be relatively more explicit than the ones we're already used to seeing. I haven't gone through 50 Shades with a fine-toothed comb, though (and I couldn't be bothered finishing it. A bit of a yawnfest.)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

@Kavik
I don't know if "BDSM" is mentioned, however they use props, set ups and terminology that BDSM practitioners use. They even had a contract of rules.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

callmeleigha said:


> Well yeah, obviously it wasn't some "mastermind plan of making abuse more acceptable to society" because the author didn't even, and _still doesn't realize_ that Christian's behaviour in the book was abusive, and neither do the readers. That's the problem. She accidentally wrote a story about an abusive relationship and dressed it up as a romance novel, and, as you can see, a lot of people bought into it.
> 
> The people who support Christian Grey may not purposefully be supporting abuse, but they indirectly are, because he is abusive. The people who think the book is about romance aren't purposefully romanticizing abuse, but they indirectly are, because the book is about abuse.


I disagree. I think that the author fully realized the fact that Grey's behaviour is abusive, and dressed it up in a BDSM romantic novel, simply because that is the plot and because it sells. Nothing was done accidentally, (most) people also realize this, but choose to disregard it.
Also lookig back to your original post, I do suggest you read the book, (never thought I was going to say that to someone lol), just to have a more objective view on the subject as your link seems to be a little too dramatic and inaccurate from what I remember from the book and from the couple chapters I read from the preview.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Concerning the discussion about 50 Shades making abusive relationships sound more acceptable:

I'm of the opinion that generally speaking, pop culture doesn't define society, but it's the other way around - society chooses to glorify what it thinks is a representation of itself. 

So in that sense, if some people are glorifying the relationship in the book, it's probably because they already feel - on some level - like that kind of relationship is what they want. The silly part is, they may not have even experienced such a relationship.

Some, on the other hand, might genuinely think that that kind of relationship is a good thing and _have_ experienced one similar to it. There was a thread @changos made at one point, I forget what it was called, about people who - for a variety of reasons - genuinely believe that they deserve to be demeaned or trodden upon in some way. 

That kind of deepseated mindset doesn't pop out of nowhere from a book, but the book may be shining a light on a lot of folks who are - what we might colloquially call - "fucked in the head." And if that is the case, there is still an issue, but the issue is in culture and upbringing itself (likely rooted most in the influence of family and friends), rather than the book.

Which, unfortunately, complicates the discussion considerably. It begs the question: What aspects of upbringing and familial culture encourage this sort of mentality?


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> @Kavik
> I don't know if "BDSM" is mentioned, however they use props, set ups and terminology that BDSM practitioners use. They even had a contract of rules.


Then the book may have borrowed elements from BDSM but it's not actually BDSM if there are wildly different aspects to it compared to actual BDSM. I wouldn't call it an attempt at BDSM unless the author confirmed BDSM was her intention. 

This sort of half borrowing of ideas then putting personal twists on them so they become something different is common in writing. 

So far from what I gather it sounds as if readers tacked on the terminology as a way to try and describe the relationship without knowing what BDSM actually entailed. The moment someone called the relationship BDSM, most likely out of ignorance, a community exploded against it and went from calling that person out to condemning the books.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Kavik said:


> Then the book may have borrowed elements from BDSM but it's not actually BDSM if there are wildly different aspects to it compared to actual BDSM. I wouldn't call it an attempt at BDSM unless the author confirmed BDSM was her intention.
> 
> This sort of half borrowing of ideas then putting personal twists on them so they become something different is common in writing.
> 
> So far from what I gather it sounds as if readers tacked on the terminology as a way to try and describe the relationship without knowing what BDSM actually entailed. The moment someone called the relationship BDSM, most likely out of ignorance, a community exploded against it and went from calling that person out to condemning the books.


Well, the big difference with BDSM is that it wasn't really consensual, for example, when Ana said her safeword, Christian did not stop. And BDSM practitioners usually have good communication of their likes and dislikes as it's supposed to be fun. Other than that, there was bondage, S/M, Dominance and props that are used in BDSM. So I wouldn't say she simply borrowed elements. 
She wrote about a relationship that includes BDSM practicing. But it's also an unhealthy relationship, given the example above, and the problem is that she wants it to pass as something romantic and healthy and kinky (because it's scandalizing and sells).


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Kavik said:


> Then the book may have borrowed elements from BDSM but it's not actually BDSM if there are wildly different aspects to it compared to actual BDSM. I wouldn't call it an attempt at BDSM unless the author confirmed BDSM was her intention.
> 
> This sort of half borrowing of ideas then putting personal twists on them so they become something different is common in writing.
> 
> So far from what I gather it sounds as if readers tacked on the terminology as a way to try and describe the relationship without knowing what BDSM actually entailed. The moment someone called the relationship BDSM, most likely out of ignorance, a community exploded against it and went from calling that person out to condemning the books.


I don't know if the word BDSM is ever explicitly mentioned in the book, but the book frequently mentions terms such as "Dominant", "Submissive" and "safe-word", which are BDSM terms.

Also in this interview the author says "Well, I'd read a few things about BDSM [bondage and discipline, sadism and masochism], and I thought: this is hot!" she says, chirpily. "I thought: what would it be like if you met someone who was into this kind of lifestyle, and you didn't know anything about it?"



psychedelicmango said:


> I disagree. I think that the author fully realized the fact that Grey's behaviour is abusive, and dressed it up in a BDSM romantic novel, simply because that is the plot and because it sells. Nothing was done accidentally, (most) people also realize this, but choose to disregard it.


I suppose that's up for speculation, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that it was ignorance.



> Also looking back to your original post, I do suggest you read the book, (never thought I was going to say that to someone lol), just to have a more objective view on the subject as your link seems to be a little too dramatic and inaccurate from what I remember from the book and from the couple chapters I read from the preview.


While I agree that the person's views can be very biased at times (especially considering the fact that she herself is a victim of abuse) and I disagree with her on a few things, the direct quotes I've read from the book are enough to solidify my views on it. I may read the book if I can find a free version online, but I'm really not in a rush to do so.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

callmeleigha said:


> I don't know if the word BDSM is ever explicitly mentioned in the book, but the book frequently mentions terms such as "Dominant", "Submissive" and "safe-word", which are BDSM terms.
> 
> Also in this interview the author says "Well, I'd read a few things about BDSM [bondage and discipline, sadism and masochism], and I thought: this is hot!" she says, chirpily. "I thought: what would it be like if you met someone who was into this kind of lifestyle, and you didn't know anything about it?"


If she did try to write BDSM by the book, without intentionally making the whole relationship BDSM gone wrong, then she committed one of the greatest writing sins: Not researching what she was writing.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Kavik said:


> If she did try to write BDSM by the book, without intentionally making the whole relationship BDSM gone wrong, then she committed one of the greatest writing sins: Not researching what she was writing.


The problem isn't in her portrayal of BDSM itself, but the fact that she tries to excuse a lot of Christian's abusive behaviour by passing it off as BDSM when it was just plain abuse. 

This picture is useful, I think:


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

It's just a book. Most people know the difference between fantasy and reality.
There are books out there that seem to "glorify" murder and violence, I doubt they turned people into murderers...


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

Mair said:


> It's just a book. Most people know the difference between fantasy and reality.
> There are books out there that seem to "glorify" murder and violence, I doubt they turned people into murderers...


it's not about separating fantasy from reality. the problem is that whether they consider it to be just a fantasy or not, people don't seem to be recognizing that the behavior shown in the book (not sure about the film since i have not and will not be seeing it, they may have toned it down) is abusive. if they can't identify the red flags in that relationship, then how are they going to be able to see them if, heaven forbid, they find themselves in an abusive relationship in real life? people _need to know_ what behavior is acceptable and what isn't in a healthy relationship, and that's why this is kind of a big deal.


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

It's not art/entertainment's job to teach people how to live. 

If we're afraid people are going to study 50 shades (and 50 shades only), and/or listen to the author describe it as consensual and believe her, then we have a dim view of society. Did domestic violence skyrocket because Godfather/Godfather II come out? Is this book being advertised as a "true story"? 

The real problem is trying to help people already in abusive relationships, or being raised in a cycle of abuse. An empowering movie/book/song is probably not going to change those. 50 shades isn't going to ruin a good relationship either.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I keep feeling compelled to play devil's advocate for this, even though I haven't actually read the books or seen the movie. I've done research otherwise though.

First of all, I could just as easily highlight words other than what were emphasized in the OP to provide a different twist to this excerpt.


* *




“Come here,” he says softly.

I blanch. Jeez… he’s serious. I sit staring at him, completely immobile.

“I haven’t signed,” I whisper.

“I told you what I’d do. I’m a man of my word. I’m going to spank you, and them I’m going to fuck you very quick and very hard. Looks like we’ll need that condom after all.”

His voice is so soft, menacing, and it’s *damned hot*. My insides practically contort with potent, needy, liquid desire. He gazes at me, waiting, eyes blazing. Tentatively, I uncurl my legs. Should I run? This is it; our relationship hangs in the balance, right here, right now. *Do I let him do this or do I say no, and then that’s it? Because I know it will be over if I say no. Do it! my inner goddess pleads with me. *My subconscious is as paralyzed as I am. 

[It may be menacing but it's turning her on. I'm reading that her "inner goddess" is pleading with her not to run. To refuse to say no. The writing's bad though so it's hard to say]

“Keep still,” he growls, “or I’ll spank you for longer.”

He’s rubbing me now, and the blow follows. A rhythmic pattern emerges: caress, fondle, hard slap. I have to concentrate to handle the pain. My mind empties as I endeavor to absorb the grueling sensation. He doesn’t hit me in the same place twice in succession – he’s spreading the pain.

“Aargh!” I cry out at the tenth slap – and I’m unaware that I have been mentally counting the blows.

“I’m just getting warmed up.”

He hits me again, then he strokes me softly. The combination of hard stinging blow and his gentle caress is so mind-numbing. He hits me again… this is getting harder to take. My face hurts, it’s screwed up so tight. He strokes me gently and then the blows come. I cry out again.

“No one to hear you, baby, just me.” 

And he hits me again and again. From somewhere deep inside, I want to beg him to stop.* But I don’t. I don’t want to give him the satisfaction.* He continues the unrelenting rhythm. I cry out six more times. Eighteen slaps in total. My body is singing, singing from the merciless assault. 

[She's still doing what she wants to be doing in a sense of refusing to do what she doesn't want to do. One of those paradoxical life moments and choices]

We lie there, panting together, waiting for our breathing to slow. He gently strokes my hair. I’m on his chest again. But this time, I don’t have the strength to lift my hand and feel him. *Boy… I survived. That wasn’t so bad. I’m more stoic than I thought. *

[She ultimately comes out _feeling_ triumphant. Not as a victim but as a survivor. Her feelings are her own]




I'll preface with that I have been in an unhealthy relationship. Not physically abusive, really, but a bit obsessive and codependent at times. I've done therapy, I've given the guys I'm "supposed" to be attracted to their chances, and I'm still into risk taking types with some boundary issues. Probably because I'm a risk taking type with some boundary issues, lol. (Which aren't always terrible qualities, depending, though they do have their accompanying shadows to counter their strengths).

No child abuse, healthy father figure. I'm an Enneagram 7 and maybe I just enjoy the excitement? The emotional origins of the seven actually lie more with the mother too - she either abandoned the child somehow at one point or the child felt responsible for her happiness. Or she was overprotective and they developed a fear of pain.

I'd probably fall into the latter category, so I have a fascination with it as well.



callmeleigha said:


> "Safe, sane and consensual" are the principles of BDSM. It was in defense to the people (many of whom are actually in the BDSM community) saying that the characters didn't correctly practice BDSM.


Apparently there's a second code of behavior too - RACK - Risk Aware Consensual Kink...so there is that.

I'm just pulling this from Wikipedia:

_...indicating a preference for a style in which the individual responsibility of the involved parties is emphasized more strongly, with each participant being responsible for his or her own well-being. Advocates of RACK argue that SSC can hamper discussion of risk because no activity is truly "safe", and that discussion of even low-risk possibilities is necessary for truly informed consent. They further argue that setting a discrete line between "safe" and "not-safe" activities ideologically denies consenting adults the right to evaluate risks vs rewards for themselves; that some adults will be drawn to certain activities regardless of the risk; and that BDSM play—particularly higher-risk play or edgeplay—should be treated with the same regard as extreme sports, with both respect and the demand that practitioners educate themselves and practice the higher-risk activities to decrease risk._



LostFavor said:


> That kind of deepseated mindset doesn't pop out of nowhere from a book, but the book may be shining a light on a lot of folks who are - what we might colloquially call - "fucked in the head." And if that is the case, there is still an issue, but the issue is in culture and upbringing itself (likely rooted most in the influence of family and friends), rather than the book.


This is interesting, since a picture was posted defining abuse as taking someone's power away. To call them "fucked in the head" is doing this on a psychological level.

So this movie - A Dangerous Method - is about Jung's relationship with Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightly).






She was a psychoanalyst who wrote "Destruction as the Cause of Coming Into Being". She wasn't sexually abused, but she was sexually aroused by her father's beatings as a child. Interestingly, she became Jung's patient due to hysteria, but the cause was more about the humiliation that she felt from enjoying the excitement of the beatings than the beatings themselves. So society is helping to further perpetuate this all in their shaming of it in that sense.

This is again, accurate, but just pulled off of Wikipedia (from the plot of the movie):

_Sabina Spielrein arrives at the Burghölzli, the pre-eminent psychiatric hospital in Zurich, with a typical case of hysteria and begins a new course of treatment with the young Swiss doctor, Carl Jung. He is using word association and dream interpretation as part of his approach to Freud's radical new science of psychoanalysis, and finds that Sabina Spielrein's condition was triggered by the humiliation and sexual arousal she felt as a child due to her short-tempered father's habit of spanking her naked. These conflicting feelings were compounded by her instinctive knowledge (imparted by an angel's voice that speaks in German) that she had done nothing to deserve such a punishment and in fact that she may have been a stand-in for her mother in her father's abuse (since her mother was unfaithful). Also, her affluent Russian Jewish family afforded her an exceptional education in preparation for university study, although not on the subject of sex, and she was a virgin.

Jung finally begins their affair, which in the film includes rudimentary bondage and spanking Sabina at times. Things become even more tangled as he becomes her advisor to her dissertation; he publishes not only his studies of her as a patient but eventually her treatise as well. Her original ideas are rooted not only in her insights into her childhood trauma, but the intensity and conflicts in their relationship. Spielrein's thesis suggests that truly heroic, original creations can only emerge from the crucible of great conflict, such as the attraction of opposites and the breaking of taboos, and thus the instinct for creation is inextricably tied to a drive to destruction, and that these feelings and ideas are not restricted to sexual expression despite their roots in the biological drive to reproduce._

So, just another perspective, and one which I give weight. I'm not saying it's right or wrong.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

In my country lots of women went nuts about the movie without even reading the book, lots of threads on forums that are actually hilarious on contradictions but the thing is: any book or film causing such noise is worth the look because it turns into a window. We can try to look, see and learn a few things (doesn't mean all things that can be learned are useful... or make sense).



LostFavor said:


> Some, on the other hand, might genuinely think that that kind of relationship is a good thing and _have_ experienced one similar to it. There was a thread @_changos_ made at one point, I forget what it was called, about people who - for a variety of reasons - genuinely believe that they deserve to be demeaned or trodden upon in some way.


I recall a few spaces where I addressed that and yes I've seen such clear strong pattern. Right now I'm remembering something that might add a bit more to the matter: some people only know negative attention and to them... it's attention. Some know positive and negative attention but to them: negative attention is also attention. They can act that way towards others, anyone. 

Some on the other side choose someone... they will not tolerate being mistreated except from one person and it matches (kinda) the abuser/abused game, or the stockolm kinda thing. BUT *in some cases it matches the prodigal son*. Those persons who stay in the mix or stockolm syndrome and abusive relationships with a twist: they believe they are changing the person into a more positive version. I never read the book (50 shades) and have no interest but I'm seeing a lot of clues on the woman causing a change on the guy... See, I can't afford to describe because I know how the forum is at times but women indeed enjoy stories where the guy "changes" thanks to them, or said in another way "where they change the guys". It's funny: we don't change and marry women expecting them not to change but they do. And they marry us expecting us to change.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> It's funny: we don't change and marry women expecting them not to change but they do.


Bull.


----------



## IIIIII (Oct 2, 2013)

Mair said:


> It's just a book. Most people know the difference between fantasy and reality
> There are books out there that seem to "glorify" murder and violence, I doubt they turned people into murderers...


I don't think so, I foresee the community being overun with people thinking that this is the way things are.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Bull.


interesting, no comments, no words, just a word/noise like when animals with no ideas complain about something

"grr"


boring


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> She was a psychoanalyst who wrote "Destruction as the Cause of Coming Into Being". She wasn't sexually abused, but she was sexually aroused by her father's beatings as a child. Interestingly, she became Jung's patient due to hysteria, but the cause was more about the humiliation that she felt from enjoying the excitement of the beatings than the beatings themselves. So society is helping to further perpetuate this all in their shaming of it in that sense.
> 
> This is again, accurate, but just pulled off of Wikipedia (from the plot of the movie):
> 
> ...


From the screenplay...


> SABINA
> Well, suppose we think of sexuality
> as fusion, losing oneself, as you
> say, but losing oneself in the other,
> ...


 @mimesis has talked along similar lines regarding Sx-instinct as a drive towards transgressing/crossing a boundary. A boundary is there because the mind makes it so, the mind has reservations, it pauses, not wanting to cross a threshold and it is a mental block, entirely subjective, that we then impose (project) onto the world to "make it so." The source of the boundary, I think, is often times rooted in reason, however the reasoning is tricky, because there are always going to be things that cannot be logic'ed through and simply "are." Why do we die? Why do we like the things we do? Why are we disgusted? 

And, obviously, art (which I use loosely as a term to describe any creative work, regardless of whether it's any good or not) has flirted with those boundaries since... a long time ago. What button-pushing does is incite audience participation (which does suggest that there IS some fluidity within the hotness or coolness of a particular medium, but I digress). And the value of "waking up" the audience in this way, rather than more descriptive (i.e., run-of-the-mill) narratives is it sort of... gets everything out in the open. It reveals the absolute chaos of civilization, rather than impose uniformity or "universal agreeableness."



> The more you create village conditions, the more discontinuity and division and diversity. The global village absolutely ensures maximal disagreement on all points. It never occurred to me that uniformity and tranquillity were the properties of the global. . . . The tribal-global village is far more divisive—full of fighting—than any nationalism ever was. Village is fission, not fusion, in depth.
> 
> Marshall McLuhan, 1968


Ofc, this is where Sabina's proposal that "sexuality is destruction of the ego" comes in. It applies to sexuality of course (which is prolly why the Sx-instinct is called... the sexual instinct), but applies more generally to the mind "letting the right one in" so to speak. Relinquish control, rather than demand expectation or principle. We cross one boundary, realize we can survive it, realize it wasn't what we expected, only to reach yet another threshold... obviously, the question being how far we can go?

Getting back to Cronenberg, this is most evident in A History of Violence (which actually makes A Dangerous Method make more sense in the context of his oeuvre...


* *









If you discovered your husband was actually a murderer, how would this change you?




Along similar lines (albeit more subtly) Camus' The Stranger:


> “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.”


To open yourself means to relinquish control... more specifically, the control your mind thinks it has, that holds in the reigns saying "no this is wrong!" 





^It's a nice pun, isn't it? To reign over me? Or to rain over me? Simultaneously, it is surrender, but also cleansing, perhaps.

Art is art. It is the playground of the imagination, and within that arena [somewhat paradoxically] the boundaries of what is acceptable have a wide margin; it is scientific, in the sense that the boundary is constantly being pushed. 

The final point I'd like to bring up (having not read 50 Shades or having any interest in it for that matter), is the nature of experience, or rather perspective:


* *






> I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your _experience_ of me. Just as you cannot "see" my experience of you. My experience of you is not "inside" me. It is simply you, as I experience you. And I do not experience you as inside me. Similarly, I take it that you do not experience me as inside you.
> 
> 
> "My experience of you" is just another form of words for "you-as-l-experience-you", and "your experience of me" equals "me-as-you-experience-me". Your experience of me is not inside you and my experience of you is not inside me, but _your experience of me is invisible to me and my experience of you is invisible to you_.
> ...





^It's interesting that Laing called this work the "politics" of experience. A policy deals with value and more accurately, the dissonance between individual and societal values. Society it seems, is always slow to follow the canary in the mine, perhaps with good reason.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> interesting, no comments, no words, just a word/noise like when animals with no ideas complain about something
> 
> "grr"
> 
> ...


Lol am I the boring "animal" without ideas in this scenario?

I'd probably shy away from those comments in the future if you want credibility as a progressive man against the objectification and dehumanization of women. Unless that's all theory without practical application. You're the dude I'm always running into about the Madonna/Whore complex on threads aren't you? It's been a while though, lol. Hi.

The video was the point and idea. The Stepford Wife is absolutely a relevant example of how men can expect women to change for them upon entering committed relationships. Perhaps some men actually think that their wives are these inherent Earth Grandmothers if they choose them carefully enough though. I don't know. Supposedly the less opinionated, controversial and individual she is, the more he'll project his Anima onto her and be none the wiser.

In today's society I think that the Stepford Wife can take many forms too. She doesn't have to be in pearls and heels whilst vacuuming so long as she's a good little girl who fully respects the rules of the ever evolving patriarchy and is of rational and logical mind as determined by it's institutions.

I also think it's a bit presumptuous of men to assume that the appeal to the series is solely her ability to transform and heal Christian for his own sake. She undergoes transformation as well, and in the process it's an erotic psychological power struggle with her refusal to fully submit to his attempts at domination - and succeeding in getting submission out of him in return in the end gives her a degree of dominance as well.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Lol am I the boring "animal" without ideas in this scenario?
> 
> I'd probably shy away from those comments in the future if you want credibility as a progressive man against the objectification and dehumanization of women. Unless that's all theory without practical application. You're the dude I'm always running into about the Madonna/Whore complex on threads aren't you? It's been a while though, lol. Hi.
> 
> ...


We've been discussing (locally) the success of stories where the man fights his nature due to a woman, and how the woman becomes the changing force (talk about vampires in love, guys with addictions, etc). To me it's very familiar due to several objects of study, I can't afford to explain because I know how forums are, it's easier with common ground and it's a valid historic tale. Progressive man? I can only say as I said on other threads and forums and in person: the movie is about something some people like... period, I never read the book and haven't watched the film BUT I understand... well I posted that already. Still, I know for sure in my region (can't talk about other places) a lot of people come out of cinemas with wrong ideas and idealizations. Sure we men can be dumb but we know the excitement of flying like superman and being as attractive as Brad Pitt or Clive Owen (whoever you like) ends when we look at the mirror, instead MANY women can't face this.

What's funny in my region (and posted about this several times) is how many fighting women express interest in such stories, let me be more clear: like raeggeton music, they hate the reality but enjoy the lyrics? not cool. The problem here is taking every ideas literal because then the discussion ends up trying to invalidate each idea because is not universal or doesn't apply to 100% of cases... of course it doesn't.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Just to make things a bit clearer... the cases where men in forums post oneliners such as "bull, bs" can't be compared to the times women do it, that's not discussion.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> We've been discussing (locally) the success of stories where the man fights his nature due to a woman, and how the woman becomes the changing force (talk about vampires in love, guys with addictions, etc). To me it's very familiar due to several objects of study,* I can't afford to explain because I know how forums are*, it's easier with common ground and it's a valid historic tale.


You can't afford to huh? After baiting me when I posted a brief response for that same reason?

I agree that it's a tale as old as time though. A love story for the ages. Boy meets girl. Boy tries to show girl who wears the pants. Girl tries to put boy's nut sack in her purse. 

It actually looks like Anastasia "won" too given my understanding of how the series ends.

I wonder if the author will release the epilogue at some point though where he's essentially her lapdog and she's a cynical wino Ice Queen who misses the thrill of the head games. (<I'm like half serious before anyone pounces on that).

Anyway, the predatory aspect of these men is related to Jung's Animus. So the woman is incorporating the acceptance of that danger as a changing force into her life as well. The transformation is mutual. (Twilight ends with Bella's ability to rip out the jugular of unsuspecting prey just like Edward).



changos said:


> Still, I know for sure in my region (can't talk about other places) a lot of people come out of cinemas with wrong ideas and idealizations. Sure we men can be dumb but we know the excitement of flying like superman and being as attractive as Brad Pitt or Clive Owen (whoever you like) ends when we look at the mirror, instead MANY women can't face this.


The appeal of these stories is that Anastasia is an ordinary person to whom extraordinary things happen. (He's a billionaire right?) A Harry Potter in the cupboard under the staircase. "Brad Pitt will see you now." Actually, Casper just came up last night on a thread and this is funny and relevant:

How Devon Sawa In Casper Caused My Sexual Awakening

I agree that there could be entitlement problems if women believe that they should be pursued "_because_ [they're] afraid and a loser" - I don't think that's doing anyone any favors, LOL, but the idea that she doesn't have to settle for less than Mr. Big if she chooses monogamy, that this isn't her birthright and destiny, is a good one. As a Mary Sue/Plain Jane she's essentially a Neo and each viewer can project their own subconscious onto her too.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Veggie said:


> I agree that it's a tale as old as time though. A love story for the ages. Boy meets girl. Boy tries to show girl who wears the pants. Girl tries to put boy's nut sack in her purse.
> 
> It actually looks like Anastasia "won" too given my understanding of how the series ends.


I only have a very vague idea of what happens in the other books, so I was wondering if you could clarify? Because judging from the first book, "Girl tries to put boy's nut sack in her purse" is quite possibly the furthest thing from what actually happens, or at least where I've reached in the summary of it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

callmeleigha said:


> I only have a very vague idea of what happens in the other books, so I was wondering if you could clarify? Because judging from the first book, "Girl tries to put boy's nut sack in her purse" is quite possibly the furthest thing from what actually happens, or at least where I've reached in the summary of it.


Sadistic billionaire playboy is reformed and becomes a committed family man. I just looked it up. They have a kid and she's pregnant with a second. They're celebrating a birthday party. I just looked up the specifics, lol.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

A book isn't responsible for someone's perception of sex/relationships.

I haven't read it, but it seems like what people are saying about the "BDSM" in this book coming across as sexual abuse sounds more like unsound writing.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> You can't afford to huh? After baiting me when I posted a brief response for that same reason?


I can't afford to explain because it demands time that while I don't know you, I have other things to do, I can only point to concepts, if you want to research go ahead, you are welcome, links? nope, hope to make myself clear in that sense. I will add a bit of info on what I mean and remember I mentioned region, what I say might not apply to your culture or religion.

St. Monica, she was the mother of San Agustín, her husband abused her and was a drunk guy, there are lots of Christian Catholic circles where she is shown as an example of how a guy can change thanks to the wife who provides love. In my region some don't touch that matter because they feel it enables drunk people, others take the positive and teach about it, she was kind, it was pure love and he changed, there is a lot to say about it and me saying it can only take a few lines that some can try to twist. Another line of thinking is the literature of vampires in love who decide not to kill thanks to love, those women then are the force of change, so big it overcomes death or murder. There are comparisons between this line and women-dating-jerks-bad-guys. In the mechanics of abuse I've seen and stumble across readings (no, I won't research now to bring the titles, that's what I mean on can't afford), well, some abused think they are changing the abuser, and just as I said never read the 50 shades but came across such comments matching this, that's what I mean. Another thing is (can't remember the name) when one chooses "evil people" so you can be the good one, *so, there might be some connection in some cases where they date Mr Gray attracted to who he is and who he can become, but won't date someone who is already that person*. This is a strong one, and there is a loooot of text about this.

As I said, some people like that. What I don't like is how lots of people (and here I talk about women because I'm a guy) change so much their expectations regarding a film. Sure we do that too but we won't expect to have super powers. Books and movies TO ME are and always have been a window to other people brains and how they see the world. I've seen enough in person and in forums (even here) how people disguise the "this is not the man I want but he will be", some of us match that towards women too.

And I also said, some people like the book and movie, some don't, to me it's a matter of preferences, no, I don't sympathize with the concept of the book. In MY REGION we have talked a lot about that: it's the same, guy with money. If the movie was about some poor guy or a janitor... won't be selling so many books.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> A book isn't responsible for someone's perception of sex/relationships.
> 
> I haven't read it, but it seems like what people are saying about the "BDSM" in this book coming across as sexual abuse sounds more like unsound writing.


An uninformed, amateur author writes a crock of shit that claims popularity. Honestly, though--what's new?


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> A book isn't responsible for someone's perception of sex/relationships.


Maybe not, but it damn well has the ability to influence it. Books aren't just books. Look at the Bible, Anne Frank's Diary, American Sniper, any of the classics. Surprise surprise, books actually have the power to influence people, positively or negatively. The book may be aimed towards adults, but fact is, a lot of the people reading this book are still impressionable, and it's just adding to the idea that abuse is a normal part of a relationship. Not the mention the bad reputation it gives the BDSM community in the eyes of people that disapprove but still believe that this is an accurate depiction of it.



> I haven't read it, but it seems like what people are saying about the "BDSM" in this book coming across as sexual abuse sounds more like unsound writing.


The BDSM isn't coming across as sexual abuse. She's trying to pass off the sexual abuse as BDSM. There's an important difference.

For example, the palm-twitching thing. When Ana does something to anger Christian, he describes himself as "palm-twitchingly angry", which basically means that he wants to hit her (or "punish her", as he says). It's clear that this isn't because of a kink, but more his lack of self-restraint and need to control her. _But_ the readers are made to believe that this is connected to his status as a dominant (self proclaimed status, by the way — she never signed the contract), and is therefore acceptable.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Kavik said:


> The author has a point that critics shouldn't demonize people who like to read books like hers. It's fiction, and in the romance genre. Things usually get weird because they're playing out fantasies. Pretty much 99% the people who like reading them wouldn't want to experience the scenarios in real life.
> 
> She may have gone a bit far saying by "safe, sane, and consensual". It would have been better if she left the masses hanging so they would have to decide that for themselves.
> 
> I can't say much on the abuse part since I don't know what the guy does to the protagonist girl.


On one hand I agree, I watch horror movies and that doesn't make me want to be a serial killer. As a matter of fact it just confirms for me the deep loneliness and pain people experience when they choose evil (whether consciously or unconsciously). Still it allows me to safely explore my interest in the entire spectrum of human nature, and maybe even have cathartic experiences of releasing anger. Plus a lot of horror movies are fun, not at all realistic. There's a difference between something horrible and disturbing, something a little titilating and creepy, and those that are mostly adolescent fun relived. Just because Jeffrey Dahmer was watching Exorcist III on repeat doesn't mean horror fans are like him, or even watch it for the same reasons. 

So yeah, like I said elsewhere, I hope my cousin thinks it's just a risqué and sexy book to spice up what amounts to a fairly sheltered normal life of relative inexperience sexually. The part that bothers me is that people who come from places like we do, the South in our case, may not be as sharp to recognize domestic violence when we see it because it was ingrained into our culture. What alarms me is really certain kinds of men thinking this is a green light to basically be a rapist and a stalker and an otherwise selfish baby who is actually out of control, deluding himself he's in control. ..and furthering the cultural assumption that women can or should fix such men. Bad boy is an understatement for the piece of shit that Christian Gray sounds like, even my somewhat abusive ex wasn't that fucking retarded and unaware of other people's rights.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> Maybe not, but it damn well has the ability to influence it. Books aren't just books. Look at the Bible, Anne Frank's Diary, American Sniper, any of the classics. Surprise surprise, books actually have the power to influence people, positively or negatively. The book may be aimed towards adults, but fact is, a lot of the people reading this book are still impressionable, and it's just adding to the idea that abuse is a normal part of a relationship. Not the mention the bad reputation it gives the BDSM community in the eyes of people that disapprove but still believe that this is an accurate depiction of it.
> 
> 
> The BDSM isn't coming across as sexual abuse. She's trying to pass off the sexual abuse as BDSM. There's an important difference.
> ...


Yeah...the problem is not the book itself, the problem is society or the media normalizing it. Some people are naive followers about social norms. People know horror movies are about evil or the unexplained, that message is clear, but the message wasn't made clear here that this movie is essentially the porn feminized version of American Psycho. It's the way it's being marketed.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Morpheus83 said:


> I suspect if Christian looked more like, say, Charles Manson or John Howard, then more people would focus on the 'dysfunctional' elements of the relationship :tongue: Apparently, you can get away with nearly anything (including stalking) if you're 'hot' and 'powerful'. But it's just a fantasy, right? :tongue:
> 
> IMO, 50 Shades is a glorified bodice-ripper fantasy that happens to be relatively more explicit than the ones we're already used to seeing. I haven't gone through 50 Shades with a fine-toothed comb, though (and I couldn't be bothered finishing it. A bit of a yawnfest.)


Good point. It actually just occurred to me that this movie is just confirming to Americans that being a psychopath is A-Ok if you are white, handsome and rich (however not if you're black, poor, ugly or act weird in public).


----------



## pureheart9 (Dec 29, 2014)

Without the stalker and anger elements, I really see no problem with the book/movie. I'm a submissive and I think most of the scenes are very hot, although a lot of it is badly written (especially Ana's intuitive thoughts; you would think she's 14 by the way she thinks). I have spent time on BDSM forums and I cannot comprehend how people can pass that off as normal, but this book off as abuse. I've seen men verbally degrade their submissive girlfriends and encourage others to do the same, sometimes even posting pictures with a tagline like "humiliate this worthless slut". Many of them admit that they're misogynists and think that women have no place other than to serve them.

Let me ask all of you this: which situation would make you feel abused? 

Scenario 1: A ridiculously attractive and wealthy man starts pursuing you for an unknown reason. He tries to stay away and warns you that he is not a good person, but his desire for you grows and soon you are seduced by him. You find out that he has a fetish you don't know much about, which involves controlling and sometimes causing physical pain to another person. You also find out that he is slightly unstable and has some anger problems, but it's clear that he cares about you. You sign a contract and agree to be a part of this lifestyle. He combines pain and control with pleasure and comfort. After a while, he begins to fall for you. However, you decide that this painful lifestyle is too much for you and even though you might love him, it's just not worth it. This wakes him up and he realizes that he has romantic feelings for you, which he claimed to be incapable of before he met you. He gives up his dark desires just so he can be with you.

Scenario 2: You're on an online forum and notice a personal ad. It was written by a man who claims to be dominant, and is in your area. Interested, you message him. He refers to you as a "potential slave" and gives you a list of rules. These include always referring to him as Master or Sir, not speaking without permission, and many others of a similar nature. Despite a bit of reluctance, you agree. You meet up at a hotel for your first "scene". He has sent you orders about what to wear, what to bring, and how to greet him. Once you finally meet and step inside, he immediately demands that you kneel before him, just for humility's sake. He strips you of your clothes and gives you a collar with the word "slave" engraved on it. Holding you by your hair, he does what he wants to you while telling you that you're worthless. When you accidentally speak without permission, he immediately stops, straps you to the bed, and spanks you with a leather belt until you're in tears. He might offer a few comforting words, but not much more. You finish your scene, and he orders you to sleep on the floor with no clothes or sheets while he takes the bed. When it's over, you most likely don't hear back from him.

JUST SAYING.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

pureheart9 said:


> Without the stalker and anger elements, I really see no problem with the book/movie. I'm a submissive and I think most of the scenes are very hot, although a lot of it is badly written (especially Ana's intuitive thoughts; you would think she's 14 by the way she thinks). I have spent time on BDSM forums and I cannot comprehend how people can pass that off as normal, but this book off as abuse. I've seen men verbally degrade their submissive girlfriends and encourage others to do the same, sometimes even posting pictures with a tagline like "humiliate this worthless slut". Many of them admit that they're misogynists and think that women have no place other than to serve them.
> 
> Let me ask all of you this: which situation would make you feel abused?
> 
> ...


Just saying what? That the second scene happened to you personally? There's tons of information out there, warning subs about choosing a Dom more carefully, perhaps even developing some kind of relationship before meeting him in a motel room. People can and do ignore the information, which allows the sort of Pseudo Alpha you describe to infiltrate the BDSM community, likely preying on women who were molested by a family member. 

I have earned money doing light fetish Domme work, and I would actually turn away clients who requested being kicked in the face or anal fisting, as I think that should be pursued in a safer mutual relationship rather than an hour paid appointment with a near stranger. I never assumed all foot fetishists wanted to be kicked or stepped on either, as some do and some don't. Anything else would be grotesquely unprofessional. 

I learned about D/s when I was about 20 from people who had more experience than myself. I am actually a switch, being able to perform professionally as a Dominant and in my personal relationships preferring being the sub, but not 100 percent of the time, and I have no trouble walking away from someone who is engaging in behavior that I find abhorrent, and I certainly never continued a relationship of any kind with a man who didn't respect safety or my right to refuse ANYTHING.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> Yeah...the problem is not the book itself, the problem is society or the media normalizing it. Some people are naive followers about social norms. People know horror movies are about evil or the unexplained, that message is clear, but the message wasn't made clear here that this movie is essentially the porn feminized version of American Psycho. It's the way it's being marketed.


I see your point with this, but the book itself _is_ the problem, not just the marketing. It wasn't written with the intent of being about abuse but simply marketed incorrectly. The book itself is made to seem romantic and sexy, and the screwed up parts of it are romanticized in the book itself. The marketing is at fault for continuing to market it as this, maybe, but the book is primarily at fault. 



pureheart9 said:


> *Without the stalker and anger elements, I really see no problem with the book/movie*.


Well yeah, because the stalker and anger elements are the majority of what makes it about abuse. That's like saying "aside from the blood and killing in Saw, I really don't see why people think it was that violent".



> Scenario 1: A ridiculously attractive and wealthy man starts pursuing you for an unknown reason. *He tries to stay away* and warns you that he is not a good person, but his desire for you grows and soon you are seduced by him. You find out that he has a fetish you don't know much about, which involves controlling and *sometimes causing physical pain to another person*. You also find out that he is slightly unstable and has some anger problems, but *it's clear that he cares about you*. *You sign a contract and agree to be a part of this lifestyle*. He combines pain and control with pleasure and comfort. After a while, he begins to fall for you. However, you decide that this painful lifestyle is too much for you and even though you might love him, it's just not worth it. This wakes him up and he realizes that he has romantic feelings for you, which he claimed to be incapable of before he met you. *He gives up his dark desires just so he can be with you.*


Nice job sugarcoating it. I'm going in order of the bolded parts.

1. He doesn't try to stay away. He tracks her phone to a bar, picks her up, takes her to his house and undresses her while she's intoxicated. When she jokingly rejects him in an email, he breaks into her house and all but forces himself onto her.

2. "_Sometimes_ causing physical pain to another person". Causing physical pain to another person _is_ his fetish. There's no sometimes about it. That's what it is.

3. It isn't clear that he cares about her at all. He pretends to and claims that he does, but most of it is just manipulation, and he never follows through with any of his promises (aside from the ones that involve "punishing" her). Unless you want to count his obsessive need to control her as caring, which I really don't. I honestly can't recall any part in the book where he does something good for her that doesn't directly benefit him. And even if he does care about her, that's no excuse.

4. She doesn't sign the contract. She never agrees. He doesn't care. Once again, he claims that he does and momentarily stops himself from doing certain things, saying that the reason is that she hasn't signed the contract and agreed to them yet, but it doesn't matter. It's a lie. He ends up doing them anyway. There's honestly no point in him saying those things, aside from maybe the author trying to make us think he possesses a level of self-control that he obviously does not. 

5. I haven't reached this part yet so I don't know, but from what I've heard about the other books I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> I see your point with this, but the book itself _is_ the problem, not just the marketing. It wasn't written with the intent of being about abuse but simply marketed incorrectly. The book itself is made to seem romantic and sexy, and the screwed up parts of it are romanticized in the book itself. The marketing is at fault for continuing to market it as this, maybe, but the book is primarily at fault.
> 
> 
> Well yeah, because the stalker and anger elements are the majority of what makes it about abuse. That's like saying "aside from the blood and killing in Saw, I really don't see why people think it was that violent".
> ...


You and I have a different opinion of art. Art exists on its own, whether as an idea or experience, and there are not rules, because people do experience abusive relationships and have to work through it some how. Also, you can't really tell a Manson girl not to be a Manson girl...and by that I mean, if the author rationalized abuse as sexy, that's really between herself, her God, possibly her therapist or family, but you have no right to tell an individual not to either express a fictional version of something they experienced, or even a fantasy they don't actually want to live out in person (for example, people with rape fantasies 99.9999% of the time don't want to be raped at random, but by a trusted partner they find attractive; and people who practice even the most extreme forms of real BDSM usually don't actually want to be in an abusive relationship where they feel real fear or negation of themselves as a person)....so YES, the problem is in the marketing, marketing it as an example of BDSM, or intentionally heavily commercializing it for mass consumption. The movie was so stupidly hyped up. FOR MONTHS. AND RELEASED ON VALENTINES DAY.


I think Lana del Rey has every right to sing songs about being the other woman, calling her boyfriend daddy, or talking about vacilliating between being codependent and promiscuous, because real women experience these things, so did she, and it can actually be good for people who need to work through these issues. However if it were marketed as the new normal, that would warp her art. It's not her fault for being an artist, it's the shit that marketing exploits, at time by inappropriate business people who are obviously emotional cripples.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

I tried to read this book. I wanted to like it. I really did. But in the end I left it unfinished because I was about 1 "inner goddess" away from ripping my eyelashes out. Don't like the book. Don't like the message it sends out. Don't like. Don't like. Don't like.
Will I watch the movie you ask? Absolutely. As soon as it shows up on my streaming site. 

Will I finish the movie? Probably not. Because its shit. 

I'll be watching this movie for the same reason I'll be watching American Soldier. So next time someone asks me "Why are you criticizing so much? Have you even seen the movie?!" I can say "As a matter of fact I have bitch. Swerve."


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Eh so does everything else in the world


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> ...so YES, the problem is in the marketing, marketing it as an example of BDSM, or intentionally heavily commercializing it for mass consumption. The movie was so stupidly hyped up. FOR MONTHS. AND RELEASED ON VALENTINES DAY.


The people marketing it didn't just start marketing it as BDSM to make it more popular, though. The book itself is supposed to be about BDSM. The book itself is supposed to be romantic. It was marketed as the thing it was intended to be. Both the marketing and the book are at fault. You can't just separate them.

But you're right, I guess we do have different opinions on art. I do believe that people have the right to express themselves however they please in their art, but that doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism or blame. The art, from the moment it's released to the general public, no longer exists on its own. It's naive to think so. The fact is, the artist has to take some amount of responsibility for the effects of their content. For example, if rappers like Eminem want to degrade women and talk about raping and abusing them in their songs I can't prevent them from doing that, no matter how much I wish I could. It's their right, whether I like it or not. But if their music causes people to do these things because they were told they're okay, they damn well need to take responsibility for it and speak out about it. Not deny it and get defensive.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> The people marketing it didn't just start marketing it as BDSM to make it more popular, though. The book itself is supposed to be about BDSM. The book itself is supposed to be romantic. It was marketed as the thing it was intended to be. Both the marketing and the book are at fault. You can't just separate them.
> 
> But you're right, I guess we do have different opinions on art. I do believe that people have the right to express themselves however they please in their art, but that doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism or blame. The art, from the moment it's released to the general public, no longer exists on its own. It's naive to think so. The fact is, the artist has to take some amount of responsibility for the effects of their content. For example, if rappers like Eminem want to degrade women and talk about raping and abusing them in their songs I can't prevent them from doing that, no matter how much I wish I could. It's their right, whether I like it or not. But if their music causes people to do these things because they were told they're okay, they damn well need to take responsibility for it and speak out about it. Not deny it and get defensive.


The only way it can cause people to think it's okay on a wide scale, with any kind of social responsibility, is when someone's Fi is pushed as cultural Fe. This is why Fi types have such a problem with Fe at times, because many times Fe is the one with the attitude let's make everyone think this way or else tell the individual to shut up. Fi sees this as basically you infringing on a persons individual rights, when the problem is clearly not caused by an individual expression, but by organized groups of people in power pushing it on society. 

Eminem didn't make anyone think misogynistic music was cool, at least not on a wide enough scale to be of note. Record companies and marketing are the ones who paint it in a certain light. Like marketing a movie as horror helps stupid naive people understand being a serial killer is wrong. Marketing 50 Shades of Gray as a mainstream Valentines flick is sending dumbshits the message "this is what we do now. "


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

@callmeleigha I don't know if you self type as an Fi INFP or a Socionics Fe INFp, but either way I'm not type bullying *you*, I don't know your type, but mass propaganda as social problems yes is typically an act of Je, Fe for collective social norms and Te for purposes like achieving concrete goals, like making money.

I don't know if you are Fi, and as an Fi you are saying we can criticize an artist for showing what you see as immorality...but no individual can possibly cause that kind of social influence without Je. No, individuals don't make huge social trends happen. 

As an Se type, I easily see how the way things are presented impact people. I actually think a lot of ENTJs are in marketing, because Te push to influence society, Ni conceptualizing of how something is framed can change it up, and enough Se to make a raw impact.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

> Eminem didn't make anyone think misogynistic music was cool, at least not on a wide enough scale to be of note. Record companies and marketing are the ones who paint it in a certain light. Like marketing a movie as horror helps stupid naive people understand being a serial killer is wrong. Marketing 50 Shades of Gray as a mainstream Valentines flick is sending dumbshits the message "this is what we do now. "


I'm either not understanding you properly, or I just really disagree with you. I agree that the way something is marketed can greatly impact the way it's received, but I just don't see how you can say that the artist isn't to be blamed at all. It makes no logical sense to me. I'm a supporter of free speech, but granting someone free speech doesn't mean ignoring the consequences of that free speech.

Also, marketing a movie as a horror doesn't help stupid naive people understand being a serial killer is wrong. The characters' reactions and the messages sent out in the movie help them understand being a serial killer is wrong. If we're being realistic, though, most people already understand that being a serial killer is wrong. It's common sense. Things like domestic violence surprisingly aren't.



Thalassa said:


> @callmeleigha I don't know if you self type as an Fi INFP or a Socionics Fe INFp, but either way I'm not type bullying *you*, I don't know your type, but mass propaganda as social problems yes is typically an act of Je, Fe for collective social norms and Te for purposes like achieving concrete goals, like making money.
> 
> I don't know if you are Fi, and as an Fi you are saying we can criticize an artist for showing what you see as immorality...but no individual can possibly cause that kind of social influence without Je. No, individuals don't make huge social trends happen.
> 
> As an Se type, I easily see how the way things are presented impact people. I actually think a lot of ENTJs are in marketing, because Te push to influence society, Ni conceptualizing of how something is framed can change it up, and enough Se to make a raw impact.


Fi INFP. I don't know anything about Socionics. I don't really agree that this has a lot to do with type, either.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> I'm either not understanding you properly, or I just really disagree with you. I agree that the way something is marketed can greatly impact the way it's received, but I just don't see how you can say that the artist isn't to be blamed at all. It makes no logical sense to me. I'm a supporter of free speech, but granting someone free speech doesn't mean ignoring the consequences of that free speech.
> 
> Also, marketing a movie as a horror doesn't help stupid naive people understand being a serial killer is wrong. The characters' reactions and the messages sent out in the movie help them understand being a serial killer is wrong. If we're being realistic, though, most people already understand that being a serial killer is wrong. It's common sense. Things like domestic violence surprisingly aren't.
> 
> ...


It has a great deal to do with Je. Je has a "job" to structure society, and I personally think it's ignorant of both Jung and Keirsey to deny the place of Je in forming social systems. No one thinks Hitler was an FP. It's why SJ types are Authoritarian in Keirsey and hold society and tradition together. Not Si. Je.

Je relies on a mass group influence, a group morality or correct manner of measurement logically. 

I disagree that people are educated or intelligent enough always to know if something is right or wrong if the crowd is doing it. There are lots of people who irrationally do things because the crowd does it, yes those people actually have to be told what is cool or moral. If those people didn't exist, the world would just be too logical and make too much sense. It's why people are racist, sexist, or have cultural religious beliefs that are harmful that have nothing to do with their holy book. Those same simple folk don't question 50 Shades because it was released as a mainstream Valentines film.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> It has a great deal to do with Je. Je has a "job" to structure society, and I personally think it's ignorant of both Jung and Keirsey to deny the place of Je in forming social systems. No one thinks Hitler was an FP. It's why SJ types are Authoritarian in Keirsey and hold society and tradition together. Not Si. Je.
> 
> Je relies on a mass group influence, a group morality or correct manner of measurement logically.


I meant I don't think type has a lot to do with this topic. I'm not saying that I disagree with you — I see your point — but I just think it's slightly unrelated.



> I disagree that people are educated or intelligent enough always to know if something is right or wrong if the crowd is doing it. There are lots of people who irrationally do things because the crowd does it, yes those people actually have to be told what is cool or moral. If those people didn't exist, the world would just be too logical and make too much sense. It's why people are racist, sexist, or have cultural religious beliefs that are harmful that have nothing to do with their holy book. Those same simple folk don't question 50 Shades because it was released as a mainstream Valentines film.


Well, yeah, obviously. I said that most people are educated or intelligent enough to know that being a _serial killer_ is wrong, which is a far cry from "people are educated or intelligent enough always to know if something is right or wrong if the crowd is doing it". I know that there are people that are easily influenced by what the crowd is doing, which is a large reason why I'm so against this film and book. I'm pretty sure we agree on this.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> I meant I don't think type has a lot to do with this topic. I'm not saying that I disagree with you — I see your point — but I just think it's slightly unrelated.
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, obviously. I said that most people are educated or intelligent enough to know that being a _serial killer_ is wrong, which is a far cry from "people are educated or intelligent enough always to know if something is right or wrong if the crowd is doing it". I know that there are people that are easily influenced by what the crowd is doing, which is a large reason why I'm so against this film and book. I'm pretty sure we agree on this.


It's just that Fi types can often take for granted "well, that is obviously universally wrong." A Ti type might say that morality is so ambivalent (various Fe group cultures) that it can't be trusted. An Fe type will say "well my culture is obviously the right/only one" and a Te type is like "how can I make something reach an effective goal out of these values? "

It's definitely related. You are naively blaming individual people for organized crime basically. A lot of corporate culture since the late 80s borders on or is organized crime, and is in fact subsidized by the right wing government through corporate welfare and corporate personhood. Not that there aren't also wrongs with the left or libertarians, but that's definitely off topic. Point being, Je creates intentionally cultural norms with value judgment and may impose them for whatever reason. The writer of 50 Shades of Gray might have a small cult following if the book wasn't picked up by more corporate interests. Small cult followings annoy people, but social trends clearly manipulated by big business or big government are what are disturbing. 

It doesn't matter that you disagree with the author. Ok, you don't like what they said, I respect that, but what you're actually complaining about is a problem of marketing, not art.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

callmeleigha said:


> I haven't seen any threads about this in here, so I figured I'd make one, especially since the movie came out today.
> 
> I haven't read the book or seen the movie (nor do I plan on doing so), but I am in the process of reading through this chapter-by-chapter summary/analysis of it. From what I've read so far, I firmly believe that E.L. James wrote a book about an abusive relationship without even realizing it, and I can't see how anyone could think that there's anything erotic or romantic about it. In fact, it scares me that there are people that think that this book is a portrayal of a healthy relationship.


You take some quotes but admit not having read the book. I too haven't read the book. I understand that some people are concerned about the issue of abuse, but from what I hear about the book, this is about a reluctant person discovering her interest in BDSM. So her reluctance, fear and anxiety, is in keeping with that, and though may also involve abuse, it's not necessarily so. 

I can't really say more without having read the book, but I think people have to be careful analyzing such things because sometimes a certain act can look so wrong when not seen in context. That's particularly true with rough sex or BDSM.

Given the nature of BDSM activities, that's why people use a safe word, so as to be clear when you really really want it to stop and when you, despite complaining of pain or rough treatment, still do want it to go on. After all, do we not, in US, permit adults to do as they please in privacy of their bedrooms, whether it be "normal" sex, gay sex, rough sex, BDSM, using sex toys, etc? And if someone enjoys rough sex, is it necessarily abusive?


----------



## Rusting (Jul 14, 2014)

In essence, such a relationship provides no relevance to what people can expect in their lives. 

Well, it is all as good as any premature fan fiction could be. I read about sixty pages of the book, and so far have watched half of the movie. The writing/expression of the relationship in both the movie and book is very poor (the relationship is one of BDSM; I am aware that there is even criticism from BDSM eccentrics who find the book to be a great misrepresentation of their practice, as BDSM is not necessarily abusive). The book, although with some interesting and curious ideas, was just gross to read. "_Oh my._" D.H. Lawrence is where it's at. 

I will admit the trailer is what peaked my interest as Christian Grey (the main guy) is certainly a creature worthy of study. Then of course I could only be disappointed in the failure of worthy delivery. The movie misses some key emotional elements of the book and the beginning of the movie is too blunt and hasty. The book is already a poor source to copy and convert. Everything about the product as a work of art is wrong. A kinky book that becomes so popular is obviously poor in quality, or else it wouldn't be popular, would it? 

This is all to say we should know what to expect. Love is too complex for the majority of people to grasp gently enough, and this book/movie is just another premature attempt at expressing something erotic. I am all about eccentricity, but I want something more subtle. Reading the book, I can say Christian Grey was developed quite relatively well as the enigmatic man he is. Considering we are dealing with a premature novelist, that very enigmatic man is scripted to say quirky things like, “I told you what I’d do. I’m a man of my word. I’m going to spank you, and them I’m going to fuck you very quick and very hard. Looks like we’ll need that condom after all.” I quit reading once Christian started to sound too much like a desperate girl's skimpiest dreams. I can imagine the core idea would do well if directed better. A brilliant guy who has lived in essence as a virgin, who captures the attention of somebody who actually questions his identity with ambiguity as to her own interests, and thus a game of love and identity would manifest, or something like that. 

This video puts together everything anyone needs to know, without all of the excess: 





I am personally looking for more movies like Immortality, also known as The Wisdom of Crocodiles with Jude Law. That movie delivered, if only because of Jude Law.


----------



## leigha (Aug 14, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> It's definitely related. *You are naively blaming individual people for organized crime basically*. A lot of corporate culture since the late 80s borders on or is organized crime, and is in fact subsidized by the right wing government through corporate welfare and corporate personhood. Not that there aren't also wrongs with the left or libertarians, but that's definitely off topic. Point being, Je creates intentionally cultural norms with value judgment and may impose them for whatever reason. The writer of 50 Shades of Gray might have a small cult following if the book wasn't picked up by more corporate interests. Small cult followings annoy people, but social trends clearly manipulated by big business or big government are what are disturbing.
> 
> It doesn't matter that you disagree with the author. Ok, you don't like what they said, I respect that, but what you're actually complaining about is a problem of marketing, not art.


I... didn't say or mean that, and I'm not sure how you decided that I was talking about organized crime. You're seeing things in black and white and taking what I say to the very extreme.

The fact that the book got so popular is a problem, and the fact that it's being marketed as this cute romance novel is a problem, but the book itself _*is the original problem*_. Which is why the fact that it's popular is a problem. Which is why the relationship in it being normalized is a problem. Because the book is the problem. And I'd still have a problem with it if I only knew about it from a few of my friends, or if I somehow stumbled upon a page about it on the Internet.

I might have accepted your argument that it isn't E.L. James' fault that her book was picked up by more corporate interests and marketed the way it is if she actually spoke out against it and let people know that the relationship in the book isn't meant to be idealized. But she hasn't. She still calls it a love story, and she still denies any and all problems with it. So yes, it is partially her fault.



conscius said:


> You take some quotes but admit not having read the book.


I haven't read the book, but I'm reading a summary of it, and the summary has a lot of direct quotes in it so although I haven't read the book itself I have a good enough idea of what went on in it. I chose to only vaguely summarize it in the original post, but I can provide context and further explanation of the scene for you if you want.



Anyway, it's 3:30 am and I'm tired, so I'll reply to the rest of that post tomorrow.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> On one hand I agree, I watch horror movies and that doesn't make me want to be a serial killer. As a matter of fact it just confirms for me the deep loneliness and pain people experience when they choose evil (whether consciously or unconsciously). Still it allows me to safely explore my interest in the entire spectrum of human nature, and maybe even have cathartic experiences of releasing anger. Plus a lot of horror movies are fun, not at all realistic. *There's a difference between something horrible and disturbing, something a little titilating and creepy, and those that are mostly adolescent fun relived.* Just because Jeffrey Dahmer was watching Exorcist III on repeat doesn't mean horror fans are like him, or even watch it for the same reasons.


Why do you say horror movies are are a positive way to explore an interest in human nature while a romance movie is not? They are both meant to be "fun, not at all realistic". Both genres are in the business of dramatizing fantasies.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Kavik said:


> Why do you say horror movies are are a positive way to explore an interest in human nature while a romance movie is not? They are both meant to be "fun, not at all realistic". Both genres are in the business of dramatizing fantasies.


Both are fine. Genre isn't the problem, I like Wuthering Heights. Like I have continually explained to Leigha, the problem is mass marketing selling it in a band wagon fashion, as if it's socially desirable. People know horror is dark, but apparently middle America is eating this up like an edict from the Hollywood Pope instead of it being marketed as something that should be questioned. Genre insists horror be questioned, not so much with mainstream romance. They're encouraging the simple to accept 50 Shades without question in the manner of Wal Mart, Big Macs, and super models.


----------

